On October 10, the Capitol Broadcasting Company (CBC) published an editorial entitled, “Back candidates who will repeal HB2, N.C.‘s suffered enough.” In the editorial, CBC calls for the all-out rejection of any public official who is not staunchly opposed to HB2. Leaving logic and common sense behind, the CBC uses emotional argumentation that has little basis in reality. In this article, I offer a response to the CBC.

Make no mistake about it. Notorious House Bill 2 is pushing the top of North Carolina’s worst law list. It is a salute to bigotry and discrimination. It is NOT about bathrooms or anyone’s safety. No amount of political spin, no amount of advertising, will cover it up. It is about prejudice.

What are these guys talking about? Anyone who has actually read HB2 knows it is primarily concerned with bathrooms (along with locker rooms, shower rooms, and changing rooms). As to safety, anyone who has read Charlotte’s bathroom ordinance (which HB2 blocked from enforcement) knows it would have allowed men to hang out where women and young girls use the restroom, change their clothes, or even shower. in addition, the ordinance would have made it illegal for a business owner to “discriminate” against men by not allowing them to use the women’s bathroom if they so desired. Forcing women and young girls to undress in the presence of grown men is inappropriate and unsafe, as it creates more opportunities for sexual assault. Stating that HB2 “is NOT about bathrooms or anyone’s safety” is disingenuous, if not an outright falsehood. The CBC should know better.

Of course, I readily acknowledge that my argumentation rests upon a biblical worldview (i.e., that God created two genders, that voyeurism and rape are immoral, that the state has a duty to protect women, etc.). I hold that a biblical view of the world is the only one which makes sense, that every person knows that God exists, and that suppressing the knowledge of God leads to nothing but foolishness (Rom. 1:18-23). As a result, every person who denies the existence of God cannot do so consistently, because they must borrow from His existence in order to make their own worldviews work. In fact, the CBC editorial demonstrates this very truth. While clearly arguing from a non-Christian perspective, the CBC’s arguments against HB2 assume the existence of a transcendent standard of morality (i.e., that bigotry, discrimination, and prejudice are morally wrong), which only makes sense in light of God’s existence. On what basis can a random blob of molecules tell other random blobs of molecules that what they’re doing is wrong?

Do we need to be stronger in our disgust for the awful blight on the reputation and brand of North Carolina?

Let’s be clear. No one who voted for HB2, and has not yet repudiated and apologized for that vote, deserves to be in public office – anywhere or at any level. Similarly, any candidates for public office who won’t support and vote for its immediate repeal, should not have the honor of receiving anyone’s vote or holding public office.

Wow. So what happened to tolerance? The CBC’s message is clear: A biblical view of gender and a woman’s right to privacy and protection disqualify one from holding public office. On what basis? The truth is, when a biblical worldview is stripped from political thought, no standard of morality remains on which one can consistently argue that any particular person should or should not hold public office.

HB2 legalized discrimination in North Carolina. Under North Carolina law today, thanks to HB2, an employer can fire someone simply because they are gay, lesbian, transgender or bisexual. The authority of North Carolina’s local governments to enact rules and regulations they feel best suit their communities – when it comes to LGBT issues or even setting a minimum wage for contractors who do work with local governments – has been stripped by HB2.

Under a biblical worldview, the business owner has the right to choose his own employees, so long as he fulfills his agreements with them (Matt. 20:1-15). Why should a local government—which was put in place by God for the public good (Rom. 13:1-7)—be allowed to restrict that right by giving any person or group of people the ability to force someone to employ them? In addition, why should homosexuals and transvestites have this special status above other citizens? The same principles apply to minimum wage. Why should a local government restrict the right of an employer and his employee to agree upon a wage, so long as the agreement is carried through?

And as pointed out before, the CBC is still using an argument based on a transcendent standard of morality (i.e., discrimination is morally wrong), which does not make sense outside of a biblical worldview. The CBC, in order to make their own arguments work, are continuing to borrow from the very worldview that they are arguing against.

Do any of these things have ANYTHING to do with bathrooms, locker rooms or public safety? Absolutely not!

Actually, many of them do. If you actually take the time to read the Charlotte ordinance which HB2 blocked, you will see that the restriction of a business owner’s right to keep men out of the women’s bathroom was framed as a prohibition of business discrimination. Here’s a quote from the Charlotte City Code, with words added by the ordinance in bold:

“It shall be unlawful to deny any person the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a place of public accommodation because of race, color religion, sex, marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or natural origin.”

So, according to the ordinance, places of public accommodation (such as bathrooms, locker rooms, shower rooms, or changing rooms) could not be denied to any person because of “gender identity” or “gender expression.” In simple terms, if a man were to identity as a woman, the business owner would not have been allowed prevent him from entering the women’s bathroom. Recognizing the danger and impropriety of the Charlotte ordinance, Gov. Pat McCrory and the NC General Assembly eliminated the ability of local governments such as Charlotte to enact nondiscrimination policies that go beyond those created by the State of North Carolina. Keeping the Charlotte ordinance from being enforced has everything to do with bathrooms. To suggest otherwise is simply dishonest.

HB2 was a desperate, needless and misguided grasp to foment a campaign wedge issue. The city of Charlotte’s anti-discrimination ordinance needed no panicked reply from the General Assembly and the governor. The people of that city are more than capable of reacting – in support or objection.

Of course, I find the claim that HB2 was “desperate, needless and misguided” to be totally unfounded. The CBC has provided absolutely zero evidence that any of these things are true of HB2.

Interestingly enough, an ordinance similar to Charlotte’s was passed by the Houston City Council in May of 2014. Almost a year and a half went by before the people of Houston managed to overturn the ordinance. If the General Assembly had not blocked the Charlotte ordinance, how long might the people of Charlotte have had to wait before it was overturned?

It has been the broad condemnation of HB2, not the Charlotte ordinance, that has led to the devastating economic consequences and scorn North Carolina has faced since 9:57 p.m., March 23 when Gov. Pat McCrory signed the law.

While N.C. Commerce Secretary John Skvarla has sought to spin-doctor the losses the state has faced, cities and towns; mom-and-pop corner stores and major corporations; universities big and small; and sports fans throughout the state know better.

Protecting our women is worth any amount of economic consequence or scorn that North Carolina may face. I stand with Lt. Gov. Dan Forest on this one: “The line has now been drawn in the sand, first by Hollywood, now by the NBA and NCAA, either accept their ‘progressive sexual agenda’ or pay the price. North Carolina will not play that game. We value our women too much to put a price tag on their heads.”

Just ask PayPal, Deutsche Bank, the NCAA and the ACC, to name a few, about HB2. They believe discrimination is morally wrong and bad for business. They want no part of it and are taking their business elsewhere. Our brand is taking a beating.

How is HB2 bad for business? To my knowledge, it’s those companies that don’t like HB2 which are taking business away from North Carolina. Besides, as I said before, any business lost is worth it if it means protecting our women.

And we see the Christian worldview being borrowed from yet again here, as the CBC agrees that discrimination is morally wrong. As Iv’e said before, this only makes sense in a biblical worldview, the very worldview which the CBC opposes.

HB2 needs to be repealed as soon as possible. No hemming-and-hawing. No quest for “compromise.” The city council in Charlotte did nothing wrong.

I agree that there should be no compromise. However, the CBC has failed to put forward any compelling reason to repeal HB2, unless we think protecting our women is simply too expensive. And, as I’ve already pointed out, the Charlotte City Council was wrong to pass their bathroom ordinance, because it violated the privacy and safety of the women and young girls residing in that city. The General Assembly was right to block that ordinance from enforcement.

Vote for candidates that promise to completely repeal the law. Our state has suffered enough.

It’s true that North Carolina has gone through what could be called monetary suffering, thanks to corporations and organizations that have decided to take their business elsewhere. But the state wasn’t put there by God to make money; it was put there for the good of the people. Every government official has a God-given duty to protect those under his authority, and a repeal of HB2 would be nothing short of an abandonment of that duty.