TexasCHLforum.com

You will all be made to care about this policy. With the dueling lawsuits between US & North Carolina, the Federal government has now declared that it's position is: That every private business and public facility must have the same policy as Target. Otherwise they are violating US Title VII & Title IX Civil Rights law.

So you won't be able to go to WalMart if you don't like Target's policy, because it is now (and apparently has been since the 1960's) a civil rights violation to prevent an adult male from going into the same bathroom as little girls.

Probably we've all just been missing the males in the girls locker room all along, until NC in their blind transphobia made it an issue. Now that the brave US Dept of Justice has broken down the barriers for perverts to hang out in the bathroom of their choice, they need to move on to the stupid bigotry in the unenlightened states against polygamy, adult/child sexual activity, and bestiality.

Oh you think that's a stretch...? Tell me two years ago you thought that the US government would be forcing you to accept adult men in the little girls room. I mean you really should all know its in the Constitution... right next to the abortion amendment and the sodomy clause!

The struggle for LGBTQIA (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, queer, intersex, and asexual...for all you ignorant cave people) will likely take the force of the federal government. We can all look forward to the day when federal troops will be escorting "trans" Texans to the little girls room, against the opposition of bigoted State officials like AG Patrick.

There must be a way to work the Federal GFZSA into this discussion...Maybe TAM can figure it out...

Soccerdad1995 wrote:In another thread, we are rehashing the endless debate over whether a "no weapons" sign should lead to a trespassing charge against someone who walks past it carrying a weapon. By that same logic, a "no shoes, no shirt, no service" sign could lead to a trespassing charge against a barefooted customer.

If this is true, then why would a man not be guilty of trespassing when he walks through a doorway that is clearly marked "women"?

I don't think he would, because regulating public behavior via signs is not the purpose of PC 30.05, but the man would be guilty if someone from Target came and told him to get the heck out. Now Target is telling us they won't do that.