Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Panel backs transgender woman in restroom case

Rate this topic


Sellars M

Recommended Posts

I was temporarily disabled for about 6 months due to a broken leg. I can tell you the ADA did not help me get around or have access to anything. In fact, most of the ramps were simply too steep or positioned in inappropriate locations, etc., so they weren't much use. And why is it you able-bodied women hog up the handicapped stalls when every other stall in the bathroom is available?! :lol: At any rate, my point is, the ADA had little to nothing to do with me being able to get around and use facilities when I was in a wheelchair and then on crutches.

The biggest help to me was Walmart's electronic carts, which they offer free from government force. They offer them because they want the business of the disabled. I feel that if other businesses, particularly small businesses weren't burdened with so much taxation, they would have the funds/resources to offer more access to more people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jill, I understand that you feel you are coming from a place of compassion & empathy for people who feel they have needs within society that they can't meet for themselves but what about compassion for the people who's property rights are infringed upon?

You need to check your premise about what a "right" is.

A person works, saves money and buys a business. They run it well and within legal bounds. That the person has a right to their business is an absolute.

To say that someone, whether handicapped physically or socially can cause changes to be made to that business infringes upon the absolute right of the owner. If the person in "need" has a right to the business then the business owner doesn't truly own the business at all.

The problem with making decisions and policy based on compassion or empathy rather than absolutes is that things snowball.

I will give a very tangible example that I am currently facing as a business owner:

Sidewalks for better or for worse are public property. However, if you own a business you become responsible for the sidewalk in front of your business- all cleanliness, snow shovelling, cracks in the concrete, upkeep- in fact if the city decides a tree should be added to the sidewalk the business owner has to pay for it to be installed. It can be very expensive and yet you never "own" it.

The handicapped of course have the right to access and use of the sidewalk. Where this becomes problematic is that sidewalk cafes are very popular in my town in clement weather. For a $20 permit you are allowed to put out tables and chairs on the sidewalk so long as a reasonable path in still made for foot traffic and wheelchairs.

I don't know if you've noticed but many people are now going about in wheelchairs that are basically SUVs. I mean..these things are often 4 feet across. It is ridiculous. Well, these people in their ginormous SUV wheelchairs are upset that cafe/restaurant tables soemtimes make them have to weave their obscene vehicles in & out. So.. now the city have raised the price of a permit to a $150 application fee, a $175 yearly fee PLUS a set fee per square foot of your frontage PLUS there must be a full six feet of clearance on the sidewalk (and many sidewalks aren't even that wide to begin with). Also, many places now aren't allowed to put up outdoor tables and the ones that can have had their capacity greatly diminished. Because of this many places have cut staff or not hired seasonal staff they would have otherwise. While people are losing their private sector jobs several union city worker positions have been created to police the outdoor tables and hand out fines if anyone complains about your tables.

All this because a few morbidly obese people in ludicrisly oversized Rascals declared that having to say "excuse me" and manuveur around a couple tables was (this is a direct quote from one of them) "humiliating and deeply embarassing".

Businesses saw their permits go from $20 to $400+, they lost income from lost tables, people lost work and had their hours cut. All because of someone's "right" based on their perceived "need".

So I understand your compassion for this person Jill. But how many more people will be hurt as this goes farther? Someone who has a penis but thinks they're a woman thinks they have the right to use the ladies' room. The ladies think they have the right to use the toilet in a penis free room. It is not a stretch to think that soon some "progressive" cities will insist that each business install a unisex restroom or be open to litigation.

Who's right is greater? the woman w/penis or the woman who wants to pee in a penis free environment?

Funny thing is that the transgendered person was in the ladies room because THEY didn't wnat to use the restroom amongst men. Funny, no?

So the only reasonable answer possible is- it is the business owner's right to decide who's business they want. If they want to cultivate transgendered customers they will spend the money necessary if they have it to accomodate them. If they want to cultivate a more conventional "family" atmosphere (women who prefer to pee in penis free rooms, I guess) they will not.

But if rights of ownership aren't absolute then NO ONE has any rights at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...