Members of Charlotte's LGBT community said in a survey the changes are needed because they have been denied service, received poor service or experienced disparaging comments, according to supplemental materials attached to Monday's Council agenda.*
For an almost blow by blow coverage of the Charlotte Ordinance, see: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article61786967.html
But here is the contrary opinion:
Earlier, Franklin Graham, head of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, urged Christians to come to Monday’s meeting and speak against the proposed ordinance.
He said the bathroom provision is “wicked and it’s filthy.” (bolding added)
The expanded ordinance would be the first of its kind in North Carolina. Three South Carolina cities have similar ordinances: Columbia, Charleston and Myrtle Beach.
The supreme court has refused to take up the gender bathroom case.:
The justices declined to take up a student debt-collection case that asked the court to overrule a 1997 precedent, Auer v. Robbins, that said the judicial branch should defer to a federal agency's interpretation of its own regulations.
That case is the main one a 4th Circuit Court of Appeals panel relied on when it upheld the right of a transgender boy to use the boys' bathrooms at a Virginia high school. There is no federal regulation specifically on the point, but the Education Department has issued guidance indicating that such treatment is required by the sex-discrimination prohibition in Title IX on schools receiving federal funds.
The case turned down Monday was United Student Aid Funds v. Bryana Bible.
A panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond ruled [on April 19,2016] Tuesday that public schools must allow transgender students to use the bathrooms that match their gender identity, the first such decision of its kind.
The ruling is a victory for a Virginia high school student, Gavin Grimm, who was born female but identifies as male, has undergone hormone therapy, and has legally changed his name.
"A school generally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity," the federal regulation said. The appeals court ruled Tuesday that the rule is a reasonable interpretation of Title IX. (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/appeals-court-rules-transgender-bathroom-rules-n558496)
A very interesting history about segregated bathrooms is by Bobby Walker in The Herald (April 7, 2016):
Before the 1887 there were no gender different restrooms. "The first sex-segregated toilets were assembled in a Parisian restaurant for a ball held in 1739. Preceding this, public restrooms were unmarked or marked for men only. The need to establish sex-segregated bathrooms in the United States arose from a lack of women's restrooms in workplaces, i.e. toilets were for men's use only and so there was a need to create some for women. In 1887 Massachusetts became the first state in the United States to pass legislation requiring that any workplace with female employees to have a female specific restroom. In the 1920s most states had passed laws regarding sex-segregated bathrooms." Thus Gendered restroom was not for Protection, moral or religious reasons, it so women had restooms. So saying gender neutral restrooms has No "Christian" or any other religions basis!!!!
Do they even know what a transgender person looks like? Do they want a big breasted dress wearing women in mens room explaing why there is a women in there to their sons? Or muscled, bearded tank topped man in womens room and explaining that to daughter?[Note this is a quote so misspellings are as in the original] http://www.heraldonline.com/news/state/south-carolina/article70347177.html