Oh I don’t know, on the grounds that when you pass a law against something it becomes illegal? Same as every other law in the world?
Laws have to have a rational basis, and are subject to various levels of scrutiny by the courts. How could any government justify that crap?
That’s adorable.
All I’m saying is that such a law would never stand up in court.
Oh. Well, you’re wrong. Also, Atlas Shrugged is a stupid pulp fantasy.
I know of one, too – the rest room on the top floor of the Walker Memorial at MIT used to be all male, but they made it unisex by putting enclosures around the urinals.
It’s been ages since I was there. They might have completely redone it by now.
No enclosures, in the one I’m thinking of.
Cite, please.
What is offered without evidence may be dismissed without evidence, in this case your claim “such a law would never stand.” When you bring a cite for that, we can talk. Otherwise, you’re dismissed.
“There oughta be a law” is the lamest statement one can make. It doesn’t even qualify as an argument.
So is saying laws have to have a rational basis.
I agree, it’s a lame piece of rhetoric and barely an argument. The only lamer thing I can imagine is somebody taking it seriously enough to argue against, so you’re entirely true to form here.
You two know how this is going to go, right?
That “rationalism test” doesn’t deal with the inherent rationality of a law. It just says that certain laws must be demonstrably relatable to the state’s interests.
In this case, the state has a rationally demonstrable interest in avoiding people pissing on the floor, or of damaging their kidneys from holding their urine, or from preventable altercations by people entering the wrong restroom. Just as the state demonstrated its interest in handicapped access signage, there’s a demonstrable interest in requiring establishments to post clearly labeled restroom signage.
This will of course not satisfy someone who doesn’t want the government involved in this sort of thing at all, but if your argument is that it should meet the “rational basis test”, it obviously does.
At a minimum we should adjust the laws so anyone using a restroom which lacks the official braille + universal icon + “Men” or “Women” in English signage is not liable for any mistakes in which one they choose.
No charges of peeping tom, indecent exposure, stalking, etc., for any man simply entering and using any poorly labeled women’s restroom. And vice versa of course, but that’s not where the big concern about unjust prosecution comes from.
Which is not meant as a get out of jail free card for bad behavior inside the wrong restroom. Merely that being in the wrong one is guaranteed to no longer be a status crime.
I once used a small gang restroom that had a dial on the door. At the top it said, “empty”. Going around clockwise, to the bottom, it said
“Women who care”
“Women who don’t care”
“Both”
And comparable indicators for men on the other side.
I saw a public restroom recently that just had a picture of a toilet on the door. Which actually indicated that this room would serve your needs. Yes, it was a unisex restroom.
Go before you leave the house.
Well, yeah but in a office with lots of employees, that is super expensive.
One thing I dont like is the mens room with a urinal and a toilet with no wall between them. If you have some sort of wall, then both can be used at the same time.
Really? What is the state’s demonstrable interest in that scenario? Has any U.S. court ever ruled that “avoiding people pissing on the floor” is a rationally demonstrable interest of the state?