Transgender Toilet Equality: The Civil Rights Issue Of Our Time, Or Much Ado About Nothing?

There is a LGBT “community,” and a LGBT “mob,” and it is an important difference. One is looking for rights, and the other is looking to punish those who disagree with them. Take the LGBT marriage issue as one example. The LGBT community wants marital rights and recognition, and the LGBT “mob” wants the marriage title and for any church, bakery, or wedding planner that disagrees with them to be coerced into meeting their demands.

The issue of same-sex oriented people going into the bathroom that matches their genitalia is not questioned, and is not argued in any part of our civil society. The “T” in the LGBT is another story.

In North Carolina, they held a vote on a “non-discriminatory” ordinance that allegedly was meant to bring the LGBT community’s rights in line with heterosexual rights, according to the Charlotte Observer. On the surface, it seems like an obvious decision, but the Pandora’s box it opens is something different entirely.

Employers should be able to decide whether they are okay with a man in a dress and wig selling women’s clothing, and businesses should be able to stop a person from wandering into bathroom they chose to go in. Yes, the ordinance alleged on page 3 that “Only people who are actually transgender are protected by this law. This law in no way protects people who pretend to be the opposite gender.”

How would one determine this? The businesses have more important things to do that policing whether someone is “pretending” or are honestly transgender. If a business feels strongly about this, they can make that decision.

The issue comes down to this: Why should a business be forced to allow a transgender person into the opposite bathroom than biologically are, or subject patrons to a similar burden? Bathrooms are only as public as a business allows. Equality has nothing to do with access.

Should you force all businesses to allow bathrooms to everyone, customer or otherwise, whether they like it or not, in the name of “bathroom equality”?

Any LGBT person should not be discriminated against, or abused for their beliefs, no more than anyone else. The ‘T’ of LGBT, should not either, but the War of Words makes all of this confusing. It is the wording that everything goes too broad, and too sweeping. It allows far too much interpretation. Politicians, LGBT ‘mobs,’ or anyone else with nefarious purposes uses this intentionally to discredit those who can read between the lines.

A church should not have to marry either orientation, nor should Christians who own a wedding company or bakery should have to serve them if they do not want to.

There are many bakeries, and even churches, that will choose to serve LGBT regardless. That does not mean that anyone has a right to whatever they want, or whomever’s businesses or services that they want. Page 5 suggests the opposite.

“The public accommodations ordinance says that 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 national origin.”

(Unfortunately both sides, NC Values and Qnotes(LGBT group), do not include the entire ordinance. The above is copied from the full text, but conveniently it no longer seems to be online.)

Again, you do not have the right to other people’s things, which includes bathrooms. It is a matter of “private property rights,” and not a matter of LGBT discrimination or equality.

For some reason, no matter how many civil rights or equality wars we win, we rearrange the chess pieces and start over again. Controlling human thought, short of a 1985 “thought police” action, is not a possible way to stamp out prejudices. It is all a matter of how we deal with those act on their preconceived opinions, notions, and prejudices.

There is an old adage that says “You can catch more flies with honey,” and a peaceful LGBT solution would be preferable than the constant warring between sexual orientations. It would not be unreasonable for a business to make a unisex bathroom, if they have the means and motivation. If they have one stall bathrooms, it should not be much of an issue, either. Some businesses already have unisex bathrooms.

Otherwise, as the Advocate pointed out, activists get unruly on one side or the other. This, of course, leads to poor decision-making. Then, as the Inquisitr reports, you end up with LGBT controversies at Planet Fitness, that lead to protecting situations that make women or men uncomfortable. Thus, inevitably leading to the uncomfortable person to be exiled. In this case, it was only a gym membership, and the full force of the behemoth of government was not behind the decision.

Most civil and LGBT rights movements have lost their way, and their meaning. Symbolism and the desire to coerce others into your beliefs beget more hatred, and further steps in a regressive direction. That is not only the opposite of the aforementioned goals, but it is the very antithesis of equality and civility among people with varying differences.

[Image Via Grosser Schlumpf/Creative Commons]