For six weeks, North Carolina has been the target of withering attacks from politicians, businesses, sports organizations and LGBT activists. The state’s major alleged crime is, to quote Bruce Springsteen, the passage of a law that “dictates which bathrooms transgender people are permitted to use.”

The law has led to economic boycotts by Bruce Springsteen, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and executives at PayPal among others, as well as what one conservative attorney has called “bullying” from the U.S. Department of Justice. Doubling the social crime in the eyes of many is that the law overturned a so-called “non-discrimination” ordinance in Charlotte, North Carolina, which mandated that all businesses and public buildings permit people who claim to feel they are of the opposite sex to use whatever restroom, locker room and other related facilities they choose.

But for all of the outcry, the simple fact is that the North Carolina law is both astonishingly modest and largely respectful of individual choice — and the Charlotte ordinance it overturned was neither.

What Did the Charlotte Ordinance Do?

In two different “fact-checks,” PolitiFact stressed that the Charlotte ordinance was modest in its goals, based upon a “he said, she said” between state officials and Charlotte officials. However, both an attorney for the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and a plain reading of the Charlotte ordinance make its radical totalitarianism clear. Below is the relevant portion of the Charlotte ordinance. Note that the crossed out material is what changed from a pre-existing ordinance, and the underlined material was the controversially added portion.

In short, the ordinance “prohibited” denying anyone the use of bathrooms, locker rooms and related facilities in all businesses, clubs, gyms, hotels and other privately owned businesses. It likewise made it illegal for businesses to put out “a statement, advertisement or sign” saying they would not service an individual or provide an open-door policy to restrooms, locker rooms and the like.

The Charlotte government’s mandate did deign to allow business owners and the like who object to the use of opposite-sex restrooms and related facilities to voice their opinion on the matter. And depending on your legal interpretation, it may have allowed private clubs “or other establishment(s) not, in fact, open to the public” to avoid the ordinance entirely.

So, in sum, the key portions of the Charlotte ordinance required privately owned “public accommodations” businesses to do the government’s bidding — meaning that if you own a hotel, restaurant, club, gym etc. in Charlotte that allows the general public to participate as a customer, you were forced to allow anyone who says they are a member of the opposite sex to use the bathroom, locker room, hotel room and the area of their choice. This was forced upon you even if you object for reasons of religion or the simple fact that men shouldn’t expose themselves to young girls, or even if you think the person is lying in order to get some one-sided action.

Doesn’t sound very tolerant or pro-choice, does it? And while the city and PolitiFact claim private clubs and the like were exempted, even that section is being disputed by both state officials and the aforementioned Alliance Defending Freedom attorney.

Conversely, the North Carolina Law Is Pro-Choice and Tolerant

Unlike the ordinance it overturned, the so-called North Carolina bathroom law is very modest and tolerant — perhaps to the point of substantially conceding to the LGBT agenda.

Consider:

1. The law gives schools flexibility in dealing with the real issues surrounding gender identity.

Nothing in this section shall prohibit local boards of education from providing accommodations such as single occupancy bathroom or changing facilities or controlled use of faculty facilities upon a request due to special circumstances …

In other words: If you’re suffering from gender identity disorder, schools can accommodate you.

2. The law did not apply to “a local government regulating, compensating or controlling its own employees.” This means each local government — say, the one in Charlotte — is allowed to create its own internal policies for employees on matters related to the LGBT agenda.

Pretty accommodating, I’d say. A government entity can apply standards internally, but can’t force them on private citizens. What a concept!

3. Unlike the Charlotte ordinance, the state law clearly allows for the exemptions of private clubs.

For purposes of this Article, “places of public accommodation” has the same meaning as defined in G.S. 168A-3(8), but shall exclude any private club or other establishment not, in fact, open to the public.

4. Lastly, the state left the bathroom, locker room and similar policies of each business up to — brace yourself — the owners of those businesses. The wordy legalese can be found in the law itself, but the language explicitly protects the right of business owners to separate bathrooms by “biological sex.”

That is, it’s about protecting the right of businesses to handle bathrooms as they desire, which is the way businesses have always handled such issues. This is the reverse of the dictatorial mandate given by the Charlotte ordinance, which demanded that businesses acquiesce to the government’s preference.

It’s also notable that the state measure made certain that private companies’ internal policies would not affect contracts with the state. Pretty pro-choice!

In Conclusion

Despite what those who have kowtowed to the LGBT agenda — including those in the Obama administration — say, the North Carolina “bathroom law” is neither bigoted nor discriminatory. It openly provides for private citizens of all different beliefs about the issue of gender identity to go about their business with relatively little government interference. It also provides accommodations for students with gender identity disorder, and it allows local governments to make their own internal policies.

In fact, the law is too open to allowing predators, the mentally ill and others the opportunity to go into restrooms of the opposite sex.

Contrast this to the Charlotte ordinance, which seemed to take its treatment of dissidents from a line in a Star Wars book:

“What the galaxy needs is one language, one system of measurement, one uniform, one flag? Should we just cut the word no out of the language and substitute ‘Yes, sir, right away, sir, instead?’”