EEOC: It’s A Civil Rights Violation For Employers To Stop The Gender Confused From Using Whatever Bathroom They Want

As Erik Erickson noted several times on gay marriage and other issues, you will be made to care. You will not have a choice. It will be shoved down your throats, including by government. Your rights to privacy? Pfft

(ABA Journal)  It’s a civil rights violation to deny transgender employees access to a bathroom that comports with their gender identity, the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission stated in a fact sheet posted Monday.

The agency considers discrimination against transgender individuals to be sex discrimination, which is prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In a 2015 decision, the EEOC found that restricting transgender employees to single-user bathrooms was not an acceptable alternative for employers.

So, it’s not acceptable to offer a compromise, Everyone must be forced to comply with the problems of the tiny, tiny, tiny number of gender confused people out there. The mass majority must feel uncomfortable for the peccadilloes of others. What’s to stop someone with ill-intent from proclaiming they are TG that day, in order to use the opposite sex bathroom? Further, it’s interesting that Liberals proclaim they are the champions of women, yet will put them at risk for this idiocy.

North Carolina in March passed a law that requires transgender individuals to use public restrooms that match their biological gender, the Charlotte Observer reported. Private businesses and universities are not bound by the law.

Mississippi in April passed a similar law, according to the Washington Post, and the Observer reports that George, Indiana, Kentucky and West Virginia are considering transgender bathroom laws as well.

NC’s HB2 was in direct response to Charlotte forcing private businesses to cater to the gender confused. Liberals do not seem to like choice all that much, unless it is about aborting a baby.

Furthermore, it’s no wonder lawyers are interested in this: great material for lawsuits.

You will be made to care.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

10 Responses to “EEOC: It’s A Civil Rights Violation For Employers To Stop The Gender Confused From Using Whatever Bathroom They Want”

  1. Dana says:

    Our esteemed host wrote:

    So, it’s not acceptable to offer a compromise, Everyone must be forced to comply with the problems of the tiny, tiny, tiny number of gender confused people out there. The mass majority must feel uncomfortable for the peccadilloes of others. What’s to stop someone with ill-intent from proclaiming they are TG that day, in order to use the opposite sex bathroom? Further, it’s interesting that Liberals proclaim they are the champions of women, yet will put them at risk for this idiocy.

    The problem, you see, is that not every right equals every other right, and the ‘rights’ of the seriously f(ornicated) up in the head transgendered outweigh the rights of normal people. We are not supposed to think that taking care that the ‘transgendered’ don’t get their precious little feelings hurt could in any way raise the risks for normal women, and any news stories which point out the problems are simply meaningless anecdotes.

    The city of Houston, liberal enough to have twice elected an open lesbian as mayor, went off the deep end with the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, and opponents managed to get a repeal on the ballot. Had HERO not included the bathroom section, had HERO been an ordinance which protected homosexual rights without trampling on the rights of normal people, it would (probably) have been retained, and probably never even gotten on the ballot in the first place. Instead, Houstoners voted 61% in favor of repealing HERO.

    How big was that? In 2000, Texas Governor George Bush didn’t get 61% of the vote, statewide, against Al Gore, in 2008 John McCain didn’t get 61% of the vote, statewide, against Barack Hussein Obama, and in 2012, Mitt Romney didn’t get 61% of the vote against Mr Obama. In 2004, statewide, President Bush did get 61% against John François Kerry. And Houston is far more liberal than the state is as a whole.

  2. xtron says:

    let a few red neck women preforn the necessary “gender reassignment” operation in a couple of target bathrooms and see ho fast this “problem” goes away

  3. John says:

    The GOP loses voters on social issues please keep this issue alive at least until Nov
    Less than 200 days

  4. Jeffery says:

    And now the DOJ has also stepped in. McCrory plans to go down with the ship.

  5. Hank_M says:

    The GOP isn’t going to lose any voters over this stupidity John. This isn’t a social issue any rational person cares about. Which obviously explains why you and jeff embrace it so much.

    jeff, the DOJ is using title VII to go after NC. What part of title VII talks about letting men use womens rest rooms and showers?

  6. Jeffery says:

    Teach types:

    You will be made to care.

    Of course, no one can be made to care, but you will be made not to illegally discriminate against others.

    See the difference? You can think whatever you want, but your actions must be legal.

  7. Jeffery says:

    Which obviously explains why you and jeff embrace it so much.

    Why do you embrace discrimination?

    jeff, the DOJ is using title VII to go after NC. What part of title VII talks about letting men use womens rest rooms and showers?

    Read the complaint.

    What part of the 2nd Amendment talks about 30 round magazines?

  8. Jeffery says:

    Hankm,

    Here’s the DOJ letter to UNC (and cc to Gov McCrory):

    http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article75647942.ece/BINARY/Read:%20DOJ%20letter%20to%20UNC

    The DOJ explains that UNC may be in violation of Title IX and VAWA.

  9. Dana says:

    Jeffrey asked:

    What part of the 2nd Amendment talks about 30 round magazines?

    The part which says that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

  10. Hank_M says:

    Thanks jeff for the link.
    But isn’t this topic about NC and not UNC per the link that our host provided?
    That link specifically refers to Title VII.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9481 access attempts in the last 7 days.