Image 01 Image 03

San Francisco Mayor Bans City Worker Travel to North Carolina

San Francisco Mayor Bans City Worker Travel to North Carolina

In response to the state’s new privacy law

Last month, the city council in Charlotte, North Carolina passed an ordinance that included allowing transgendered persons to use bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, etc. for the gender with which they identify.

This did not sit well with North Carolinians, nor with their state legislature, and in a special session, the state passed a bill that would make it state law–thus over-turning the Charlotte ordinance–that people can use such facilities only for the gender with which they were born, not the one they identify with or claim to be.  North Carolina governor (and former mayor of Charlotte) Pat McCrory signed the bill into law late Wednesday.

Watch the report:

Needless to say, the SJWs are not happy, including Charlotte’s current mayor.

Fox News reports:

Charlotte Mayor Jennifer Roberts, who pressed to get the anti-discrimination ordinance approved, said she was appalled by the legislature’s actions.

“The General Assembly is on the wrong side of progress. It is on the wrong side of history,” Roberts said in a prepared statement. But McCrory said in a release “the basic expectation of privacy in the most personal of settings” was violated by “government overreach and intrusion” by Roberts and the city council.

San Francisco mayor Ed Lee has now established a ban on travel to North Carolina for all city workers, unless the travel is “necessary.”

Fox News continues:

San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee said in a statement Friday he doesn’t want any city workers to travel to North Carolina unless necessary in wake of its legislation which blocks anti-discrimination for gay, lesbian and transgender people.

“We are standing united as San Franciscans to condemn North Carolina’s new discriminatory law that turns back the clock on protecting the rights of all Americans including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals,” Lee said in the statement.

“Effective immediately, I am directing City Departments under my authority to bar any publicly-funded City employee travel to the State of North Carolina that is not absolutely essential to public health and safety.”

I’m sure we haven’t heard the last of this; the Washington Post has reported that companies such as American Airlines, Wells Fargo, Apple, Microsoft, Dow Chemical have “strongly opposed North Carolina’s law.”

Given the similar circumstances of the threatened Disney and Marvel boycott of Georgia, it may not be long before other companies jump in and try to force their will on the residents of North Carolina.

[Featured image via Fox News]


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Stand firm, Tar Heels! Unless you’re a (real) woman, of course, in which case you’ll sit…

California politicians ought to be a bit more concerned about businesses racing to leave the state than toilet regulations in NC. I hope that this nonsense accelerates the exodus.

Someone who thinks that decreasing the number of visitors to North Carolina from California is a bad thing doesn’t understand North Carolina.

“Someone who thinks that decreasing the number of visitors to North Carolina from California is a bad thing doesn’t understand North Carolina.”

Or California!

Is it normal for San Francisco employees to travel on city funds for business that is not absolutely essential for public heath and safety? Anything else would seem to be a waste of public funds.

I am sure the NC tourist development is quaking in their shoes over the loss of official SF travel dollars.

    clintack in reply to JgT of FL. | March 26, 2016 at 6:55 pm


    This sounds a bit like all those boycotts — like where the Whole Foods shoppers announced they would no longer be eating at Chick-fil-A.

    Milhouse in reply to JgT of FL. | March 26, 2016 at 9:51 pm

    Um, every city — and for that matter every government entity, every business, and every person — conducts legitimate business that is not essential, and could be forgone if necessary. If the city planning board doesn’t send someone to a building standards conference, or sends one person instead of two, or if someone gets sent to training in a different state where it’s a little more expensive, or it happens a little later, or if instead of someone going to inspect a purchase before it’s shipped the inspection happens when it arrives, possibly defective, the city won’t come to a crashing halt. It may be inconvenient, or cost a little more, or some service might have to be reduced, but nobody’s going to die from it. So the mayor has the authority to decide that the price is worth paying so the people of San Francisco can feel smug and self-righteous and look down on those bigoted Southern rednecks.

      sequester in reply to Milhouse. | March 27, 2016 at 5:47 am

      Unfortunately, a public entity which “boycotts” the goods, products and services of another state may be in violation of the Comity Clause of the United States Constitution. Found in Article IV Section 2, that clause prevents a State from treating citizens of another State in a Discriminatory manner.

      How would the US Courts rule? Well San Francisco District Courts and the Ninth Circuit would be almost surely unreceptive to that argument. However, US Courts in North Carolina, might view the matter differently.

        Milhouse in reply to sequester. | March 30, 2016 at 2:55 am

        Bulls**t. You’ve never actually read the constitution, have you? North Carolina citizens who come to California have the same rights and privileges as California citizens. That is all the clause requires. There is no right or privilege to have San Francisco patronise your establishment.


A rational law (based in…you know…SCIENCE) PLUS a self-imposed quarantine of San Franciscans…!!!


Hard to believe that some people actually believe that there is some RIGHT to piddle in whichever restroom you want.

Personally I believe the democrats are trying to make perverts legally allowed to go after children with this kind of action.

N.C. should return the SF’s mayor the same courtesy and ban travel FROM SF to N.C.

    The current NC attorney general, Roy Cooper, and Democratic candidate for governor, is trying to ride this issue all the way to the Governor’s Mansion on N. Blount Street in this year’s election.

    Go get ’em, Roy! Protect those heterosexual perverts and child molesters who want to hang out in in the ladies’ room! You got yourself a winner there!

When the California Jackasses boycotted Arizona b/c SB-1070, Arizona reminded them that half the electricity used by Los Angeles is purchased from Arizona. Just Sayin’

Funny thing… they quietly ended the boycott talk after that.

This ban on travel will reduce the risk of HIV in North Carolina, spread by AIDS infested San Franciscans.

From a public health point of view, other states should enact similar laws and demand that they be included in San Francisco’s travel ban.

Yes! 🙂

As a NC native and current resident, I have a dog in this fight.

All over social media, I have to read the local SJWs blathering on about how “ignorant, bigoted and prejudiced” we all are who do not support the Charlotte ordinance. The SJWs and LGBT crowd have not expended much effort into actually debating the reason for the state statute, they just result to intellectually vacant name calling.

The point I have tried to make, and well stated by the current Lt. Governor, is that the Charlotte ordinance gives legal protection to heterosexual predators masquerading as Transsexuals, under the pretext of allowing LGBTs to pick the restroom they feel more comfortable in, regardless of their chromosome makeup. Under the ordinance, a heterosexual predator could not be forceably removed from a bathroom or changing room by simply stating “this is the sex with which I identify.”

Is this what San Francisco wants? Legal protection for heterosexual predators? This is tyranny of the minority at its worst. How many transgenders are actually using facilities in North Carolina? How about the other hundreds of thousands who would not wish to share restroom facilities with a heterosexual pervert? What happened to the majority’s right to privacy?

I guess I can count on the corporations and athletic businesses to succumb to this dangerous level of politically correctness. But make them state that they have no problem denying a right to privacy to the North Carolinians who don’t want to be forced to share facilities with heterosexual predators.

    tarheelkate in reply to Redneck Law. | March 26, 2016 at 8:09 pm

    Right on all counts. I imagine that people who have actually made a full medical and surgical transition use the “new” bathroom without incident because they look fully like the “new” sex. These are relatively few, and don’t include people who just “think” they are the other sex, or, as you point out, might pretend they do for criminal purposes.

    Under the Charlotte ordinance the vast majority who would be very uncomfortable with, for instance, males in the women’s room don’t deserve protection.

A more coherent and rational explanation of the NC law (HB2) can be found here:

Basically, a person is limited to the use of a bathroom that corresponds with the sex listed on his/her birth certificate. This section may be modified to allow transsexuals to use a different bathroom once they have acted on their “identification.” See:

“existing state law allows an individual to change the ‘sex’ designation on their birth certificate if they have undergone sex reassignment surgery and the surgery is verified in a notarized statement from a physician.”

So what is the problem, NBA? Apple? LGBT SJWs?

Henry Hawkins | March 26, 2016 at 8:29 pm

As a resident of North Carolina I offer my heartfelt appreciation to the mayor of San Francisco, and I encourage the mayors of Los Angeles and New York City to do the same.

I also add this little tidbit you won’t see covered in the MSM – the leading proponent of the Charlotte transgender bathroom law is a registered sex offender:

NC…. PC pollution free…. in some things….

Perversion from San Fran stops at the NC border.

Keep in mind that Charlotte is a city where 2 years after the state passed a law saying that it was illegal for cities to ban concealed carry in parks, they still have signs up in parks right in the center of the city banning carry. Repeated emails and phone calls to the city attorney have had zero impact on the signs and they are still there today.

Maybe they should just say, “anyone can use the bathroom with the shortest line.”

Another issue is the mandatory nature of the Charlotte ordinance and its effect on private business. There is nothing in HB2 that would prohibit a private business from establishing gender-neutral, single stall restrooms.