Now I've heard everything

What's a family restroom?

Open to all sexes. Usually only parents with Children go in. Though. . . I had to evacuate my lower digestive tract a few weeks ago and had no choice but to use one (men's room at my local mall was full). To my pleasant surprise, the stalls were even MORE private-ish (Separating the commodes into separate room-like spaces; No "Larry Craig-like" possibility of reaching under the partisan to cop a feel, men or women) and I was able to do my business and flee the premises unhindered.

~String
 
There's no doubt--and I've said this before--there are benefits to having the Westminster system as there are unfortunate members of society who can effectively hide behind a fixed bill of rights. It happens all the time here (and in other constitutionally framed republics). There are--presumably--various benefits that you are forgetting, though.
not a huge amount if there is a human rights act to which all others are subserviant and if you have a strong oposition and a half way reasonably informed public. Ie once the acts in place if the goverment seeks to change the act a) they have to pass the upper house which tends to be anything BUT a rubber stamp but more importantly b) the oposition is going to make sure its on every news channel right up until the election and if the public are against it then kiss your chances goodbye. Yes there are some benifts like the fact that same sex marriage PROBABLY would have been legalised by now by the courts BUT there is also the issue of smoke companies using "freedom of speach" to get around advertising laws for instance. All in all i trust the parliment ALOT more than i trust the stock exchange.

No. Those signs don't exist in any meaningful numbers here. For starters, in every state that I know of, any business which is open to the public (as I stated, which you conveniently left out; makes me wonder about your reading ability) cannot ban segments of the public. Example: A mom-and-pop owned diner in Alabama cannot ban blacks from entering and getting served. Besides breaking that law, there are other, secondary and tertiary, laws that would come into effect (zoning, taxing, subsidizing, public utilities, etc). Plus, it's just bad business to have the ACLU show up at your shop and draw negative attention. For all the exaggerated racism from the south, the dominate view in the USA is that discrimination is bad. We're still a capitalist nation, and when one wants to make money, the best thing to remember is that green is always green.

~String

i have little to no opinion on there pressents either way. I was just saying that its not something we want here and these laws are in place in part to prevent it. They actually go alot further than just preventing that in there objectives but it does give a simple example:p The anti discrimination legislation is both mandiated as nessary by international bodies like the Human rights commission but further more WE demand it as a furtherance to the ideal that all people shall be treated equally. For instance Australia was the first place in the world to give women the right to stand for public office and amongst the first (second i think, the brits just beat us from memory) to give women the vote.

I will just say one thing though.
Those signs don't exist in any meaningful numbers here
doesnt make it seem like your terribly confident that they dont exist at all.

Anyway on your point
For starters, in every state that I know of, any business which is open to the public (as I stated, which you conveniently left out; makes me wonder about your reading ability) cannot ban segments of the public

once again i will bow to your knowlage but i do recall a thread where it was discussed that an employer could refuse to hire an employee based on there religion. The comment from Mad i THINK was "its there business and they can run it anyway they want UNLESS they have said that they are an equal opitunty employer". Maybe that has changed or was wrong but it do suggest that any antidiscrimation laws which do exist are relitivly weak
 
It's where mom, dad and kids go in a room to go potty.

Often there is a sign:

"If it's yellow let it mellow, if it's brown, flush it down."
 
Public restrooms with changing stations for fathers and mothers are the norm where I've been (USA, Canada, W.Europe). "Family" restrooms are popping up everywhere here too.

~String

oh thats been fixed for the most part, they are now either seprate rooms all together or have been moved into the disabled toilets (which makes sense given the fact that they are about 4 times larger than a normal toilet)
 
once again i will bow to your knowlage but i do recall a thread where it was discussed that an employer could refuse to hire an employee based on there religion. The comment from Mad i THINK was "its there business and they can run it anyway they want UNLESS they have said that they are an equal opitunty employer". Maybe that has changed or was wrong but it do suggest that any antidiscrimation laws which do exist are relitivly weak

Well, as an HR manager--who's worked for several companies--I can say with a degree of assurance that any company with more than a set number of employees cannot discriminate for any reason. I forget the exact numbers, but it's in the low double-digits. A privately owned company, run by a family (for example) or by an individual, has a great deal of lattitude in hiring and promoting. If it ever receives a dime in public funds, it becomes fully subordinate to anti-discrimination laws. But as long as it remains fully private (not publicly traded) and with fewer than (I think. . .) 25 employees, it can hire the way it sees fit. Once it crosses a dollar value or more than a set number of employees, it is considered to be applicable under the stricter laws.

The fact that I stated "in any meaningful numbers" (in regards to "no blacks wanted" signs) is that, to wit, I've never seen one. Never. Not once. I'm a pretty well traveled bloke. I've seen more racial discrimination in Spain and France than I've ever seen in the USA (a good number Spaniards blatantly refuse to serve Gypsies [Roma]; the French have horrific treatment of Algerians). In the US, it's not perfect; I'm certain that there are businesses that, if not directly, work avidly in avoiding serving "coloreds".

~String
 
Open to all sexes. Usually only parents with Children go in. Though. . . I had to evacuate my lower digestive tract a few weeks ago and had no choice but to use one (men's room at my local mall was full). To my pleasant surprise, the stalls were even MORE private-ish (Separating the commodes into separate room-like spaces; No "Larry Craig-like" possibility of reaching under the partisan to cop a feel, men or women) and I was able to do my business and flee the premises unhindered.

~String

OH I've never seen those. I've been to plenty of restrooms that have completely enclosed stalls, especially in the Hills area of Los Angeles, but never a family bathroom.
 
Rock hard in a hard place

There used to be a club in Portland, Oregon, called The City. When you walked in, one of the first things you saw was a big board with the club's rules of conduct. One of the rules, (G), I think, was, "No requesting Guns 'n' Roses". Somewhere down around (M) or (N) was, "No heterosexual conduct!"

It used to piss people off, to be certain. "At least," I told one friend, once upon a time, "they have the decency to post a rule." Fifty miles south, in Salem, one could be kicked out of a bar for being presumed gay.

In this sense, it's easy enough to fix the problem. Simply post a rule that says, "No ogling, flirting, or other sexual harassment." Even a guy like me would steer clear of that; when a situation gets to that point, I don't want to be anywhere near it.

Anyway, a digression. Imagine a trendy heterosexual guy who notices the local fad of wearing red bandanas. Trying to fit in, he dresses up in ratty jeans and a white t-shirt, pulls on his Docs, and stuffs a newly-purchased red bandana in his back left pocket.

So he walks down to the local bar and ....

(Anyone? Anyone?)

I always adore the expressions I see when an unsuspecting heterosexual walks into a gay bar. But I'm even more puzzled at the people who don't seem to realize where they are. No, no, I'm not mistaking it for heterosexuals simply being comfortable in a queer environment. I'm talking about those people who are appalled and angry when someone tries to chat them up.

So our unfortunate trendy boy walks down to the local bar and ends up with a broken jaw after he attacked some guy for propositioning him.

Maybe next time he won't wear a flag that says he likes a fist up his ass.

My point is that sometimes certain forms of discrimination are helpful. Generally speaking, though, these are observational. In practice, such discrimination becomes segregation, and while this is a bad idea, the flip-side isn't that great, either.

There was one gay bar in Salem, and I have long forgotten its name. It was a fun place where they played "Time Warp" at least as much as "The Macarena", which was some comfort to my soul and ears. I hate "The Macarena".

Anyway, it was the kind of place where heterosexual women liked to go because they could drink and dance and talk to people and have fun without anyone trying to pick them up. And the bartenders were accustomed to this, playing a little game with the patrons. If the bartender presumed you gay, you got two pink straws in your drink. Heterosexuals got two green straws, and bisexuals, obviously, got one of each.

Nothing close to paradise remains there very long. As the place became more and more popular with heterosexual women, they started dragging their boyfriends along. And at first it was amusing when some random het realized what the two pink straws in his glass meant; it was always the men who reacted poorly.

But by the time I left Salem, it was no longer a gay bar. It wasn't a management shift. Rather, heterosexuals kept bringing more and more of their friends, and this was Oregon in the middle of a civil rights fight. Over time, the heterosexuals complained so much about the gays and made the place so damnably unpleasant that the gays started looking around for another bar. Eventually, the place closed down and reopened as a restaurant of some sort.

And that may be the way of business, but I think it's a damn shame that people can't find a place to escape certain pressures. When it comes to men and women, the general trend is that men are much more aggressive in pursuing potential sex partners. And that's problematic in the sense that there are plenty of men who feel "victimized" by the idea that women—or anyone—should be able to go about their business without being hit on.

It's one of the reasons I so enjoy watching heterosexual men get upset when they wander into a gay event and get hit on. Generally speaking, the ones who react badly—who get angry instead of politely declining, for instance—are the ones who just can't stand being treated the way they treat women.

In the end, it's a tough situation. Segregation isn't a good idea, but neither is the idea that one's masculinity entitles him to separate rules of conduct. I'd like to think that not every place and situation in this world is a place for chasing tail, but, hey, fine with me: Let the men use the facility, and who cares if they ever act decently, right?
 
And at first it was amusing when some random het realized what the two pink straws in his glass meant; it was always the men who reacted poorly.

Well, chalk it up to an identity conflict. After all, what kind of straight man orders a drink that comes with straws in the first place?
 
What is wrong with either sex organizing single sex holidays?

I would have no issue with either men or women doing that.
 
Back
Top