phil@amd.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (10/08/84)
Unisex bathrooms? How horrible! Sure glad I didn't have them in
my family's house! :-)
--
Phil Ngai (408) 982-6554
UUCPnet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amd!phil
ARPAnet: amd!phil@decwrl.ARPAwmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (10/11/84)
If this subject has been already beaten to death, please forgive... Every now and then, in the discussion of the effect of the ERA, it is claimed (by the opposition, I guess) that having the ERA will mandate "unisex bathrooms". To me, this seems rather off-the-wall and incomprehensible, and I wonder if there is any basis in legal reasoning behind such a claim. 1) Currently, are there federal or state laws that mandate the existence of bathrooms at all (handicapped access regulations, building codes, occupancy standards, etc.)? 2) If so, are there laws that expressly require that bathrooms be designated as being for one or the other sex? Are there laws that then expressly prohibit members of one sex from entering bathrooms designated for the use of the opposite sex? (Do these laws apply only to public buildings, or to any commercial establishment, or to what?) 3) Does the claim about the effect of the ERA rest on the supposition that any such laws (from #2) would be declared void, because they make a sex-based distinction between persons? 4) Is this a valid claim? Will Martin seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin or wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA
mat@hou4b.UUCP (10/14/84)
> 1) Currently, are there federal or state laws that mandate the existence > of bathrooms at all (handicapped access regulations, building codes, > occupancy standards, etc.)? You betcha'. Any decent building code provides for an adaquate number of sanitary facilities. Obtaining such things as Certificates of Occupancy requires that the codes be met. > 2) If so, are there laws that expressly require that bathrooms be > designated as being for one or the other sex? Are there laws that then > expressly prohibit members of one sex from entering bathrooms > designated for the use of the opposite sex? (Do these laws apply only to > public buildings, or to any commercial establishment, or to what?) There are such laws at the State and Local levels. I believe that they are written to apply to ``public places'' -- in other words anything that is not a residence with its own facilities. > 3) Does the claim about the effect of the ERA rest on the supposition > that any such laws (from #2) would be declared void, because they make a > sex-based distinction between persons? > 4) Is this a valid claim? Got me. 'spossibl', I suppose, though I'm much more worred about other ramifications. I'm sorry, but I can't put the homosexuality issue out of my mind. Look at New York City: various religious groups like the Salvation Army and the Roman Catholic Church receive city funds which are used for the exclusive purpose of housing and feeding the homeless. Because such groups will not ``hire'' practicing homosexuals, they shelters (which the city needs desperately) have had to close. ERA says nothing about homosexuality? True. On the other hand, one of the various Ammendments to our Constitution was designed to give black people full citizenship. It was circumvented by various means for over a decade, but it WAS interpreted by the courts to give much broader rights, privileges, and protection to CORPORATIONS. Ammendments should be simple, but they should also be to the point. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) hou4b!mat ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
garret@oddjob.UChicago.UUCP (Trisha O Tuama) (10/15/84)
***** Assuming that there are federal rules regulating male and female bathrooms, suits to test the law on this issue would ultimately have to be decided by the courts. Also assuming that the Supreme Court would actually grant cert (ie, agree to hear the case) what justice would rule in favor of unisex bathrooms? Trisha (we have unisex bathrooms in our house) O Tuama
hrs@houxb.UUCP (H.SILBIGER) (10/16/84)
There are federal regulations regarding handicapped access in "public" facilities, but not regarding sex separation. Some states and local governments have such regulations, but these usually only apply above a certain size. Many small restaurants have only one bathroom. The whole discussion is of course nonsensical. It might as well be argued that passage of ERA will make it illegal to sell separate clothing styles for men and women! Herman Silbiger
faunt@saturn.UUCP (Doug Faunt) (10/18/84)
I recall that in a women's coffe-house that I was familiar with, there was a requirement for two bathrooms, one of which had to have a urinal. It was used as a planter. This was in Menlo Park, CA.
ajaym@ihu1h.UUCP (Jay Mitchell) (10/20/84)
The point is, if all this ruckus has come out now, before the ERA has even had a chance to have its way in court, IT IS JUST TO DAMN OPEN ENDED. I am a man and I am not ignorant. It just seems that an ammendment that gets to the point and trys not to fight for equality just by using the word "equal" would have a better chance all the way around - both by more people understanding and voting for it, and in the legal end by not having the potential for causing so much unnecessary controversy. This seems to me that people are fighting for themselves rather than fighting for their issue. What a waste. -- ------------------------- Jay Mitchell ihnp4!ihu1h!ajaym -------------------------
alan@apollo.uucp (Alan Lehotsky) (10/22/84)
Reminds me of when my dorm (Burton House@MIT) went co-ed. Every bathroom had urinals, in at least one of the women's suites, they inserted potting soil and ivy. Somehow, I have always believed that the kind of people who worry about unisex bathrooms also undress in the dark or the closet (even when they are alone...)
phil@amd.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (10/23/84)
> Reminds me of when my dorm (Burton House@MIT) went co-ed. Every > bathroom had urinals, in at least one of the women's suites, > they inserted potting soil and ivy. In my dorm (Baker House@MIT) we had coed suites(wings). There were signs on the door of the bathrooms with an arrow you could set to indicate: MEN ONLY; WOMEN ONLY; MAN INSIDE, DOESN'T CARE; WOMAN INSIDE, DOESN'T CARE. It was usually set on some form of doesn't care except when parents came to visit. And how did you know the women made their urinal into a potter? -- If you're rich, I'm single. Phil Ngai (408) 982-6554 UUCPnet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amd!phil ARPAnet: amd!phil@decwrl.ARPA
ciaraldi@rochester.UUCP (Mike Ciaraldi) (10/24/84)
> ***** > > Assuming that there are federal rules regulating male and female > bathrooms, suits to test the law on this issue would ultimately have > to be decided by the courts. Also assuming that the Supreme Court would > actually grant cert (ie, agree to hear the case) what justice would rule > in favor of unisex bathrooms? > > Trisha (we have unisex bathrooms in our house) O Tuama Remember that under the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, the Supreme Court for many years (up until Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, 1956, maybe?) that "separate but equal" was OK, i.e. that you could have education segregated by race as long as all races got the same quality education. This was overturned on the basis that "separate is inherently unequal". And this was strictly on constitutuional grounds, not the result of legislation. So, presumably the Court might rule under the ERA (if passed) that unisex bathrooms are required, in the same way that bathrooms seprepated by race were eventually banned. Whether the cCourt would or not depends on how they see things. This may be related to the present legislative situation. As I recall, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids discrimination in employment, etc. on the grounds of race, color, sex, age, or religion, unless there are "bona fide reasons" for it. Thus,a producer making a movie of the life of Winston Churchill would probably be within his rights under the law if he rejected black actors applying for the lead role, since maintaining verissimilitude is a valid consideration in this type of employment. A manager who only hires white engineers would probably not be within his rights. As I said in a previous posting, this is up to the courts to decide, what is "reasonable". Incidentally, there have been cases of thespians crossing color and sex lines, e.g the woman (forgot her name, sorry) who earned an Oscar for portraying a man in _The Year of Living Dangerously_, or all-black productions of Hamlet, or even Charlie Chan (who has always been played by white actors). Mike Ciaraldi ciaraldi@rochesterr seismo!rochester!ciaraldi
west@utcsrgv.UUCP (Thomas L. West) (11/02/84)
> Somehow, I have always believed that the kind of people who worry > about unisex bathrooms also undress in the dark or the closet > (even when they are alone...) > apollo!alan This sort of opinion is only slightly less stupid than that of thinking that all those who are comfortable with uni-sex washrooms are raving sex-fiends. There is a sizable group of people who are not comfortable with nudity outside of family or intimate situations. This does not mean they are incredibly warped, but it is an opinion they should be able to hold, free of such abuse as apollo!alan would put upon it. While it might be fun to abuse the less liberal among us, (they have few defenders), this sort of arbitrary abuse should not go completely unchallenged. Personally, I like the arrow pointing to the male/female care/don't care washroom situation mentioned before. It allows the user to cater to his or her own standards of modesty, and (should) offend no-one. Tom West (ihnp4,allegra)!utcsrgv!west