Stopping Edu. Funds for Disabled Students over Bathroom Laws

[Risottia]

[What exactly did you think was going to happen when states knowingly violated federal education regulations? Do you believe that people should be entitled to receiving funding even if they break the rules that they were required to follow in exchange for that funding?

This.

Basically States like Texas are trying to do the equivalent of welfare leeching over this issue, and I wonder if it's the only one.

[Linux and the X]

I play Mono-white humans in MTG, it's OP as fuck

Only if I allow it. Dispel… Dispel… Deny Existence… Flash Mizzium Meddler… Yeah, sure, that resolves… Bolt, hold priority, Frozen Solid…

but yes, the state is to blame.

Which brings us back to "why do these states consider it more important to discriminate against trans people than to accept federal funding to help disabled students?"

[USS Monitor]

No. Actually, NC's law only allowed businesses to discriminate, but mandated it for schools and public agencies. Anyway, this doesn't only apply to NC. Please explain how enforcing the law is bullying.


No, the football jock committed a hate crime. That's ruining his own life, and ending someone else's.

either way due to a policy a region was not ready to embrace someone died and someone goes to jail... at what point does the state take responsibility for imposing policy upon a population which yields unfavorable results.

i have a friend currently suing the school district because their kid committed suicide due to bullying, the kid was on the spectrum and had a hard time socializing with other kids.

and you think something like this is not going to occur at an exponential rate among transgendered kids as it goes nationwide. what is acceptable how many are you willing to lose in your drive for equality? is one ok how about 20 or 100 kids, are they just sacrificial lambs or how would say collateral damage in this fight for rights?

Say no to bullying... when and where will this apply ? As long as you get your restroom who cares...

Any time someone disagrees with you, it obviously means they like watching children die!

[MFrost]

However this is going to go nationwide, and not to some small percentage of the general population. different areas have different cultural values, they also have different moral standards.
Are the bathrooms you are talking about monitored, under what conditions were the transgendered children allowed to use the restrooms? were they cleared out first or just adhoc usage?
What measures did the school take to protect not only the transgendered child but the other children potentially using this bathroom? Girls can be vicious too if they feel threatened.

Not as far as I know, not as far as I know, none as far as I know.
Yes, people can be vicious when they feel threatened... but as I said, so far there have been no recorded instances of sexual harrassment in schools perpetrated by trans students or cisgender students posing as trans in public schools that allowed trans students to use restrooms corresponding with their genders. If any cisgender girls feel threatened to the point of being violent by the mere presence of a trans girl in the restroom, in a context in which trans girls have, as far as we know, never sexually harrassed, abused or assaulted cisgender girls in school restrooms, then the trans girl in question is not the one to blame. Rather, it's the cisgender girl, and whoever convinced her that the mere presence of trans girls in the restroom was dangerous.

i am stating the above because the directive exponentially and dramatically increases the odds of an adverse event occurring especially if a school does not take proper precautions. This is not limited to just non-transgender students. But is inclusive of transgender students being targeted, bullied, beat up.

As far as I know, no jurisdictions that allowed trans students to use the school restrooms that corresponded with their gender faced an "exponential" or "dramatic" increase in adverse events. And as for trans students being targeted... trans people do already face a lot of harrassment, abuse and assault, but as far as I can tell their access to their gender's restroom has not played any part in making this worse. And forcing them to use the wrong restroom, and forcibly outing them, if they were not out to their fellow students already, is not going to make things better.

Do you honestly think the football jock down south in Texas or in the bible belt is going to let some transgender kid walk into the bathroom his cheerleader girlfriend just walked into?

Do you think the same football jock is going to act civil towards a trans girl in the men's restroom?

give it a moments thought what is the culture like down there, how were they raised, what are their morals and beliefs? Putting yourself in that persons shoes or just picturing it from the outside looking in, what do you think is about to happen. A happy go for it slap on the back or something else? So when some transgender kid winds up dead because of this who will the parents look to for enforcing this policy and setting their kid up? It must be safe the school said it was ok to do so... the policy just destroyed the lives of two kids because of cultural indifference.

So... your argument is that attempts to end institutional discrimination against trans youth are more dangerous to trans people than transphobic policies, and should be abandoned in exchange for... what?

I honestly do not feel this directive was well thought out.

No offense, but I honestly do not feel your position on this matter was well thought out. Your argument is built upon the expectation of an extreme, widespread and malevolent reaction to any inclusive policies.

Transphobic people will do horrible things. They have been doing horrible things since long before anti-discrimination policies were put in place. They have mocked, vilified and smeared trans people in the worst ways. They have harrassed, abused and assaulted them, often with impunity. When they could not find a real instance of trans students abusing anti-discrimination policies, they made them up.

who i am is unimportant to the discussion, just new member who found this to be an interesting topic.

Alright.

like i said in my very first post if the gov truly feels this strongly about this issue, have them pay for the proper infrastructure and put it in place at the schools state and federal facilities
i go to the beach here and there bathroom and shower stalls are all single person use. there is no discrimination, the bathroom is used by whomever is next in line or as they become available. there is no diclosure of sexual identity, preference, or leaning. The whole thing remains neutral as it should be. I travel to London and Paris or even Australia and it is the same thing single person use bathrooms. Even the hostels were setup that way. Yet in America to save a few buck they made it a communal area. Now we have this "Bathroom Crisis". It really is not rocket science. if you want something then setup your infrastructure to accomplish your goal with the minimal impact. Yet we have to have this political issue about it.

Doing this in schools under the current environment is asking for trouble. if done in areas where there is already a sustained level of tolerance you are going to be ok. however sticking ones head in the sand and thinking this level of tolerance is going to go over well across the entire nation and those who do not accept it will just have to take it in silence is a fools recipe to me. oh boo hoo to those intolerant bastards who can not figure out anti-discrimination laws is all great and good until it bites back. what you do not know is how hard it is going to bite back.

you are dealing with pre-adolescent and adolescent kids. you can tell all about not get pregnant or dangers of drugs and alcohol even admonish them if you catch them with a cigarette. you beg them to clean their room or do their homework. bribe them for better grade. Pragmatically you need to sit back and let them figure it out, they are going to do whatever it is they are going to do,and there is not much a parent can truly do about it. they can guide, counsel, provide the pros, and cons even the long term vision but that final decision still belongs to them. This directive is one hell of a curve ball to be throwing into the mix. you, me or anyone else trying to figure what will happen next I can guarantee does not have a clue. we can speculate based on history, based on the values and morals in a given region, but at the end of the day the kids themselves are going to have to figure it out. Will there be mishaps along the way i say yes most likely, the world is not perfect and happy paths rarely go as planned.

My question is how many mishaps when forced upon an unwilling population? perhaps it is zero and everyone walks away happy, but i doubt this very much, you seem to be thinking history will prove you right and it will happy sunshine with no mishaps all the way to the finish line. to which i say good luck with those rose colored glasses.

[Linux and the X]

like i said in my very first post if the gov truly feels this strongly about this issue, have them pay for the proper infrastructure and put it in place at the schools state and federal facilities

There's not any additional infrastructure needed.

[MFrost]

like i said in my very first post if the gov truly feels this strongly about this issue, have them pay for the proper infrastructure and put it in place at the schools state and federal facilities

There's not any additional infrastructure needed.

why not it eliminates the potential for discrimination altogether. unless the person is blatantly calling for attention to themselves no knows or cares.

[Linux and the X]

There's not any additional infrastructure needed.

why not it eliminates the potential for discrimination altogether. unless the person is blatantly calling for attention to themselves no knows or cares.

As you point out, converting all restrooms to single-user is expensive.

[USS Monitor]

i go to the beach here and there bathroom and shower stalls are all single person use. there is no discrimination, the bathroom is used by whomever is next in line or as they become available. there is no diclosure of sexual identity, preference, or leaning. The whole thing remains neutral as it should be. I travel to London and Paris or even Australia and it is the same thing single person use bathrooms. Even the hostels were setup that way. Yet in America to save a few buck they made it a communal area. Now we have this "Bathroom Crisis". It really is not rocket science. if you want something then setup your infrastructure to accomplish your goal with the minimal impact. Yet we have to have this political issue about it.

I've traveled internationally, too, and you're full of shit. There are gendered bathrooms in London.

[MFrost]

i go to the beach here and there bathroom and shower stalls are all single person use. there is no discrimination, the bathroom is used by whomever is next in line or as they become available. there is no diclosure of sexual identity, preference, or leaning. The whole thing remains neutral as it should be. I travel to London and Paris or even Australia and it is the same thing single person use bathrooms. Even the hostels were setup that way. Yet in America to save a few buck they made it a communal area. Now we have this "Bathroom Crisis". It really is not rocket science. if you want something then setup your infrastructure to accomplish your goal with the minimal impact. Yet we have to have this political issue about it.

I've traveled internationally, too, and you're full of shit. There are gendered bathrooms in London.

of course but quite a few places where public access was expected, vs private business were single use.

I'm just pointing to a solution do you have a different one other than just suck it up too efin bad if you disagree with my lifestyle.

because i can guarantee there are other lifestyles out there in the world that you would vehemently disagree with.

[MFrost]

why not it eliminates the potential for discrimination altogether. unless the person is blatantly calling for attention to themselves no knows or cares.

As you point out, converting all restrooms to single-user is expensive.

however it can be done, it has its benefits too not least of which is privacy for all including transgender people. it minimizes the possibility of those who would capitalize on this policy for intentions other than what it was designed for. I'm not saying transgendered people are dangerous this i believe is where you are assuming and reading me incorrectly. i am pointing out there are elements within the human mix which will care less about transgender or non-transgender and see opportunities. Granted those same opportunities exited before however distinguishing a transgendered person from an opportunistic predator is going to be a bit harder. At a distance today seeing a male figure entering a woman's bathroom would send down red flags and potential calls to 911. In the future where this is the norm that 911 call never occurs. Single use bathrooms mitigate this to some extent and poses a similar situation of being seen and caught to someone looking for an opportunity.

I know if ever i build a facility it will have single use bathrooms. This can easily be added to new building codes, the same way handicap bathrooms were added. Retrofitting or upgrading a building to bring it up to code, then guess what it gets new bathrooms too. if the building needs 4 stalls then each has its own door no signs needed denominating which sex can use which bathroom.

[Linux and the X]

This can easily be added to new building codes, the same way handicap bathrooms were added.

Accessible toilets provide an actual benefit. Mandating all restrooms be single-occupancy does not.

[Gauthier]

Crotch Police. Brought to you by the Party of Small Government.

[MFrost]

This can easily be added to new building codes, the same way handicap bathrooms were added.

Accessible toilets provide an actual benefit. Mandating all restrooms be single-occupancy does not.

it solves the problem of people having a phobia when an opposite sex person enters a restroom normally designated for their own sex. i see you also ignored the mitigation of opportunistic aspects which could be leveraged by those with intentions other than what the policy was designed for. That pesky unintended consequence of oh my how could we have possibly have known it would be leveraged in such a way. Very much like oh my how could we have known insurance companies were going to raise their rates if we mandate all Americans to buy insurance ... well duh. boingy boingy boingy down the happy rabbit trail we go...

[Gauthier]

Accessible toilets provide an actual benefit. Mandating all restrooms be single-occupancy does not.

it solves the problem of people having a phobia when an opposite sex person enters a restroom normally designated for their own sex. i see you also ignored the mitigation of opportunistic aspects which could be leveraged by those with intentions other than what the policy was designed for. That pesky unintended consequence of oh my how could we have possibly have known it would be leveraged in such a way. Very much like oh my how could we have known insurance companies were going to raise their rates if we mandate all Americans to buy insurance ... well duh. boingy boingy boingy down the happy rabbit trail we go...

No, single occupancy restrooms will create a backlog of people wanting to use them, some of whom will take out their frustrations on transsexuals for "forcing" the switch to single occupancy restrooms.

[MFrost]

Crotch Police. Brought to you by the Party of Small Government.

completely unnecessary just encode single occupancy bathrooms into the building codes for facilities expecting public access, problem solved and done with.

[MFrost]

it solves the problem of people having a phobia when an opposite sex person enters a restroom normally designated for their own sex. i see you also ignored the mitigation of opportunistic aspects which could be leveraged by those with intentions other than what the policy was designed for. That pesky unintended consequence of oh my how could we have possibly have known it would be leveraged in such a way. Very much like oh my how could we have known insurance companies were going to raise their rates if we mandate all Americans to buy insurance ... well duh. boingy boingy boingy down the happy rabbit trail we go...

No, single occupancy restrooms will create a backlog of people wanting to use them, some of whom will take out their frustrations on transsexuals for "forcing" the switch to single occupancy restrooms.

not necessarily if it is coded right based on expected volumes of people accessing a facility or event. I do not see people getting bent out of shape at the beach or when i go to a ren-fair and they provide porta potties. it is amatter of measuring it out correctly. If you were going to provide 10 stalls between a male and female restroom then all you are essentially doing is extending the stall walls to cover from floor to ceiling vs. a a partial covering. Same hardware is going in and same initial plumping going in so what is the addition cost a little more drywall and the difference between a stall door and a regular door? i do not see this costing a fortune and quite easy to do.

[Val Halla]

Wait so apparently allowing trans people to use the correct bathroom is ableist discrimination? Lolwut.

[Lunalia]

It's nothing more than bullying and pure extortion. Can we get a law passed to keep the feds from pulling this kind of shit? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the bathroom rule only apply to private businesses? There's a simple solution. If you don't like segregated bathrooms, DON'T SHOP AT STORES THAT HAVE THEM. Why is that so difficult?

So would you agree that if someone gets hired to do a job, and then complains that they don't want to do some of the things in their employment contract, they should continue to be paid? Possibly saying that they have disabled children so they shouldn't lose their job, in spite of the fact that they aren't doing it?
Because that's really what this is. States agree to not enact discrimination laws. In return, states receive education funding. The lack of discriminatory laws is the condition that allows them to get the funding in the first place. It sucks that the legislators consider the disabled children worth sacrificing to make a discriminatory point, but... blaming the feds for the legislators' heartlessness is dumb.

not necessarily if it is coded right based on expected volumes of people accessing a facility or event. I do not see people getting bent out of shape at the beach or when i go to a ren-fair and they provide porta potties. it is amatter of measuring it out correctly. If you were going to provide 10 stalls between a male and female restroom then all you are essentially doing is extending the stall walls to cover from floor to ceiling vs. a a partial covering. Same hardware is going in and same initial plumping going in so what is the addition cost a little more drywall and the difference between a stall door and a regular door? i do not see this costing a fortune and quite easy to do.

Men use urinals, women don't. Urinals take up less space than toilets, and they're faster to use (apparently, because no door to open and close). Switching from separate men's and women's bathroom layouts to a single bathroom would most likely completely eliminate the urinals, which would result in increased time using the bathroom for men (and a lot of the time, men's convenience is considered more important than women's convenience when designing such things) and also decreased capacity because again, urinals take up less space.

[MFrost]

super cheap 60 for $7,500 i think most schools can find 60 parents to fork over $130 to meet the directive and keep their own sanity in the process
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Portable-Campin ... ingn-Room/

A truly concerned state governor and legislature could probably opt int something like this:
-- bingo instant compliance -- 60 showers for about 74K per high school or middle school. teacher assigned so there is fighting over I prefer the one on the corner or shower 12 is closer to my locker.
150k includes 60 single occupancy bathrooms, we can even go eco friendly and make them composting toilets
http://www.allsafetyproducts.com/fleet- ... th=820_518

for those who just want luxury or a much longer term solution...
http://www.rentapotty.net/shower-trailer-rentals.html
price unknown but in bulk it may get into an affordable range.

buy a few trailers per school and then have teachers assign a trailer to each student. i.e. Amy trailer A Shower #1 / Bobby trailer B shower #3
-- trailers are assigned at teacher's discretion so there is no fighting on who gets what shower.
since they are all single occupancy and all with equal equipment without any form of gender assignment on the shower doors; wherein during one period a shower may be used by a male and in the next period used by a female a teacher can comply with the directive and not worry about being sued for discrimination. unless of course some student feels they are being treated unfairly due to not getting the corner shower and his religion demands he uses only showers located in a corner.

I think I may send these out to the governors of Arkansas, North Carolina, and Texas, just so they can laugh at Obama as they turn his directive into a non-issue. gimme my federal money and go back to playing golf Mr. President. -- Just tired of all the BS and need to stir up trouble this admin likes to do. lets go out and ruffle a few feathers and watch them lose their minds over who uses a toilet. just think it thru and it becomes a complete non-issue and whatever wind in the sails this president was hoping for gets taken away. Why play it by their rules, and expectations, just change the approach and say "what you thought was going to be a problem?" silly Obama go back to the drawing board and try again.

[MFrost]

It's nothing more than bullying and pure extortion. Can we get a law passed to keep the feds from pulling this kind of shit? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the bathroom rule only apply to private businesses? There's a simple solution. If you don't like segregated bathrooms, DON'T SHOP AT STORES THAT HAVE THEM. Why is that so difficult?

So would you agree that if someone gets hired to do a job, and then complains that they don't want to do some of the things in their employment contract, they should continue to be paid? Possibly saying that they have disabled children so they shouldn't lose their job, in spite of the fact that they aren't doing it?
Because that's really what this is. States agree to not enact discrimination laws. In return, states receive education funding. The lack of discriminatory laws is the condition that allows them to get the funding in the first place. It sucks that the legislators consider the disabled children worth sacrificing to make a discriminatory point, but... blaming the feds for the legislators' heartlessness is dumb.

actually the courts have ruled it was ok for muslim truck drivers to refuse to deliver alcohol even though they were hired to deliver alcohol. i.e. to fire them over refusing to do the job they were hired to do was considered discrimination

http://www.snopes.com/obama-muslim-truc ... s-lawsuit/

not necessarily if it is coded right based on expected volumes of people accessing a facility or event. I do not see people getting bent out of shape at the beach or when i go to a ren-fair and they provide porta potties. it is amatter of measuring it out correctly. If you were going to provide 10 stalls between a male and female restroom then all you are essentially doing is extending the stall walls to cover from floor to ceiling vs. a a partial covering. Same hardware is going in and same initial plumping going in so what is the addition cost a little more drywall and the difference between a stall door and a regular door? i do not see this costing a fortune and quite easy to do.

Men use urinals, women don't. Urinals take up less space than toilets, and they're faster to use (apparently, because no door to open and close). Switching from separate men's and women's bathroom layouts to a single bathroom would most likely completely eliminate the urinals, which would result in increased time using the bathroom for men (and a lot of the time, men's convenience is considered more important than women's convenience when designing such things) and also decreased capacity because again, urinals take up less space.

add an extra stall, design the building correctly to begin with. you seem to be grasping at straw trying to find excuses as to why single occupancy would not work. yet it is an elegant solution and it negates the political fight everyone might be hoping for. Why fight just solve the problem and make everyone happy this whole thing in my mind is a non-issue when approached correctly. schools can comply regardless of the morals and values or perceived phobias and get their federal funding. they just go single occupancy, with temporary trailer if need be in the beginning.

I am sure there are contractors who would provide the schools a discounted price just so their daughters can be safe and have the school meet whatever compliance directive Obama wants to throw at them. It just takes the teeth and ridicule out of the equation, sorry not this time, should be the message back to obama. your hope for some idiotic fight over who can use a toilet is truly a non-issue.

[Neutraligon]

So would you agree that if someone gets hired to do a job, and then complains that they don't want to do some of the things in their employment contract, they should continue to be paid? Possibly saying that they have disabled children so they shouldn't lose their job, in spite of the fact that they aren't doing it?
Because that's really what this is. States agree to not enact discrimination laws. In return, states receive education funding. The lack of discriminatory laws is the condition that allows them to get the funding in the first place. It sucks that the legislators consider the disabled children worth sacrificing to make a discriminatory point, but... blaming the feds for the legislators' heartlessness is dumb.

actually the courts have ruled it was ok for muslim truck drivers to refuse to deliver alcohol even though they were hired to deliver alcohol. i.e. to fire them over refusing to do the job they were hired to do was considered discrimination

http://www.snopes.com/obama-muslim-truc ... s-lawsuit/

Men use urinals, women don't. Urinals take up less space than toilets, and they're faster to use (apparently, because no door to open and close). Switching from separate men's and women's bathroom layouts to a single bathroom would most likely completely eliminate the urinals, which would result in increased time using the bathroom for men (and a lot of the time, men's convenience is considered more important than women's convenience when designing such things) and also decreased capacity because again, urinals take up less space.

add an extra stall, design the building correctly to begin with. you seem to be grasping at straw trying to find excuses as to why single occupancy would not work. yet it is an elegant solution and it negates the political fight everyone might be hoping for. Why fight just solve the problem and make everyone happy this whole thing in my mind is a non-issue when approached correctly. schools can comply regardless of the morals and values or perceived phobias and get their federal funding. they just go single occupancy, with temporary trailer if need be in the beginning.

I am sure there are contractors who would provide the schools a discounted price just so their daughters can be safe and have the school meet whatever compliance directive Obama wants to throw at them. It just takes the teeth and ridicule out of the equation, sorry not this time, should be the message back to obama. your hope for some idiotic fight over who can use a toilet is truly a non-issue.

You are aware how much more expensive single occupancy restrooms are right? Especially when it comes to how much space they take up? Oh as well as having to add in all those additional sinks and other plumbing. Oh and of course all the additional walls. Oh and that creates a problem for traffic flow through hallways which in turn creates other hazards. Multi-Stall rooms means that the restroom can be deep instead of wide. Single Occupancy prevents that. Multi Stall Restrooms can conform to the shape of the building in a way that single stall simply cannot.

Sorry but single occupancy is one of the most expensive solutions in search of a problem. We were doing just fine when state where either making anti-discrimnation laws or where just leaving it as is (since trans people already used the restroom of their gender, and since people tended to use the restroom of the shorter line if the line for "their" restroom was long enough).

Oh and that snopes article states that someone can be sued for firing people who refuse to do a particular job due to their religious beliefs when those beliefs can be accommodated. In this case my guess would be by finding another driver to drive those and have those two perform a different job. Completely different scenario here. THey were not specifically hired to drive alcohol, they were hired to drive.

[MFrost]

actually the courts have ruled it was ok for muslim truck drivers to refuse to deliver alcohol even though they were hired to deliver alcohol. i.e. to fire them over refusing to do the job they were hired to do was considered discrimination

http://www.snopes.com/obama-muslim-truc ... s-lawsuit/



add an extra stall, design the building correctly to begin with. you seem to be grasping at straw trying to find excuses as to why single occupancy would not work. yet it is an elegant solution and it negates the political fight everyone might be hoping for. Why fight just solve the problem and make everyone happy this whole thing in my mind is a non-issue when approached correctly. schools can comply regardless of the morals and values or perceived phobias and get their federal funding. they just go single occupancy, with temporary trailer if need be in the beginning.

I am sure there are contractors who would provide the schools a discounted price just so their daughters can be safe and have the school meet whatever compliance directive Obama wants to throw at them. It just takes the teeth and ridicule out of the equation, sorry not this time, should be the message back to obama. your hope for some idiotic fight over who can use a toilet is truly a non-issue.

You are aware how much more expensive single occupancy restrooms are right? Especially when it comes to how much space they take up? Oh as well as having to add in all those additional sinks and other plumbing. Oh and of course all the additional walls. Oh and that creates a problem for traffic flow through hallways which in turn creates other hazards. Multi-Stall rooms means that the restroom can be deep instead of wide. Single Occupancy prevents that. Multi Stall Restrooms can conform to the shape of the building in a way that single stall simply cannot.

Sorry but single occupancy is one of the most expensive solutions in search of a problem. We were doing just fine when state where either making anti-discrimnation laws or where just leaving it as is (since trans people already used the restroom of their gender, and since people tended to use the restroom of the shorter line if the line for "their" restroom was long enough).

Oh and that snopes article states that someone can be sued for firing people who refuse to do a particular job due to their religious beliefs when those beliefs can be accommodated. In this case my guess would be by finding another driver to drive those and have those two perform a different job. Completely different scenario here. THey were not specifically hired to drive alcohol, they were hired to drive.

single occupancy is the solution for those who wish to comply with your federal law and not have to put up with a common communal area wherein the bathroom becomes co-ed everyone get to go home happy, so they spend a little extra for their own peace of mind. Would you still consider this discrimination as in omg the business or school went single occupancy to deny my right or my child's right to use a woman's restroom?

--------------------------------------------------

lol, splitting hairs they knew what the job entailed before accepting the contract of my labor for your paycheck. Why should an employer have to pay for an additional driver with all the taxes and benefits to do the job he hired these two gentlemen to do? can he deduct those hours and hand them to the new driver, or would he be discriminating. What if his business model changes and he decides to go with part time workers can he do this without getting sued? I recall UPS doing this years ago chopping hours off of the full time staff and hiring a bunch of part timers to get around the Union and benefit packages. Many businesses did the same to get around Obama care. perhaps the business drops their hours to 10 hours a week would this be considered discrimination?

[Esternial]

[What exactly did you think was going to happen when states knowingly violated federal education regulations? Do you believe that people should be entitled to receiving funding even if they break the rules that they were required to follow in exchange for that funding?

This.

Basically States like Texas are trying to do the equivalent of welfare leeching over this issue, and I wonder if it's the only one.

Hypocrisy is alive and well down South.

[Neutraligon]

You are aware how much more expensive single occupancy restrooms are right? Especially when it comes to how much space they take up? Oh as well as having to add in all those additional sinks and other plumbing. Oh and of course all the additional walls. Oh and that creates a problem for traffic flow through hallways which in turn creates other hazards. Multi-Stall rooms means that the restroom can be deep instead of wide. Single Occupancy prevents that. Multi Stall Restrooms can conform to the shape of the building in a way that single stall simply cannot.

Sorry but single occupancy is one of the most expensive solutions in search of a problem. We were doing just fine when state where either making anti-discrimnation laws or where just leaving it as is (since trans people already used the restroom of their gender, and since people tended to use the restroom of the shorter line if the line for "their" restroom was long enough).

Oh and that snopes article states that someone can be sued for firing people who refuse to do a particular job due to their religious beliefs when those beliefs can be accommodated. In this case my guess would be by finding another driver to drive those and have those two perform a different job. Completely different scenario here. THey were not specifically hired to drive alcohol, they were hired to drive.

single occupancy is the solution for those who wish to comply with your federal law and not have to put up with a common communal area wherein the bathroom becomes co-ed everyone get to go home happy, so they spend a little extra for their own peace of mind. Would you still consider this discrimination as in omg the business or school went single occupancy to deny my right or my child's right to use a woman's restroom?

--------------------------------------------------

lol, splitting hairs they knew what the job entailed before accepting the contract of my labor for your paycheck. Why should an employer have to pay for an additional driver with all the taxes and benefits to do the job he hired these two gentlemen to do? can he deduct those hours and hand them to the new driver, or would he be discriminating. What if his business model changes and he decides to go with part time workers can he do this without getting sued? I recall UPS doing this years ago chopping hours off of the full time staff and hiring a bunch of part timers to get around the Union and benefit packages. Many businesses did the same to get around Obama care. perhaps the business drops their hours to 10 hours a week would this be considered discrimination?

Would not work, simply because it would be almost impossible for older building to create enough single occupancy restrooms to fulfill federal and state requirements, and to do it in such a way as to be safe. Older buildings would thus need to be grandfathered in, which means that the problem is not going to be solved at all. No not everyone gets to go home happy, The people paying for building it do not go home happy. The people who have a lot of traffic blocking them in the hallways do not go home happy. The Tran people who have to deal with grandfathered buildings do not go home happy since they still death with those shit laws that do not let them use the restroom of their gender. In fact the only people who go home happy are the construction workers who get more money for building additional stuff. Discrimination? no, very stupid, from an engineering point of view, hell yes.

That is hardly splitting hairs. In fact the difference is incredibly big. They knew their job would entail driving things from point A to point B. They also knew that should they have a religious problem with driving particular cargo, accommodations could be easily made, namely having them switch with another driver who is doing a different shipment. The business is not being forced to pay additional drivers, they are only being forced to switch which driver is driving which load. Something the company said they were easily able to do. So again you are making a comparison that is not legitimate in any way. Sure he can change his business model, that is an entirely different and irrelevant question.Why are you bringing up irrelevant points like Obamacare? The point I was making is that your comparison is not valid, and that your description of events is not valid.

[MFrost]

looks like most states already have mobile showers in some case sold as surplus. mainly used for emergencies like hurricanes and tornadoes. so the southern states can easily pull from available inventories and comply with the directive. using equipment they have already purchased. no need to sell these at surplus auctions when they can be put to good use. Nice to have too in the event of emergencies. many disaster management plans for cities include having people go to their local high schools anyway. Having equipment already onsite would be a bonus for these communities.

http://www.grannysalliance.com/mobileshowers.html

or

these are actually a combo shower and restroom pretty cool:
http://www.washaway.com/trailers/shower-restroom-combo/

lots of schools had to add mobile trailers for classroom space, so it is not that hard to imagine or make the leap to mobile showers and restrooms.