Honestly this probably makes the most sense. This whole thing has blown up to be such a wedge issue, it's like 2004 all over again.
For people saying that there is no risk for Transgender people: They need to have freedom to use the facility because some will consider them women, some men - if they go by other people's definition it creates a problem. And if you let every place manage the definition of male and female, that creates a problem of inconsistency. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...der-woman-ticketed-for-using-ladies-room?lite
"How many go unreported" Go on, give it your best guess. The only credible case you showed was a rapist who had sexual assault facilitated for him even though he was a serial rapist for years before. How many sexual assaults go unreported? 68% of all of them? When you have 250+ professionals in sexual assault telling you anti-discrimination laws aren't the reason, maybe you should listen if you care that much.
Well, it will help. TGs can be killed for merely being who they are and not have a hate crime attached (several have been), they can be fired for their job for being TGs, they can be forced and confined to a separate bathroom created just for them against their will--this, by the way, is the test case that broke the legal system's back. It's what happens when you have inconsistent standards for protected classes enshrined through the law.
Says you or 250+ sexual assault advocacy groups? The only reason why you're hearing about this is that "The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity." http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/...ghts-laws-already-protect-transgender-people/ Finally:
As for the need for the legislation to protect from irrational animus against a minority class: http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...n-transgender-teen-suicide-conversion-therapy http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/19/virginia-transgender-bathroom-access-anti-lgbt-laws
All of this will end up in the hands of SCOTUS. and with Scalia gone, the swing vote to liberal appeals courts getting their way is none other than Justice Super K. Thanks Senate Republicans. http://www.jurist.org/forum/2015/07/Jeremiah-Ho-Obergefell-Hodges.php
Whether they are a problem or not is irrelevant. Individuals and businesses can (or at least should) decide that for themselves. The problem is when it's mandatory.
Do you have a problem with the federal government asserting what should happen in public buildings, as opposed to the state asserting what should happen over a municipality. Bathrooms are the tip of the iceberg anyways. Protection for sexual orientation and gender identity enshrined in the law is the real end goal. Keep that in mind.
yeah, funny how there's this whole Constitutional process and a judicial branch. But yeah, you're so originalist, you'll dispute Marbury v. Madison. The founders are dead. The constitution they left lives on.
LOL more desperate spinning trying to play this non-issue as a legitimate civil rights issue SMH. Just pimping out the next excuse for a cause to keep funds flowing. It's sad that so many don't think for themselves.
For somebody who claims to love the Constitution, you seem to know precious little about what debates are actually happening about it. Tell me more about your thoughts on protected categories and animus.
It is more status quo than it is a compromise. But, no I don't think that's where we want to end up because it was the status quo that generated the friction to make bathroom legislation a thing in the first place. If you leave the custodian to decide, you will have a contingent of overbearing custodians sending trans to a bathroom they don't want to enter, and another contingent of permissive custodians that won't think of the children. Trans are left guessing which bathroom choice the custodian will find acceptable. And, face it, the wisdom of custodians in making decisions on this subject will not be uniformly high, and it can be colored by bias in either direction. I'm sorry to say the toothpaste cannot be put back into the tube. We need a clear and widely-understood principle for all parties to abide by. I'm confused. The legislature had their input when they wrote the Constitutional amendment protecting minorities in public accommodation. If they want more input, I suppose they can write another amendment.
I guess if these morons get their way and a person's sex and gender are ruled to be something you can pick on a whim wouldn't it open up women's shelters to men claiming they feel like women at the moment? I mean, otherwise it would be discrimination right? You'd also have to allow those who are biologically male to play women's sports in college too if they felt like it. Basically you'd have to eliminate all barriers between men and women all because gay marriage passed and LGBT groups no longer had a legitimate civil rights cause to fight for.
I'm too slow on my responses. Given the division of powers, it is for the Supreme Court to interpret whether the Constitution requires gender-neutral bathrooms, not the legislature.
