Pew Research Survey: 51% Support Trans Bathroom Rights, 49% Support LGBT Public Accommodation Laws

Bustle reports:

In case you needed a reminder that the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage didn’t fix all the problems facing the LGBTQ community, a recent survey by the Pew Research Center has found that just half of Americans support transgender bathroom access according to gender identity, rather than biological sex. The finding comes as part of more general research into public attitudes toward the intersection of religious liberty and nondiscrimination, a topic which, between the rash of so-called “bathroom bills” in the spring and the 2016 presidential election, has been debated frequently this year.

The survey asked more than 4,500 American respondents about their attitudes toward three issues: Transgender bathroom access, the ability for a business to refuse to serve a same-sex wedding, and whether employers should be able to refuse to cover birth control through health insurance. On the bright side, more than two-thirds of Americans (67 percent) support employer coverage of birth control despite religious objections.

However, respondents were evenly split when it came to the other two areas. 48 percent of respondents said that businesses should be able to turn away same-sex couples for religious reasons, while 49 percent said they should be required to provide services anyway. Furthermore, as mentioned above, just over half (51 percent) of respondents agreed that transgender people should be allowed to use a bathroom corresponding to their gender identity, while 46 percent said that transgender people should be required to use the bathroom corresponding to the gender they were assigned at birth. White, churchgoing evangelicals were the most likely to support the latter view.

From the study itself:

When it comes to views about employer-provided birth control, services for same-sex weddings and use of public restrooms by transgender people, there are large differences between some religious groups. White evangelical Protestants tend to say businesses that provide wedding services should be allowed to turn away same-sex couples and that transgender people should be required to use the public restroom of the gender they were born into. And roughly half of white evangelical Protestants say employers should be allowed to refuse to provide birth control in health insurance plans for their employees.

Most religiously unaffiliated Americans (i.e., those who identify as atheists or agnostics or describe their religion as “nothing in particular”) and Jews take the opposite views on these three issues. Black Protestants and Catholics tend to be closely divided on these questions – with the exception of employer-provided contraception coverage. Majorities in each group believe employers should be required to provide contraception in health care plans for their employees.

pew1pew2pew3

  • PickyPecker
  • bkmn

    We need to educate people that trans folk in bathrooms don’t attack women and children, str8 identifying men do.

  • kirtanloorii

    But this is still great progress. This poll just 5 years ago would have looked very different.

    • Gerry Fisher

      In some ways, yes. In some ways, no. 5 years ago, “LGBT anti-discrimination laws” were polling in the high 60% range, and that technically included “public accommodations.” It’s just that the whole “wedding photographer” and “wedding cake baker” nonsense lowered public support for that part of the proposed law.

      • Bruno

        It’s also about the way the questions are phrased, too.

      • Ribb Rotgut

        Surprise, even some homosexuals and liberals say wedding photographers and cake bakers shouldn’t be forced to violate their religious beliefs.

        • Todd20036

          Yup. Milo is one such quisling

        • DaveW

          Taking pictures is not violating your cult beliefs. It’s just not allowing you to discriminate. We must be clear, the dimwits are easily confused. Your choice of words was deliberately planted to confuse.

          • Ribb Rotgut

            I’m not a Christian.

      • Skokieguy [Larry]

        I was suprised by the headline until I read the questions. What is the question were phrased, “should it be legal for gay & lesbian people to be denied housing, or medical care if the provider is uncomfortable with their sexual orientation”. I think we can safely assume, the percentages saying this is wrong would be far higher.

    • another_steve

      Agree. I’m kind of surprised that the pro-trans percentage is as high as it is — given that the vast majority of Americans don’t know a trans person and are fairly ignorant on the subject.

      Same with the percentage of people who reject the “religious liberty” bullshit advanced by our enemies. That’s impressive too — given the role institutional religion plays in the lives of so many Americans.

  • Gustav2

    Public accommodation laws for all citizens is just difficult for people to understand.

    And do not take the Evangelical objection to contraception lightly, anti-choice is not just about abortion for a lot of them.

    • ShawnSwagger

      They know that. If people weren’t using birth control, the birth rates or the abortion rates or both would skyrocket. But, you know, 1 + 1 = 3 in teabagistan.

    • NancyP

      Of course, should the evangelicals propose to hinder birth control access to middle class women, that proposal will go up in flames. Birth control has such wide and constant public acceptance and usage among women that it can’t be corralled as “only sluts”. Abortion, being a rare event happening once in most instances, can be smeared as “only sluts would….”, and most women don’t think about abortion until they need one.

  • PickyPecker
  • Bill Post

    It’s good to see this type of thinking going the way of the DoDo bird. Next generation it will be almost gone. Thank the spaghetti monster.

  • jsmukg

    Because JaHAYZUSS and bigotry trump all civil rights and basic decency.

  • Tigernan Quinn

    I guess I don’t understand it – I don’t currently know a single trans person, watch no trans shows, and have nothing to do with trans issues – other than knowing without even batting an eye that they just want to use the bathroom and should be allowed. I don’t think polls are needed to tell people what they already know is right – or to tell them to sit down when they don’t.

  • Butch

    I wonder how much the answer about religious liberty changes when it’s taken out of the abstract – is it OK for a business to discriminate against your son for religious reasons, for example.

    • Gustav2

      And some people are convinced since churches “say” they are open to all, the churches are public accommodations.

    • NedFlaherty

      When surveying religious extremists, asking “is religious discrimination against your family OK?” still always produces a loud “No” answer.

      That’s because religious extremists always assume that they are the only ones with a legitimate, valid religion, and that everyone else is a savage, hell-bound heathen.

      The only appropriate question format is this:

      Are some people’s religious sect beliefs more protected than other people’s, or are religious sect beliefs equally protected for all citizens?
      Are religious sect beliefs equally protected for all workers?
      Are religious sect beliefs equally protected for all customers?
      Can a citizen violate civil anti-discrimination laws just by claiming religious superstition?

      The only fair and enforceable answer to all 4 questions is that everyone’s beliefs are equally protected, but no one may impose their own beliefs upon anyone else.

  • Diogenes Onionpants

    This is remarkable: the anti-trans “bathroom bills” came to prominence as an issue recently precisely because the right wing recognized that a growing acceptance of LGB issues meant they needed to refine their target and find an even more oppressed demographic sub-class that they could rally the rubes against. (Remember when Barney Frank agreed to drop the “controversial” trans category from the workplace discrimination bill?) But the public doesn’t seem to be buying it, if support for trans issues is comparable to, or slightly higher than, support for glb accommodations.

  • Rex

    At least the bigots support requiring employers provide birth control. Hopefully this will keep them from reproducing.

  • Uncle Mark

    I’m still amazed at even a third feeling that business owners have a religious right to deny access to (types of) birth control. How many insurance policies include boner pills, but not birth control? I would think that as a business man, it would be cheaper and better for the smooth operation of your company, if your female employees didn’t get pregnant. Did the third of those worshipping at the fee of Trump hear his very sexist statement about “pregnancy being an inconvenience for busineses?” What if your boss is a Christian Scientist and doesn’t believe in modern medicine? When did your boss become responsible in deeply personal decisions as to how you wish to use your insurance benefits?

    • Gustav2

      What pisses me off is the Little Sisters of the Poor are a Medicaid Service Provider and they think they can do as they please.

    • The_Wretched

      It’s a pretty new ‘feeling’ and largely driven by the intentional acts of the Becket Fund for Religious Hegemony. They get buckets (millions and millions) of cash to push christianist ideology and to take over the legal regime in the U.S.

      • Chucktech

        “Becket Fund for Religious Hegemony” LOL!

    • turtle73

      Most people in this country aren’t employed by businesses owned by human beings. They’re employed by businesses owned by corporations.

      A corporation is a legal entity created by the government. The idea that a corporation can have religious views is patently absurd.

      • Friday

        If they’re Christianist corporations, can they go to their Hell? 🙂

    • Friday

      What’s more, they whine about ‘I don’t wanna pay for that’ when the insurance companies are actually happy for once to pick up the tab, ….then they say “I don’t want anyone else to pay for that!” When in reality of course unwanted and accidental pregnancies, especially pregnancy and child care, raise *everyone’s* insurance rates in ways that make the cost of some birth control pills completely negligible. So they want everyone *else* to pay more to impose *their* religion on *our* bodies.

      • Uncle Mark

        EXACTLY !! These folks aren’t exactly in the habit of thinking of the big picture, if it’s too complicated. They love the idea of being the boss, being holier-than-thou, and telling other people how to live their lives, even when they’re off the clock. These would be the same people, who would deny birth control pills & HPV vaccines because “it will make women sluts.” (Note: it’s almost never the men that receive the moral judgement, unless they are gay.)

        • yetanotherLaura

          Not to mention birth control pills aren’t always prescribed for birth control, anyway. I’ve known a LOT of women, two in my own family, who have used them to regulate hormones, reduce period pain, etc. etc. etc. I’m willing to bet that if of these folks was prescribed them for a purely medical purpose, they would raise hell if their insurance wouldn’t cover them!

        • Friday

          Yeah, and on the HPV thing, all the victims of horrid cervical cancers and the like aren’t *even* from sexual transmission, so they’ll do horrific things to people that aren’t even involved in any of these ‘sins’ they just want that wee litle more to shame and terrify the uneducated with, as if ‘Human papiloma virus’ even enters*into* anyone’s thought process if they’re contemplating unsafe sex. (pardon spelling, browser’s acting up. 🙂 )

  • Michael R

    100 % of those most hysterical about this issue will
    never have to deal with it in their long boring miserable lives .

    • johncAtl

      And 100% of them will swear they’ve never been in a restroom at the same time as a transgender person. Little do they know.

      • Gustav2

        I know i told this story before. Some of our friendly neighbors were upset about T’s using the restroom of identity in NC and wondered when it was coming to Columbus…it already had countywide years ago and no problems.

        I had to explain it to one woman twice, she just was in the crazy man in a wig going to molest her grandchildren place.

        • clay

          It’s already perfectly legal, except in North Carolina.

          • Gustav2

            Our county commissioners passed a law protecting the choice.

  • Rex

    I wonder what the response would be if they asked their opinion on LGBT owned businesses refusing service to religious people.

  • PickyPecker

    OT: Thursday Sanity Break – Not just for bears and otters any more: Scruff for cats is here!

    http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/09/not-just-bears-otters-scruff-cats/

    • johncAtl

      That’s hilarious.

    • ShawnSwagger

      Laugh Out Loud.

  • EweTaw

    When did taking a dump become so difficult?

    • Friday

      I’m pretty sure the Christian Right has some pretty bad potty issues. It’s where all their closeted gay preachers go.

  • I think these kinds of issues have to be framed in a way people can relate to. For example, if they had asked a question like “should businesses be allowed to turn away Christian customers on account of their religion” first—which presumably would have gotten mostly “no” responses—I think there would have been a better response to the same-sex couples question.

    Otherwise, I’d guess that a lot of people’s first reaction would be to hold that freedom of association regarding religious views should be respected without a fuller appreciation for what that means. Freedom of association is great and all until you’re part of a group that no one wants to associate with.

  • greenmanTN

    I guess I was naive, but it surprised me when this crap started up in the 2010s. I thought we were done with this kind of public accommodation segregation, since it worked SO well for us (/s) in the past. I underestimated the Right Wing determination to use scapegoats for political gain and the self-righteousness of self-proclaimed Christians. Since when did the selling of goods or services, cake, flowers, etc, imply personal approval?

    • Hank

      One word: HYPOCRISY!!!

    • Friday

      When they said the opposite abut gun sales of course.

      • Todd20036

        True, but only for white people. No way would they tolerate a black man open carrying

    • Ribb Rotgut

      Hypothetically, should cake makers or photographers be allowed to deny service to KKK events?

      • greenmanTN

        That’s actually a good question, one I’ve asked myself, and I don’t know that I have the answer. If I owned a bakery, how would I respond to a request to put a swastika on a cake for instance? To me there is a difference between a cake or flowers for a gay marriage, and putting morally repugnant symbols on a cake, but where do you draw that line?

        There was a minor news story several years ago about a bakery refusing to write “Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler” on a cake. The story was even more unusual because the Shitbird requesting the cake actually HAD named his son Adolf Hitler, so it really was a birthday cake for an actual child, not the Nazi leader.

        The story didn’t turn out the way the father intended, because due to media attention Child Protective Services stepped in, removed Adolph and his sister from the home, changed Adolph’s name, and put them in foster care.

        • Ribb Rotgut

          In theory, non-discrimination laws for public accommodation are well-intentioned. But they’re obviously not exact.

          Where’s the line on where a business has a right to refuse to do something against its beliefs?

          I think the lgbt community needs to compromise on this one. Providing specialty wedding services should be excluded from these non-discrimination laws. Including wedding halls and web design services. Specialized vendors should have the right not to work with clients if they don’t want to and not be penalized for it.

          It’s obvious half the country feels this way.

          Forcing others to approve our marriages does look kinda fascist.

          It’s more important to push for a law to protect lgbt employees from being fired with prejudice.

          • DaveW

            Kool Aid. It’s NOT approval, you’re “logic” is stupid. 1/2 agree with you? I wouldn’t be proud of being part of the lower half of the intelligence.

          • NedFlaherty

            The anonymous Ribb Rotgut asks — incorrectly — where is the “line on whether businesses can refuse service” (his words).

            Asking “where” is the wrong question.

            There is no such line at all. No business can sell a service to some customers but refuse it to others. Furthermore, no business has “beliefs” because “beliefs” are held by an individual, and corporations are not individuals.

            The anonymous Ribb Rotgut asks whether discrimination can be legalized if enough people want it.

            No.

            Discrimination is unconstitutional; therefore, everyone has the same right to not suffer discrimination. To legalize LGBT discrimination just because “half the nation wants to” (his words) is the same as legalizing racial / ethnic / ancestry / marital status discrimination just because “half the nation wants to.” No civil rights law can include waivers for religious superstition because then that just lets anyone violate the law by claiming that religion makes them do it.

            The anonymous Ribb Rotgut claims — incorrectly — that anti-discrimination laws force approval upon everyone.

            He is wrong.

            No public accommodation law ever “forces others to approve same-gender civil marriages” (his words). Those laws require only that each service sold to one customer must be offered equally and fairly to all customers. Vendor personnel are still allowed to follow whatever religious superstitions they choose, including the disapproval of various civil marriage practices. What vendor personnel may not do is impose their religious superstitions upon paying customers.

            The anonymous Ribb Rotgut assumes — incorrectly — that public accommodation laws are less important than employment laws.

            He is wrong.

            Both are equally important. It is legally and logically inconsistent to legalize discrimination against LGBT customers but outlaw it against LGBT workers, or to legalize discrimination against workers but outlaw it against LGBT customers. Unfairness based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity is unconstitutional, regardless of whether the context is public accommodation, employment, or both, or neither.

          • Ribb Rotgut

            Was that bakery correct in refusing to make a “Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler” cake?

          • NedFlaherty

            The anonymous “Ribb Rotgut” asks whether bakers can refuse to sell “Hitler” cakes.

            He asks the wrong question.

            Vendors are allowed to refuse to sell any service or product to all customers; however, if a service or product is available to even one customer, then it has to be offered to all other customers on the same terms and conditions. Therefore, the question is not whether bakers can refuse to sell “Hitler” cakes, because any baker that doesn’t carry that product can refuse to sell it to everyone, and any baker that offers it to any customer must offer it to all customers.

            The ShopRite bakery in Holland Township, NJ rightfully refused an order for a “Hitler” cake nearly a decade ago, and the issue did not arise ever again.

          • Ribb Rotgut

            The service being denied to the Nazis was script writing, which is a service offered to everybody else.

            By your logic, the bakery has no grounds to deny it.

          • NedFlaherty

            The anonymous “Ribb Rotgut” claims that the ShopRite Baker refused “script writing” services to one customer.

            He is wrong.

            The bakery did not refuse all “script writing” services to their customer; they refused only the service of writing “Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler” — which is a service that they legally refuse for all customers.

          • Ribb Rotgut

            The anonymous Ribb Rotgut also claims, following your logic, that the bakery can refuse to write “Happy Gay Wedding” on a cake because that is a service they deny everybody.

          • NedFlaherty

            The anonymous “Ribb Rotgut” asks whether bakeries can refuse to write “Happy Gay Wedding” on all cakes.

            It is a 2-part answer.

            1. Vendors can refuse to write “Happy Gay Wedding” on one customer’s cake only if they make the same refusal to all other customers, but if they ever sell that service to even one customer, then they must offer it on equal terms to all customers.

            2. Refusing to write “Happy Gay Wedding” on a cake is always unlawful whenever the refusal is based upon a customer’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

            Vendors must have proof that such a refusal is not orientation-based or gender-based, and no vendor was ever able to prove that, so the chance that any baker can legally refuse to write “Happy Gay Wedding” is, for all intents and purposes, zero.

          • Ribb Rotgut

            What if the customer is heterosexual and buying it for homosexual friends? Then there is no discrimination based on sexual preference.

            So sayeth the anonymous Ribb Rotgut.

          • NedFlaherty

            The anonymous “Ribb Rotgut” asks if commercial vendors are allowed to discriminate against customers based upon sexual orientation or gender identity.

            No.

            It is unlawful for vendors to discriminate against customers based upon sexual orientation and/or gender identity. Which customer performs the transaction, which customer funds it, and which customer benefits from it is irrelevant, so in the hypothetical case he imagined, the paying customer and the benefitting customer are both customers and are both covered by the law.

          • Ribb Rotgut

            I’m glad to see you concede my hypothetical scenario that a bakery would be justified in refusing to sell a “Happy Gay Wedding” cake.

            Thus hath spoken the eponymous Ribb Rotgut.

          • NedFlaherty

            Your scenario is imaginary and has never occurred, which makes it irrelevant, so it’s foolish to become so dependent upon it.

          • Ribb Rotgut

            I’m glad to see you concede that my argument still holds in this hypothetical scenario, which you don’t know has never occurred and could very well occur.

        • marshlc

          the way this works is that a business can have a service they do not provide. What they can’t do is have a service that they provide for some people and not others.

          So you can say “I won’t write Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler on a cake.” What you can’t say is “I’ll write “Congratulations” on a cake for a het couple, but not for a same sex couple.”

          A business can refuse to provide a service. They can’t refuse a service that they provide to some people, to some other people, based on the class those people belong to.

          So they also have the right to refuse service to individuals based on actions of those individuals – someone who has previously bounced a cheque on them, say.

          It’s not really very hard to figure out.

          • greenmanTN

            That makes perfect sense to me. I mean chances are pretty good that, gay or straight, you go in the bakery and say “I want a big-ass cake for a wedding,” not request that they write “I, the baker, personally approve of same-sex marriage” on it. You can buy the groom/groom, bride/bride cake topper yourself if you want one.

            Here’s my big thing. In the history of the US, businesses at one time had signs that said “We don’t serve, Italians, the Irish, Native Americans, Jews, black people, etc.” (And I’m sure I’m leaving some groups out.) It’s a stain on our history and I hoped we’d gotten past that ugliness, but I guess not. To me it’s just an embarrassing artifact that belongs in the past, and this too we will look back on with regret, I hope.

  • Blake Jordan

    But it is a good election to make a protest vote, and indirectly elect drumpf… s

  • Paul Michael

    i have a hard time understanding the problem. A transman (F->M) goes into a men bathroom. There is a urinal and a stall. Which one does this person use? Unless this person has had reconstructive surgery and has a penis he will most likely use the stall. That seems like a no brainer to me and no one else would think it unusual ( but then I have a urinal problem and so I use a stall). And most Transmen I have seen really wouldn’t look out of place in a mens room. By the same logic, a Transwoman ( M->F) goes into a Womans bathroom. There are only stalls (or so I would assume that there are no urinal , but I haven’t been in many ladies restrooms) so this transwoman will not be looking at the lady parts of other occupants nor they hers. And again most transwomen I have seen would look very out of place in a mens bathroom and quite at home in a womens.

    • clay

      but . . . .shoes! . . . .tapping . . . under the stalls!

      Either they’re projecting or . . . they’re projecting.

      • Friday

        Why these Christianists seem to imagine bathrooms are ‘places of sex and nudity’ I’ll never know. Frankly, their nudity hangups *alone* get tedious when all they have to be outraged about is a half-second of Janet Jackson’s boob. 🙂

        • clay

          And you KNOW that was an accident, I mean, did you SEE that Maltese Cross nipple guard she was wearing? No way would she risk a corner of that snagging on the tear-away. OUCH!

        • NedFlaherty

          Seeing washrooms as “places of nudity, sex, and assault” is a direct function of 3 things: (a) religious superstition; (b) denial of science; and (c) no modern sex education.

          Washroom-based phobias make sense once you realize that religious extremists know no more than the ignorant, hallucinating desert mystics of the Bronze Age.

          • Friday

            Actually, strictly speaking the separate peeing thing has nothing to do with the Bronze Age: actually, it’s Victorian. And that only because the upper classes put in public facilities for men, but women of any class anyone cared about were only supposed to be able to go out of the house as long as their bladders could last, like they want of trans people now, actually. Anyway. That’s England and why other countries don’t care. Ladies’ rooms were new when introduced.

    • sandollar_man

      You’re being modest. You’ve characterized the situation perfectly.
      Nobody gets hurt. Nobody feels uncomfortable. If everyone just goes into the room that makes, all of us, look and feel the most comfortable and acceptable – to our fellow travelers using that room.

    • JaniceInToronto

      But, but, that makes sense.

    • Chucktech

      In other words, just continue the same bathroom usage policies we’ve become accustomed to over the last, roughly, 60 years.

  • Paula

    People just gotta’ pee!

  • ShawnSwagger

    Hey! Didn’t Joe always used to do an Open Thread on Thursdays? Whatever happened to that?

    • johncAtl

      I’m having trouble keeping up with him already.

  • Hue-Man

    O/T Headline: “Ontario to change law that requires same-sex couples to adopt own kids”

    But the new legislation would ensure all couples who use assisted
    reproduction to conceive, including the use of a surrogate, are legally
    recognized as parents.

    http://ipolitics.ca/2016/09/29/ontario-to-change-law-that-requires-same-sex-couples-to-adopt-own-kids/

    Details from Ontario website
    https://news.ontario.ca/mag/en/2016/09/details-of-proposed-all-families-are-equal-act-2016.html

  • Gerry Fisher

    That 49% support for LGBT public accommodation laws bums me out. I know that some straights get all hung up about the “poor” baker who has to “participate in a gay wedding” by making a cake. But what about my husband and I being able to get a hotel room, served at restaurant, or some such? The lack of this right can really hamper our efforts to just, you know, live life (without being under constant threat of business owners trying to shame or humiliate us).

    • Bruno

      I think there’s a lot of people who just don’t seem to understand the real-world consequences for LGBT people. It doesn’t help that the media seems to only care about bathrooms and cakes.

    • Friday

      Actually it seems the poll asks about the ‘wedding services’ example, which sounds pretty trivial, …it doesn’t ask about the rest of the ‘separate lunch counters/denial of service/turned away at the pharmacist’ part of the public accommodations laws. Other polls say huge numbers oppose that discrimination against anyone. The ‘poor wedding business’ nonsense is where the Christian Right tried to cast their wedge issue for reasons, I suppose.

    • CottonBlimp

      Another poll found that most people (wrongly) think all of that is already protected. Most people think LGBT rights are much better than they actually are.

    • Ribb Rotgut

      There should be a distinction between providing generic customer services to everyone versus providing a specialized artistic service. Vendors shouldn’t be compelled to take on every client. There needs to be some compromise here.

      Making a huge stink over cakes and photography is a mistake and it’s obvious it backfired.

      • DaveW

        No

  • FWIW, I think the general feeling for most people is a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” approach for transgender individuals. If you can pass as a female, use the women’s restroom. If you can pass as a male, use the men’s room.

    In other words, if you’re a transgender female who hasn’t taken hormones or had surgery and look more like Ron Paul than Ru Paul, you should probably use the men’s room.

    • Friday

      Frankly, only the Right is claiming that’s other than what happens. They want to portray transwomen as ‘male predators claiming to identify’ …in reality they go after anyone they think looks queer or androgynous, when they think the law lets them: how they think a woman who had her head shaved to donate the hair to cancer patients was somehow supposed to be a male predator trying to *disguise with drag,* I just dunno. But that’s typical of what we’ve seen. Even someone in Texas objecting to a woman wearing pants.

  • Hank

    We, the GLBT community have a LOT more work to do, in order to obtain FULL LEGAL RIGHTS!!! It is 50 years since the Civil Rights Acts of the 60s, and African Americans are STILL fighting for Equality!!! WE must continue to fight, State by State!!!

  • Alyssa

    I’m amazed that we’re technically winning on bathrooms already. that was fast.

    • Friday

      Technically it’s probably been better in reality, trans people are going through all this cause it’s where the Right chose to attack and the mass media decided it was what to pay attention to ‘controversializing.’

  • Friday

    Pew’s chart seems a bit garbled: also point of correction for Joe, they limited their question to ‘wedding services’ not ‘public accommodations’ or other civil rights laws. (So they asked about the very place the Christian Right wants to place a wedge there.)

  • Ribb Rotgut

    Forcing specialty wedding vendors like bakers and photographers to serve gay weddings is a mistake. It’s no surprise there’s been a backlash here. Honestly getting upset about this makes us look, yes, kinda fascist.

    • Skeptical_Inquirer

      Oh, yeah, like black people were “fascist” about protesting being forced to sit at the back of the bus and being refused service at hotels and diners. /s

      And what’s funny is that there was a time when the Irish weren’t considered “white” enough and Jon Stewart snarks on Bill O for forgetting.

      http://www.cc.com/video-clips/q7gcyp/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-it-was-the-best-of-times–it-was-the-best-of-times

    • “Forcing speciality wedding vendors like bakers and photographers to serve Jewish or black weddings is a mistake…”

      Yeah, bigotry is just as ugly then, too.

    • Kara Connor

      Who forces them to agree to sign a business license and follow the rules for a public accommodation?

      • Government does, through the implementation of unconstitutional anti-discrimination laws. The Doctrine of Public Accommodation is an interference of an individuals contractual rights. What is the intent in using the Governments monopoly on force to make companies that don’t like you take your money? Why not practice capitalism and socio-economic pressures, and give your money to people that want it?

        • Kara Connor

          They agreed when they signed their business license. Don’t open a business that falls under public accommodations if you don’t want to obey the law. It’s called personal responsibility.

          • Then there is inherently a problem with the Government enforced barriers to private business as enforced by the licensing process. Again, the Doctrine of Public Accommodations is inherently unConstitutional.

          • Kara Connor

            So you are in favor of legalizing racial segregation again.

          • Flately, no; and I’ll ask you not to misstate my positions. Segregation was the unConstitutional use of Government force to MAKE people be separate, through legislation and threat of persecution.
            I am a firm believer in the power of capitalism, and the willingness of individuals to make money. If person A doesn’t serve subset X of the market, person B can out perform person A by serving subset X, as well as the rest of the market. In that way, no ones rights are violated.

          • Kara Connor

            Except that capitalism did nothing to end segregation. And you are defending it via the back door of claiming the market will fix it.

    • NedFlaherty

      The anonymous Ribb Rotgut assumes — incorrectly — that requiring vendors to treat all customers equally and fairly is a “mistake” (his word).

      He’s wrong.

      The U.S. Constitution, human rights, civil rights, anti-discrimination laws, and public accommodation laws were developed and implemented over several centuries, in the America and elsewhere. They proved that treating people equally and fairly is what’s best for any modern, democratic, pluralist, secular society.

      If Rotgut wants to live in a theocracy where people can treat him unequally by claiming religious superstition as the excuse, then he would be happier in North Kora, Arabia, or Iran, where one religion is the law, and people of all other religions or of no religion are outlawed.

  • bmedle

    Can someone please inform the white evangelical teahadists that, under their preferred policy, I could open a bakery and only bake cakes for same-sex and Muslim weddings.

  • DaveW

    Shame on any human that accepts the lies of religion for selfish wishful thinking. Every version of it. Shame

  • DuaneBidoux

    This “controversy” could easily be resolved by simply mandating at least two gender neutral or family restrooms. Some might say that this is avoiding the real issue of bigotry but I personally would love it.

    I am a straight guy who hates peeing next to ANYONE regardless of their gender orientation. I am definitely vehemently opposed to the discriminatory anti-trans laws but I don’t see.what.would be wrong with accommodating people like me who simply are uncomfortable with using the restroom next to somebody else.