PC(USA) Stated Clerk calls for repeal of discriminatory N.C. law

March 29, 2016


Since 1977 the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church has advocated for just treatment of LGBT persons in regard to their civil liberties, equal rights, and protections under the law from social and economic discrimination that is due all citizens (Minutes, PCUS, 1977, Part I, p. 174).

Therefore, we applaud Governor Nathan Deal of Georgia on his veto of Georgia House Bill 757, which would have caused discrimination against LGBT persons. Governor Deal said, “I do not think we have to discriminate against anyone to protect the faith-based community in Georgia, of which I and my family have been a part of for all of our lives.”

At the same time, we find that the recent legislation approved in North Carolina and signed into law, which bans people from using bathrooms that don’t match the sex indicated on their birth certificate, is discriminatory. It would be good for legislators and the governor in Raleigh to hear the words of Governor Deal.

The North Carolina law also prevents cities and counties from establishing ordinances extending protections covering sexual orientation and gender identity to restaurants, hotels, and stores. It overrode the desire of the city of Charlotte’s duly elected leadership to be a city of nondiscrimination.

This law is discriminatory both to the LGBT community and everyday employees in North Carolina, and is defended by casting all transgender persons as sexual offenders. It is our hope that the legislature and the governor of North Carolina will listen to the citizens of their state, do factually based analysis, and repeal this discriminatory law.


Secretario Permanente de la IP (EE.UU.) pide la revocación de la ley discriminatoria en Carolina del Norte

  1. Does the PCUSA provide gender neutral restrooms in all its facilities? Does the PCUSA pay each for facility modifications needed to make each restroom gender neutral? Does the PCUSA consider gender in selecting members for committees? Are you less discriminatory in your practice that those you accuse? Do you establish rules churches in one city that are different than those for the presbytery where the city is located? Are your actions reflective of your statements?

    by Harry

    April 3, 2016

  2. The Georgia law seems to put ministers on the same level as current GA Polity on the performing of same sex marriages as a matter of conscience. I have always wondered if it was going to eventually come to the point where in order to be a Teaching Elder in good standing, you needed to agree to perform same sex marriages, but from this letter from our GA Moderator, I guess I no longer need to wonder as it seems clear that is where we are heading.

    by Michael Spires

    April 1, 2016

  3. Don't now how amny of you have actually read the text of the GA bill. Despite all of the left wing hysteria, it would NOT have allowed discrimination in the gernal marketplace. What it would have allowed is a Muslim Mosque to refuse to rent their facility for a gay wedding in accordance with their beliefs without fear of recrimination.

    by John Kludt

    March 31, 2016

  4. Our NC Gov. and Legislature acted on opinion and fear, rather than on truth, justice, and even-handed legislation. It is a damaging law to the state, the business here, as well as to those of sexual orientations that are a minority and have been treated with a lack of compassion and understanding. This law is based on fears of all sorts, which are ungrounded and act against the human beings who live as law-abiding citizens even in the midst of discrimination.

    by Jean Rodenbough, D.Min.

    March 31, 2016

  5. Mr. Parsons, As a concerned Presbyterian living in Raleigh, North Carolina, I want to express appreciation for your statement. HB2 is a major issue in North Carolina, with few defenders and polls showing that most citizens do not agree with the action by our General Assembly and Governor. A large number of business groups, including CEO's of major firms, have stated they are re-thinking possible investment in our state. To those who ask "why" would PCUSA make a statement, consider that social justice is definitely a priority for the Kingdom of God. I am proud to be a PCUSA member. Thank you again.

    by John White

    March 30, 2016

  6. We don't let men into women's restrooms--or we didn't, anyway--because of the risk to women, and their privacy concerns. Did that mean we considered all men as molesters? Of course not. The same applies here.

    by Richard Aubrey

    March 30, 2016

  7. Has the Stated Clerk also reached out pastorally to the people of the PCUSA churches in Georgia who disagree with the Governor's veto to care for them in this process?

    by Paul Clairville

    March 30, 2016

  8. Dont woryy Dear God see everything and listen our prayers and God do everything You doing a great work for nation

    by Danish Iqbal

    March 30, 2016

  9. I am sure each and every one of us has used the bathroom with a transgendered person and nothing horrible happened. It is completely ridiculous to create a law in regards to some fictional fear these politicians have. If some guy wants to attack a woman he will not care that he pushed her into a bathroom he isn't allowed to be in.

    by Elizabeth

    March 30, 2016

  10. Since when does PCUSA feel that it needs to insert itself into public policy issues of the separate and individual states? Any policy which works its way through the system should be respected, even if there is disagreement on the policy. Duly-elected officials are acting on what they believe represents their constituents' best interests. I think it is irresponsible to make blanket statements without fully understanding the language of the law or the dynamics of any state.

    by Janice McGeachin

    March 29, 2016

  11. I disagree with the Stated Clerk. The Georgia law and the North Carolina law are quite different. The North Carolina law is about public safety in public restrooms. It does not cast all transgender persons as sexual offenders. It seeks to create safety for women and children by putting reasonable restrictions on allowing men to enter women's restrooms. It's common sense, unless you choose to spin it otherwise.

    by Michael Garrett

    March 29, 2016

Leave a comment