Q: Don’t unisex bathrooms leave women more vulnerable to being harassed or attacked by men than gender-segregated bathrooms do?
A: This argument is based on a myth: There is no evidence that gender-segregated bathrooms are “safer” for cisgender women than unisex bathrooms. And besides, there are laws protecting people from criminal conduct in public restrooms. If anything, a concern for safety weighs in favor of bathroom accessibility. Transgender people face a uniquely high degree of harassment—53% of 6,450 transgender people reported being harassed or disrespected in a place of public accommodation in a recent survey conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
In Mathis v. Fountain-Fort Carson School District 8, Colorado’s Division of Civil Rights found that barring transgender students from gender-segregated bathrooms in accordance with their gender identity may out an individual as transgender and invite the very harassment that a school or employer claims to want to prevent. Providing individual bathrooms can be a solution for dealing with these concerns, as long as transgender people are not required to use them.
In Cruzan v. Special School District #1, decided in 2002, a Minnesota federal appeals court ruled that it isn’t the job of the transgender person to do the accommodating.
and
Two Reasons Why Bathroom Access Is Also a Health Issue
USING APPROPRIATE RESTROOMS IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF TRANSITIONING.
The most critical aspect of gender transition, according to the internationally-recognized medical protocol set by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, is to ensure that a transgender person is able to live, be seen and be treated by others in a matter consistent with the person’s gender identity. Getting used to using the appropriate restroom is an important part of this process. Moreover, transgender people must take this step well before proceeding—if at all—to medical interventions involving hormones or surgery.
“HOLDING IT” MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH.
According to the U.S. Occupational Safety and Hazards Administration (OSHA), delaying going to the bathroom when you need to go is unhealthy, and so, workplace policy may not encourage it. This is not to mention the dehydrating effects of trying to avoid using restrooms by limiting intake of liquids, another common strategy for TGNC people navigating uncomfortable bathroom situations in the workplace and at other public accommodations.
Courts have ruled on the side of Transgender bc There are more proven risks to the transgender individual (see above posts) than there are risks to the cisgender individual that happens to be exposed to “seeing a transgender individual” and feeling icky.
There is a qualitative difference between one person who doesn’t fit the group’s idea of the norm being among the group, and BEING the one person who doesn’t fit the “norm.” So one person using the locker room whom the rest feel is outside the norm is not threatening, but to tell that person (especially a transwoman) to be the only one where THEY do not feel they fit, is not equally weird, and may be threatening. And to tell them to use a separate room entirely, is segregation.
Romani: You have diverted to a new topic. Yes, most religions do profess that their adherents should marry someone inside the religion. Christianity and Judaism certainly do. There is nothing wrong with this admonition to marry into the faith and raise children in the faith.
Totally irrelevant to this discussion.
I’m merely stating the argument. My own views are not at issue here, and are not exactly as I have presented the argument in Christian terms.
Because – again – there is no right not to feel icky. Whereas there is a right to use public facilities and government facilities such as a school locker room.
Let me ask you: Should this student be forced to use the boys’ locker room? How do you think that’s going to go as the transition proceeds?
An important side benefit for the other kids is that they might learn that gays/trans are not monsters, but just ordinary people whose lives are being made infinitely more difficult than they need to be. The best cure for homophobia/trans phobia is knowing someone who’s gay/trans.
LasMa: I’m not sure you can realistically argue that bakers are perfectly willing to make cakes for people who are shacking up, for example. We have no statistics on such a thing and for all we know, Christian bakers are deciding not to do those jobs, when the information is expressed that the couple are living together, or, say, they ditched their former spouses for this new person. Again ALL THIS AFFECTS ONLY A VERY TINY MINORITY OF CHRISTIAN (mostly) BAKERS.
See, the thing is, usually no information is shared except that the couple is getting married, and apparently, the names of the couple. (I married long ago, so I don’t really remember if they even asked the names of the bride and groom). That is the only way this information would be shared.
I’m willing to bet that if a couple comes in and tells the (known) Christian baker that they ditched their former spouses after an affair and are happy to be marrying each other, that baker will be “busy”.
You just don’t know. We have no way of knowing. I guess I assume some Christian bakers will be consistent within the power to do so.
1 Corinthians 6 addresses homosexuality directly, in a long list of sins one must “flee”. Some argue that it must mean something else other than homosexuality, or that it really means only homosexual abuse. If it does, then apparently there is no admonition against adultery or other sexual immorality, drunkenness, slander, idolatry, thievery either. I don’t think one can take the convenient position that the Bible (anyway- less conversant with other religious texts) does not mean what it says in terms of sexual behavior being only appropriate within the confines of biblical marriage.
@TranquilMind Yes, that’s exactly the problem. The gays’ “sin” is visible to the baker, whereas the adulterer’s sin is not. So the gays get refused whereas the adulterers do not. That’s the wrong, not to mention the hypocrisy. If baking a cake for a “sinner” is such a mortal stain on their souls, then they should be doing due diligence on all of their customers.
The whole idea is ridiculous, of course, because baking a cake is not an event which affects anyone’s soul one way or the other. It’s a business transaction. If they can’t accept that, then they should do something else, or perhaps create a private cake-baking club where they could (maybe) pick and choose the members. But if you’re open to the public, you have to be open to all of the public. It’s not complicated.
Then to avoid hypocrisy, the baker should refuse to bake cakes for anyone else whose sin is on the list. Right?
“There certainly could be. If he chose, a baker could sell only cakes and cookies with “Jesus loves you” iced on each item. If that’s what he chooses to sell, I don’t think any customer would have the right to insist that he make a cake or a cookie without that message. (This points out why the baker example is kind of a goofy place to draw the line: we don’t normally think of bakers as sending a personal message with cakes, but they could do so.) I think a baker who simply stopped making custom cakes, but who simply sold the “Christian” cakes he makes to all comers, would not be in violation of any antidiscrimination laws.”
A cookie or cake with a “Jesus loves you” does not make it a Christian cookie or cake. Besides, many same sex couples are Christian - in fact, I bet the majority are. They might like that message on their cake. Or they could smudge the saying off their cake.
Well, if I were a lawyer defending a cake baker, I would argue (assuming that this was true) that my client would sell a cake to anybody, but that he would not inscribe a message onto a cake that he disagreed with. Thus, he wouldn’t make a cake that said “God is Dead,” just as he wouldn’t make a cake that said, “Happy Wedding, Mary and Sue.”
I believe one can refuse to inscribe a message if it is considered hate speech, Happy Wedding Mary and Sue is not a hate speech.
So your Christian bakers only follow the tenets of their religion that require no additional effort on their part? For comparison, people who keep kosher/halal/etc usually make an effort to determine whether or not the food they are eating meets the requirements. They don’t assume its fine unless someone specifically says it isn’t.
Right. “God is dead” would be anathema to his faith, so it is not a message he would want to or should be forced to create on his cakes, and that right of refusal should be protected. So is the SSM message to this same Christian baker, who is consistent. That is a fair argument.
LasMa…that is precisely what I am saying. If someone comes in and shares that he is so happy he just ditched his wife to marry the mistress, the baker should be free to reject that wedding job without consequence. In the real world, money rules, so most jobs will be taken, but if he does reject as a matter of conscience, that should be protected. Most likely, he would just be “busy” that weekend if he really doesn’t feel right about doing that job.
Go with them two miles. That was not the advice that most of the people in the crowd that day had been hoping for. That was not the conclusion that they would have come to on their own, following this man that they hoped would lead them to victory over the Romans. That was certainly not respecting their religious beliefs — go with them two! What if their neighbors saw! What if seeing them carrying the Roman’s equipment caused other Jews to think the Roman oppression was okay? What if there was other work that needed to be done — good work, charity work even, but they spent all that time carrying equipment for the evil oppressor? But Jesus is not worried about any of that:
“If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also,” he said. “And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others?
Ah, so it seems that trans-gendered people are considered some sort of special class, and they have legal protections beyond what the general population enjoys. That would explain the outcomes of the recent bakery lawsuits.
The suit in Oregon, in which a Christian baker refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, resulting the baker having the pay a $135,000 in damages.
The suit in Denver, in which a pro-gay rights bakery refused to bake a cake that carried bible verses, was dismissed after the judge ruled that bible verses were considered "derogatory language and imagery".
Given these results, it is little wonder that some states are moving to protect those that suffer from the disparate impact of these Federal decisions.
Which verses? I know a few that any rational person wouldn’t want to put on a cake.
More general question: have any of the cake lawsuits actually involved “gay” writing/messages on the cakes? As others have noted above, I have never seen a wedding cake with the couple’s names on it (or anything else).
You do not get to decide arbitrarily if you are harmed by another’s religious beliefs. The harm you are stating has to do with the stopping of a person from doing something. Since there are other wedding cake bakeries, one is not overtly harmed by being denied a wedding cake by one baker who has a certain religious belief.
Said another way, you do not have the right make someone engage in an activity that they expressly do not believe in. And making a wedding cake for a gay marriage would do just that for some people - make them partake, evening ancillary, in something they do not believe in.
The video below explains pretty straightforwardly the difference between discrimination and trying to make someone engage in an activity they do not believe in. And I bet you that no one lawsuit is going to be filed here. Why? Because the guy in the video, while only being instructive, knew he was not harmed as there are other bakeries he was directed toward to get his cake.
What if he doesn’t share the information? Then the baker just accepted a job from an adulterer. Not because the sin wasn’t there, but only because it was a sin he couldn’t see.
“Right. “God is dead” would be anathema to his faith, so it is not a message he would want to or should be forced to create on his cakes, and that right of refusal should be protected. So is the SSM message to this same Christian baker, who is consistent. That is a fair argument.”
I don’t believe they are one and the same because “God is dead” might be hate speech to a religious person. But I will leave that up to a court to decide,
Happy Wedding Mary and Sue is not hate speech - nor is it an explicit reference to religion.
Here is an example of hate speech and the baker did not have to inscribe the cake with it.