Maine Court says Banning Men from Using the Ladies Room is Discrimination

sochi-bathrooms-1.jpg_274898881

That’s not just the literal meaning of the ruling which states that a Maine school forbidding a boy who claims that his gender identity is that of a girl from using the bathroom is discrimination, but also the practical effect of the ruling which uses discrimination law to argue that, effectively, gender segregated bathrooms are illegal.

The school directed Maines, the boy in question, to use the staff bathroom, after complaints by family members of students.

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court on Thursday reversed a lower court’s decision that banned a transgender boy from using the girls’ bathroom in Orono schools.

In a 5-1 decision, the justices said that Superior Court Justice William Anderson erred when he ruled in favor of what is now Riverside RSU 26.

The Chief Justice dissented by pointing out the obvious implications of this ridiculous decision.

[T]he Court has concluded, as it must based on the statutes, that discrimination in the public accommodation of communal bathrooms is prohibited based on sexual orientation. The statute requiring that result also prohibits discrimination based simply on “sex.”

Thus, the next logical step given the Court’s inevitable interpretation of the existing statute is, as the dissent points out, the assertion that access to the public accommodation of designated communal bathrooms cannot be denied based on a person’s sex.

Put simply, it could now be argued that it would be illegal discrimination for a restaurant, for example, to prohibit a man from using the women’s communal bathroom, and vice versa.

That’s exactly the outcome. The idiotic logic of discrimination law has led us step by step to this point. If any form of separation is illegal, then so are gender segregated bathrooms.

We’ve gone from lunch counter equality to bathroom equality.

Justice Mead points out that,

The broad principle established by the Court’s interpretation of the MHRA is that access to multiple-user public bathrooms may not be denied based upon sexual orientation. That principle, by implication, applies equally to the other categories enumerated in the MHRA.

Specifically, it means that no person may be denied access to a public bathroom in a school or other place of public accommodation on the basis of their race, color, physical or mental disability, religion, ancestry, national origin, or sex. Thus, the MHRA, as construed by the Court today, prevents the denial of access to any public bathroom on the basis of a  person’s sex.

Obviously this result is an extraordinary departure from the well-established custom that public bathrooms are typically segregated by sex.

Ah, but that custom is discriminatory. It also offends transgender men who hate being reminded that they aren’t really women.

  • CaoMoo

    Wow just wow… lowest common denominator society here we come

  • Tam

    It seems my dear late mother was correct: Common sense isn’t as common as you’d think.

  • Race_Dissident

    Now I think I know how Soviet citizens felt in 1924. Lunacy is no longer something enacted in the privacy of one’s own home, but is the stock in trade of the government and the law of the land. If I had the means, I would be looking upon foreign shores.

    • laura r

      i have a friend who is a diehard marxist, lives in europe. we were discussing PC. he said “stalin would turn in his grave”…..

    • Mo Doggie

      Thailand.

  • laura r

    i saw this coming down the pike. i commented on several related articals. so here we are. UN fortunatly every awful thing i think of comes true. the writting has been on the walls. will refrain from my next prediction. i think we had enough this week.

  • laura r

    rapes will be commonplace etc. when will NYC have this law? guess we can not dine in restuarnts, dont go to dept stores, malls. go to restuarants that have a bathrms for one person only, then you lock it. as for the workplace, i have no answers. this is also a way to fine businesses, & a lawsuit op for discrimination. stay home. bathrooms will be the new assault centers.

  • laura r

    where will muslims go to the bath room? or will they have their seperate facilities? there will be one bathrom for us, 2 for them. ok thats my prediction for today. maine forgot about islam.

  • truebearing

    When will white women be arrested for declining the sexual advances of a black man? That is discrimination according to this insane interpretation. When will straight men be arrested for refusing homosexual advances? Don’t assume it won’t happen.

    How did “discrimination” come to mean something that is socially repugnant? In the past, discrimination was considered an essential aspect of good decision making. It was part of good judgement, as in girls and boys going to separate bathrooms, without even having to be told.

    • Softly Bob

      In the last series of the reality TV crap Big Brother UK, one of the female contestants was discussing with another girl her taste in men. She said that she didn’t fancy Black men.
      She was actually asked to go to the diary room and given an official warning for being racist.
      This is no joke.

  • cheechakos

    OWS dispensed with bathrooms and used the street. That will probably be the next goal of the regressives.
    There are already groups of liberals trying to get pedophilia removed from mental illness classifications and bestiality “naturalized”.
    Democrats are dragging us into a bottomless pit of depravity

    • laura r

      coed public bathrooms will be a place for street hookers to bring their customers. coed bathrooms will be a place for rapists to look for victims. divide & conquer, weaken the population.

    • laura r

      what is OWS? maybe bathrooms should be banned all together? why not?

  • ModdKenwood

    it’s discrimination if I can’t walk into the home of a stranger

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Absolutely. All we have to do is define everyone’s home as a public accommodation.

      • laura r

        WHAT ABOUT THE MAN IN AZ WHO WAS SUED BY 40 MEXICANS WHEN HE ASKED THEM TO GET OFF HIS PROPERTY?? $200,000 usd they won. check it out.

    • Mo Doggie

      it has gotten pretty close to that in South Africa.