Trump, Cruz split on HB2

Posted April 21, 2016
Updated May 2, 2016

— Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump said Thursday that transgender people should be able to use whichever bathroom they choose, and North Carolina is "paying a big price" for trying to prevent that.

Rival candidate Ted Cruz responded by calling House Bill 2 "common sense" and saying Trump was only being politically correct.

Speaking at a town hall event on NBC's "Today" show, Trump said the House Bill 2, which was approved an signed into law in less than 12 hours last month, has caused unnecessary strife.

"North Carolina did something that was very strong, and they’re paying a big price and there’s a lot of problems," he said. "The problem with what happened in North Carolina is the strife and the economic punishment that they’re taking."

Hundreds of corporations have called on state lawmakers to repeal the legislation, which requires people to use public bathrooms that match the gender on their birth certificates, excludes gay and transgender people from discrimination protections and bars cities and counties from extending such protections to them.

PayPal and Deutsche Bank have dropped plans to expand operations in Charlotte and Cary, respectively, numerous cities and states have stopped non-essential government travel to North Carolina, several trade groups have moved their conventions outside the state and performers from Bruce Springsteen to Pearl Jam have canceled concerts.

Trump said North Carolina should have just ignored the issue.

"There have been very few problems, leave it the way it is," he said. "North Carolina, what they’re going through with all of the business that’s leaving and all of the strife, and that’s on both sides, you leave it the way it is. There have been very few complaints the way it is. People go, they use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate. There has been so little trouble."

Within hours, Cruz took to social media to condemn Trump's stance, tweeting "grown men shouldn't be in bathrooms w/ little girls."

"Have we gone stark raving nuts?" Cruz asked a crowd at a campaign rally in Maryland. "Here is basic common sense. Grown adult men – strangers – should not be alone in a bathroom with little girls. That's not conservative or liberal. That's not Republican or Democrat. That's basic common sense."

Gov. Pat McCrory, who has fiercely defended House Bill 2, also disagrees with Trump when it comes to school bathrooms, campaign spokesman Ricky Diaz said.

"Governor McCrory has always said that North Carolina was getting along fine before the Charlotte City Council passed its unneeded and overreaching ordinance. Now that it has been overturned, businesses can adopt their own policies – like Target has – instead of being mandated to allow men into women's restrooms by government," Diaz said in a statement. "Where the governor disagrees with Mr. Trump is that bathroom and shower facilities in our schools should be kept separate and special accommodations made when needed. It's just common sense."

Trump said he said he is opposed to the move to create gender-neutral bathrooms open to anyone, calling that push "discriminatory in a certain way" and "unbelievably expensive for businesses and the country."

If Caitlyn Jenner, formerly Olympic gold medal winner Bruce Jenner, were to walk into Trump Tower, she could use whichever bathroom she wanted, he said.


Please with your WRAL.com account to comment on this story. You also will need a Facebook account to comment.

Oldest First
View all
  • Xander Bogaerts Apr 23, 2016
    user avatar

    View quoted thread

    I agree with what you say. Have to believe TG/TV would be reasonable as well, I seriously doubt they want to shower in a middle school anyway! I believe the majority of gray areas in between the extreme examples could be resolved with thoughtful consideration between both TG/TV as well as others. The gray areas that couldn't would have to be hashed out in the second round.

    I sincerely respect our conversations as well as your point of view, and in full honesty I should say in scenarios where deadlock occurs at future ordinance discussions, I will default to what TG/TV community wants over those who disagree (again as long as it isn't extreme example). I'm certain there are those who will default to current status quo in cases of deadlock, and I respect their right to do that.

    I need to find a link to the discussions charlotte had during ordinance hearings and do research.

  • Steve Clark Apr 23, 2016
    user avatar

    I know Xander... tough.. this is why i think scrap hb2, scrap charlotte.. sit down WITH the TG community (and I mean the "real tg community", not the screaming activists, but a few that are Living as TG) in the room.. and talk... and above all Listen. I HAVE to believe that they are reasonable rational people with sisters etc, and would understand the concerns we've brought up about locker rooms (I agree 100% on mall bathrooms, let itt go the way its been for yrs).

    Charlotte and HB2 are what happens when emotion and a political agenda drive legislation, rather than thoughtful discussion.

    I hope they fix it soon... the media is killing us.

  • Xander Bogaerts Apr 22, 2016
    user avatar

    View quoted thread

    Of course, pervs have always found a way into women's restroom without a tg/tv ordinance, so that makes the privacy concern go away for me. I don't think they should have to use the bathroom of the gender on their birth certificate. I think that's reasonable in the mall scenario.

    The I.D. card idea could still be in play, even though we both agree it has obstacles, as it doesn't need to be on them at all times. It could be like registration for your car, and if on the off chance the issue of a non genuine tg/tv in a restroom comes up, and they don't have ID card on them at the time, just present it at court. Again, same problem though: second class citizen.

    *sigh* tough. Idk.

  • Xander Bogaerts Apr 22, 2016
    user avatar

    View quoted thread

    agreed, and i'd take it a step further- he believes the bible and christianity should have more influence on politics, and we have separation of church and state, so that won't work. I am a non practicing Christian with 20+ years of church, and the Bible is full of wonderful things to become a better person, but again, separation of church and state I agree with.

  • Xander Bogaerts Apr 22, 2016
    user avatar

    View quoted thread

    I have daughters, I certainly wouldn't be ok with a grown man showering with them. I'm certain my wife wouldn't either. Similarly, definitely don't want to give pervs a right.

    Yes, we need to define parameters, and like we already discussed, hard to define. Wording is crucial, as you say and I agree, lawyers could easily use to defend pervs who aren't genuine tg/tv.

    For instance, a restroom at the mall, I don't see an issue with tg/tv using the gender they identify with. Perhaps someone will point out an issue I haven't considered with that scenario that would change my mind, but like you mention, they already have been anyway. There are no showers at the mall. So that makes that scenario a bit easier to define.

    But the mall bathroom scenario still leaves pervs able to subvert the law, and there are people who do not want their privacy violated. That is another issue. However, there has to be give and take here. (cont'd)

  • Melvin Denis Apr 22, 2016
    user avatar

    I could never vote for Cruz because of his stance on HB2

  • Steve Clark Apr 22, 2016
    user avatar

    and expose themselves in the girls locker room, then they will do exactly that. AND.. there are MORE than enough attorneys out there, that will simply cite the wording of the law, as their clients defense. "your honor, (s)he wasn't 'exposing her/him self' to the girls swim team, (s)he was just changing clothes, as the Charlotte statute allows"

    Christian Knott suggested the id cards, I don't like that suggestion for the very reason you listed, not to mention the Horrendous political spin the media would put on that (I kinda think that would be WORSE)

    I think there has to be some sort of 'visual standard', and God forgive me, I KNOW how awful that sounds. But if a 'man' looks enough like a woman that (s)he has been using the girls rest/locker room for years, then why not continue?

    And I'll ask, how many 'cases' of pervs peeping would it take for you to agree, a 'definition' needs to be added? As a dad and husband, of course, it's one.

  • Steve Clark Apr 22, 2016
    user avatar

    I had to have a lunch meeting myself :-) and in case i haven't said it, I do appreciate you're willingness to talk about this without calling me names (like *ahem CK has done consistently). I also appreciate your ability to 'visualize' the very concern those of us opposed to the original Charlotte ordinance have.

    As for the shower heads you mentioned, I'm fairly certain that (many) high school locker rooms are just that; (and before you tell me Charlotte ordinance didn't affect schools, the recent VA ruling did, so my concern regarding school is valid).

    I appreciate your stance, and I AGREE, we can both point out 'extreme situations'... the difference, is that the original Charlotte law "legalized" those extreme situations. So let's work together: how do we assure legit TG's have the dignity and privacy afforded everyone else, but also assure we don't "create a legal defense" for pervs.

    And you tell me Xander, can we agree that if you give pervs a legal right to peep, (cont'd)

  • Xander Bogaerts Apr 22, 2016
    user avatar

    View quoted thread

    Shooting from the hip, obviously grown men showering with little girls (i'm imagining the showers in school where single stem with multiple shower heads, don't know if those are still in use) eyebrow raising to say the least, but that is an extreme example obviously. Clearly, that scenario would not go over well, to say the least. Not saying I think it is fine, because at first glance it sounds downright icky, and it's very hard to imagine a scenario where anyone would be ok with that. anyway, that is extreme example that is catalyst for privacy and safety, I get it.

    more later, have to eat

  • Xander Bogaerts Apr 22, 2016
    user avatar

    Hey Steve,
    I suppose it is possible the guy was actually a perv, however hard to tell. Without further info, it really sounds like he was a political protester.

    I completely agree with you that the bathroom protection is a hot topic, hotly debated and difficult . I am open to fair, practical and non-discriminatory suggestions on how to appropriately find middle ground on the bathroom issue.

    That being said, I have to say again that the possibility of a perv subverting the TG/TV and having legal basis is very, very small. Just because the possibility exists, does not mean it will necessarily happen.

    Which brings us back to definitions, wording, etc in an ordinance. I admit I have not done the research to listen to concerns on BOTH sides who have debated this. I need to do that.

    That suggestion for a doctor-issued I.D. to a TG/TV has merit, however, the LGBT community may feel it will label them 2nd class citizens as others do not need ID to go potty. (cont'd)