world

U.S. Supreme Court to hear case of transgender bathroom policy

11 Comments
By MARK SHERMAN and ALANNA DURKIN RICHER

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

11 Comments
Login to comment

They argue that such rules are necessary to safeguard privacy and traditional values.

Oh please...if privacy is so important, why don't you mind your own business? And if traditional values mean discriminating for no good reason, we don't want them.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

The very idea of transgender toilet being enforced by the Federal government is a major distraction to begin with. It is nothing but a ploy by the Administration to take public attention away from the real problems the entire country was and still is facing in the educational system. It also forced not only school administrators, but teachers, students, parents, politicians, attorneys,and many many more to get involved and spend time and money on a controversial issue that will take years to resolve, taking millions of dollars away from areas that probably could be used for getting real results educationally and economically.

Meanwhile, time and money wasted. However it has started and because it gave voice to the transgender group (a minority), that has enlarged the problems and issues with sexual and racial discrimination and how to accommodate "differences". That added to the already "divisive" issues that "divides" the nation as a whole.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

It is nothing but a ploy by the Administration to take public attention away from the real problems the entire country was and still is facing in the educational system.

The Administration is doing this? How do they control the Supreme Court? (Honest question)

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Contrary to what the virtue signallers would have us believe, the Supreme Court should not be involving itself in the business of legislating morality. Let communities make laws and those laws will reflect the values of those communities; communal bathrooms and all.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Contrary to what the virtue signallers would have us believe, the Supreme Court should not be involving itself in the business of legislating morality.

Some people's morals say black people shouldn't be allowed to ride on the front of the bus. Would you say that this is not a topic for the Supreme Court? Should it be left for communities to decide where on the bus black people should be allowed to ride?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Good old Republicans protecting family values, like cottaging with a Wide Stance in the men's room. Trump's candidacy may be insane but even he doesn't have a problem with this. Yet....

2 ( +3 / -1 )

This case is for schools that have both girls and boys bathrooms. This will be expanded to cases for businesses that caters to both genders. In some business, people rush to nearest bathroom disregarding male, female sign. It will be confused if Morales are involved in any decision.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kazetsukaiOCT. 29, 2016 - 07:28PM JST The very idea of transgender toilet being enforced by the Federal government is a major distraction to begin with. It is nothing but a ploy by the Administration to take public attention away from the real problems the entire country was and still is facing in the educational system.

Or to put it another way, it doesn't affect people like you personally, therefore you've decided it's not important. Because the problems of people who aren't exactly like you just don't matter, amirite?

But hey, speaking of distractions, isn't it kinda odd how there's this one guy who openly brags about sexually assaulting women and the GOP wants to put him behind the most powerful desk in the world, meanwhile transsexuals have been declared a sexual assault threat by the same GOP despite there not being a shred of evidence that they would harm anyone if just allowed to use the bathroom that matches their gender?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Strangerland

Equating the two is a non sequitur argument. It does not automatically follow that a black person's right to be on that bus means the highest court in the land should be involved in determining who gets to use the John and under what circumstances. Going by your logic, necrophiliacs and animal lovers also deserve a place in the sun and their day in court, sport.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Quite frankly the only true way to resolve this is to just say that all bathroom are unisex and that both male and females can use the exact same bathroom at the same time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Evidence of a grossly intolerant society.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites