Article: Hobby Lobby's TS Employee Problem

[Carolyn Marie]

http://www.newsweek.com/transgender-rights-case-against-hobby-lobby-no-ones-talking-about-257362

Carolyn Marie

[Guest ashleynikole]

I think Hobby Lobby is going to have their butt handed to them on that one because they can't pick and choose how they see her. They can't say she's female everywhere but the bathroom. Then ultimately they'll start looking for other violations to let her go under. I know not everyone can do it, but I am so glad that I work for myself. I've never liked relying on other people and maybe that's a blessing for me. I pray for those who are not as fortunate.

This is tough

Ashley

[JJ]

Hobby Lobby has a long history of bringing religion into the operation of their business. They aren't open on Sunday, and many stores refuse to carry anything with dragons or even fairies as being satanic or pagan. It does vary some from store to store but across the board they are in the religious conservative camp. At least in their case-unlike some other companies-they follow through and don't preach against LGBT while breaking every other commandment they can get away with.

This is a hard case for everyone. What rights does a business owner have to follow his conscience? And yet how do you also make sure heretofore oppressed minorities of any kind have equal opportunities. I am not a fan of Hobby Lobby policies and I would never consider working for them either.

With most companies something that will have an economic impact works-but Hobby Lobby has shown itself to be willing to take an economic hit-by closing Sundays and refusing to carry popular items it feels are immoral. And we also lack the numbers to have any economic impact unless we educate the public and motivate them to come to our side. I suspect this case will be sidestepped and drawn out for a long time.

Perhaps the standard to use would be if a company received public funding-Federal, state or local-they could be required to comply with serving all people equally including recognizing legal gender. And there is a whole ball of wax there as well. The last thing we want is laws that we can only use the bathrooms of our legal gender when some are still required to live full time before a gender can be legally changed-and some can never change gender legally because of their situation. My legal gender is still female but if I walked into a women's restroom or dressing room with my beard stubble and male appearance I'd be arrested or escorted off the premises. Yet there are not enough of us out there to justify building separate restrooms and this is a big hot button issue for everyone.

Hard to know the best path except education till we are no longer seen as a threat. So people see us as the human beings just trying to our best that we are instead of the myths they fear

Johnny

[Ravin]

Well, their recent case won't help them. RFRA hasn't been enforced against the states, and the violation by Hobby Lobby of her rights is going up through the state labor discrimination avenues. Additionally, the weight of precedent is that religious rights don't trump basic public accommodations civil rights protection.

In the end, like the article says, Hobby Lobby can't arbitrarily treat her as female for some legal purposes (insurance, employee records, dress code) and male for others (restroom). Doing that is discriminatory.

If they've gotten sufficient evidence, she may have a good case. I hope she prevails.

[Guest LizMarie]

Ashley, I hope you are right but the way the supreme court has turned in several decisions over the last few years concerns me. From Citizens United to Hobby Lobby, the court is doing strange and harmful things to individuals, all in favor of corporations "as people", which is nonsensical.

If this is decided and then not appealed, she may win. But I fully expect Hobby Lobby to fight for their bigotry as far as they can take it.

[Drea]

Yet another bathroom demand.

Nothing unique about Hobby Lobby that isn't happening in many other organizations.

As states have relaxed requirements to get markers changed it has turned into an entitlement for access to women's spaces even though access was never based what one's gender marker was. For that matter gender markers mean't something at one time. That time is clearly past.

As a medical condition I feel they are obviously required to provide reasonable accommodation. I don't know if they have tried.

Like the gay marriage I expect the fight will continue to segregated spaces of any kind are a thing of the past. It has been happening with changing areas in stores (walmart being a prime example) as they configure them such that trans can use without upsetting their non-trans customer. Doing things like having unisex individual changing stalls or like with warmart having some labeled nominally mens and others women but all opening on a common central area.

[Charlize]

I'm afraid that having unisex or single occupancy bathrooms for us is the same as having "separate but equal" schools and water fountains. We are involved in a civil rights struggle which is perhaps made even harder because many of us "pass for white". The simple act af going to the bathroom in the men's or ladies room should not be a crime. The problem is not directed at our FTM brothers as much as our MTF sisters simply because of the fact that men are so often seen as aggressors. I know that for me, at this point, i perceive the men's room as a dangerous place.

What i find most disturbing is how a corporation can impose religious values upon it's employes. I somehow doubt that the courts would force women to wear Islamic head scarves if their employer felt they should for religious reasons.

Sorry about the rant.

Hugs,

Charlize

[Drea]

I'm afraid that having unisex or single occupancy bathrooms for us is the same as having "separate but equal" schools and water fountains.

This argument actually supports my assertion as to why segregated men's and women's spaces will become a thing of the past in favor of unisex and single seat facilities. After all this separate but equal rooms for men and women is a long term form of discrimination.

Nothing in what I said applied to just trans using the unisex and single stall facilities, my statement was that mens and womens rooms would be eliminated and reconfigured into just individual stalls. There would be no "mens" or "womens" room. Just a bunch of single rooms opening to a common very public area. The stalls would be labeled unisex or maybe with a nominal designation of men on some and women on others but whatever the nominal designation they will be single stall rooms so nobody ever has to feel anyone else's imposition in their space. Thus trans and non-trans alike can chose whatever room they identify with and nobody will really care. There is no separate but equal about it.

I suppose tho that the separate but equal argument can be used to reject the nominal designations so I was wrong and that even the nominal designations would be unfair so the eventual conclusion is that all will be just be unisex.

Makes you wonder why some radical feminist folks have issues with trans women when trans women are out there breaking down the barriers and doing such a good job at bringing a close the segregation keeping women in seprate spaces.

[JJ]

You won't see anything like unisex bathrooms become the norm here in the mountain South -nor I believe in the rest of the South or much of the Midwest. Where there are family or unisex restrooms here they are they last ones used when nothing else is open. Men feel uncomfortable in a woman's space that way and women feel repulsed somehow in men's space from all I have heard said by cis people on the subject. Between the genders the bathroom actually is seen as utilitarian-get in and get out-for men and for women a social place to relax and check clothing makeup even chat privately with friends and neither gender is comfortable with the approach of the other.

In some large areas of the country the culture is very different and changes very slowly.

Johnny

[Carolyn Marie]

The City of West Hollywood is considering an ordinance that would require all new single occupancy restrooms to be unisex. Although I know it happens, I can't see why anyone would object to a trans-person using whichever single occupancy restroom they wanted to use. If no one else is in there, how could it possibly matter who is using it? Sheesh!

Clearly, the major battle lines involve multi-user public restrooms. I don't see a quick and easy resolution to that issue. We're making slow progress, but slow is the key word.

Carolyn Marie

[Guest KimberlyF]

I don't see the bathrooms being a war that will ever be own or resolved as too many people have ideas on what winning looks like. And that's just among Trans.

Some see a single bathroom as the answer. Some see that as a loss of their identity.

Some are happy with the designation of a third gender. Some see that as othering.

To make everyone happy with the options, they'd almost have to have as many different bathroom combos as Facebook has gender options. And that wouldn't make taxpayers or business owners too happy, not to mention the lack of practicality.

The only possible solution I can see is as above...individual stalls for everyone. Then every individual is treated the same.

[Ravin]

I actually think there should be more unisex family/handicap restrooms, but more for the benefit of parents with opposite-gender children and adults who need assistance of a caregiver in the restroom who may not always be the same gender.

In some places, such restrooms are mandatory as part of the public accommodations laws for disabilities.

I've found them very helpful to me in the betwixt and between stage, but long-term once someone has transitioned and "reached their destination" at least as far as whatever practical holding pattern (HRT, whatevs), it shouldn't be expected or required that someone use such a restroom.