Policy issues take spotlight at forum
By Steve Herring
Published in News on April 10, 2016 1:45 AM
Full Size
News-Argus/ALAN CAMPBELL
State Rep. John Bell, R-District 10, left, talks with Jack Best as Goldsboro Mayor Chuck Allen talks with Sam Hunter on Friday during the Eggs & Issues legislative forum at Lane Tree Conference Center.
Republican state Rep. Jimmy Dixon and Democratic state Sen. Don Davis agree that radicals are responsible for the controversy surrounding HB2, better known as the bathroom bill. But they disagree as to who those radicals are.
Dixon blames a small radical element of the state's homosexual community that is attempting to influence the November election. Davis blames radical politicians.
Dixon of Mount Olive and Davis of Snow Hill along with Republican Sen. Louis Pate of Mount Olive, Republican Rep. John Bell of Goldsboro and Democratic Rep. Larry Bell of Clinton addressed the bill and a number of other issues Friday morning during the Wayne County Chamber of Commerce's Eggs and Issues breakfast at Lane Tree Conference Center. The News-Argus was the presenting sponsor.
John Bell had a previous meeting and had to leave before moderator and News-Argus publisher Hal Tanner III could ask about HB2. But Bell said he knew it was coming up and that he supported and voted for it.
Davis was the only member of the local delegation who did not vote for HB2.
Passed by the General Assembly and signed into law by Gov. Pat McCrory in less than a day, HB2 overturned a Charlotte ordinance that would have allowed transgender citizens to use public restrooms based on their gender identity.
Opponents argue that HB2 nullifies local ordinances across the state that would have expanded protections for the LGBT community. They argue as well that the second part of the law prevents wrongfully fired employees from seeking civil action in state court and instead must try to do so through the more costly and complicated federal system.
A lawsuit has been filed in federal court challenging the new law.
"The controversy was designed," Dixon told the breakfast's record crowd of 130. "It was designed and promoted by a very narrow, radical group of the homosexual community aimed more at the political elections in November than anything else.
"This very narrow, misguided radical element within the homosexual community, in their actions, has not only been willing to abuse the good intentions of the homosexual community at large for their purposes but to abuse the rights of other people."
The state gives municipalities and counties certain authorities that they exercise, Dixon said, and initially Charlotte had no authority to do what it did.
"The tragic thing about the bathroom issue is the language indicated there could be no discrimination against an individual from using a bathroom or dressing facility based solely on their gender identity," Dixon said. "That opened it up for tremendous abuse which is a very, very unfair proposition to put the well-intended purposes and intentions of the general homosexual community at risk."
Dixon said he thinks legislators did the "very right thing" by passing the legislation.
"It is going to be interesting to see how the federal judges react to this," he said.
Davis said he has the highest admiration and respect for his colleagues, especially Dixon.
"But I do fundamentally disagree here," he said. "I don't think this is the move of a radical homosexual group. I think if it is anything at best, it is the move of a radical political group -- the politicians.
"I would actually agree to some extent that there were concerns with privacy in Charlotte. I think there could have maybe been some common ground. Here lies the problem I have and why I think the problem is in the hands of radical politicians, so to speak. We show up to Raleigh for a special session. It is called an emergency session. We don't get a copy of the bill as Democrats until the day of. I don't even know what is in the bill. All I know is that it is come to session."
Davis said that when he finally got a copy of the bill it had "version 11" written on the bottom.
"So obviously there has been plenty of conversation about this," he said. "You look at the first half of the bill. Well, it deals with bathrooms.
"Now it becomes a smokescreen because the second half of the bill has nothing to do with bathrooms."
Davis said he could not understand what the emergency was for part two of the bill and why it could not have waited until the short session that begins April 25.
"Now this gets even better," Davis said. "This gets even better you all. Let's tell the truth about this bill. Senator (Pate), if we get up right now and go to the female bathroom. We have the press here. Let's see what happens because the truth of the matter is there are no penalties in the bill. There is no penalty.
"All you can do is if a person is doing something that otherwise would have been a criminal act anyway, you get them on that. But there is no penalty associated. So why did we go through this drill? And yes, by the way, I did not feel that the bill was worthy of my vote. I didn't think it was worthy, and I didn't vote on it."
Davis said the session cost $42,000 minus his portion.
"I rejected the salary because I don't feel taxpayers should have to pay for that," he said.
His comment drew a round of applause.
Rep. Larry Bell said he did not see the bill until just a few minutes before it was time to vote on it and did not really know everything that was in it.
Bell said he thought it was a "strike" against city and county governments.
"I was just wondering how they are going deal with this thing if we sort of shot down their attempt at a law or ordinance in their community," Bell said. "It was really tough.
"That was the part that I thought they were going to eliminate. We did say we wanted somebody to offer amendments to try and deal with that bill separately -- first part, second or third."
Most agreed about the first part dealing with the bathroom issue, Bell said.
But the other parts of the bill caused a major concern and were items that Bell said he did not feel legislators should be dealing with at all.
"I hope that when we get back in session that we can deal with it again," he said. "As I told someone the other day, having been someone who voted on the prevailing side, I would certainly be one of those to stand up and try to have it recalled so that we could readdress it and see if we couldn't deal with it on the long term and deal with all of the issues involved in it."
Pate said Dixon had "very strongly" identified the problem.
"We have something like less than one percent of the people of this state who are members of the community who would even think of such a thing as this going on," he said. "I can't imagine how a city council would even undertake to put an ordinance of this magnitude into effect in their city."
Pate said he has family members who live in Charlotte and they, in addition to all the people up there, are "just appalled" at what is going on.
"Now we are hearing from big businesses, and all of a sudden they are going to get their pound of flesh out of us as well," Pate said. "Well, I am sure a lot of these are threats. I think we have done the right thing.
"I voted for the bill. Some people did not vote at all. Some people voted no. But I am proud that I did vote for that bill because I think that Charlotte way overstepped their bounds. We cannot afford to have this continue in our state, and we will do all that we can to stop it."