Target stores adding bathrooms

[Rotobeast]

I'm surprised we haven't went with private bathrooms, everywhere.
That would end the hoopla.

http://m.startribune.com/target-will-spend-20-million-to-add-single-private-restrooms-to-stores/390474791/

Quote:BUSINESS
Target will spend $20 million to add private restrooms to stores



[/url]

[url=http://stmedia.stimg.co/TARGET-TRANSGENDER_39617569.JPG?crop=faces&dpr=1.5&fit=crop&ixjsv=2.2.3&q=66&w=320]

By KAVITA KUMAR , STAR TRIBUNE 
August 17, 2016 - 11:20 PM


Target Corp. will spend $20 million this year to add family restrooms to the rest of its stores to appease critics upset with its policy of allowing transgender people to use the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity.
All but 300 of Target’s 1,797 stores already have private, single restrooms in addition to women’s and men’s restrooms. Most of the stores that don’t have that option will be updated by November, and the final couple dozen stores in the chain will have them by March 2017.

The Star Tribune reported in May that the Minneapolis-based retailer would make the restroom renovations, and executives provided additional details in a conference call with reporters Wednesday after Target reported disappointing sales in its second quarter.
“Some of our guests clearly are uncomfortable with our policy,” said Cathy Smith, Target’s chief financial officer, adding that the company wants to make sure it offers a safe and welcoming environment for all shoppers.
While Smith acknowledged that it’s hard to tease apart the factors that affect sales, she said executives don’t believe the issue has had a material impact on sales. On Wednesday, Target reported a 1.1 percent drop in comparable sales, its first such slide in two years, and a surprising 2.2 percent decline in store traffic in the May-to-July second quarter.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[*bfine32*]

I totally agree that a seperate unisex facility should be a reasonable accomidation; unfortunately, there are those that see this as discrimination.

[Rotobeast]

(08-18-2016, 01:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I totally agree that a seperate unisex facility should be a reasonable accomidation; unfortunately, there are those that see this as discrimination.

The way I read it, it seems the private facility is for the transgender-phobic.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[GMDino]

(08-18-2016, 02:02 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: The way I read it, it seems the private facility is for the transgender-phobic.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

And only 300 stores needed to be changed over?

I bet some people will still complain even though they got their way.  

[Rotobeast]

(08-18-2016, 02:08 PM)GMDino Wrote: And only 300 stores needed to be changed over?

I bet some people will still complain even though they got their way.  

Did they get their way ?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say they wanted policy change.

I think the additional options are a more than reasonable accommodation for either concerned pary.

I don't think anyone got their way though.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[*bfine32*]

(08-18-2016, 02:02 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: The way I read it, it seems the private facility is for the transgender-phobic.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

I would assume it would be for whomever wishes to use it.

[Rotobeast]

(08-18-2016, 02:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I would assume it would be for whomever wishes to use it.

You are correct.
My assumption was ill-conceived.

Reading that they were installed to appease critics and provide comfortable accommodations does not designate who is to use what facility.

Thank you for correcting my misinterpretation.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[fredtoast]

(08-18-2016, 01:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I totally agree that a seperate unisex facility should be a reasonable accomidation; unfortunately, there are those that see this as discrimination.

It is not discrimination unless transgender people are forced to use the separate unisex facility, and that is not what is happening here.

The private restrooms are not for the transgenders.  They are for people afraid of transgender people using the same restroom as them

[*bfine32*]

(08-18-2016, 02:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is not discrimination unless transgender people are forced to use the separate unisex facility, and that is not what is happening here.

The private restrooms are not for the transgenders.  They are for people afraid of transgender people using the same restroom as them

So the transgender-phobe is being discriminated against?

[Belsnickel]

(08-18-2016, 02:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is not discrimination unless transgender people are forced to use the separate unisex facility, and that is not what is happening here.

The private restrooms are not for the transgenders.  They are for people afraid of transgender people using the same restroom as them

I'd say they are for anyone that wants to use the bathroom in private for whatever reason. Whether it be a trans person trying to avoid harassment, or someone that doesn't like the idea of sharing a bathroom with a trans person, or a family trying to wrangle little ones, or a handicapped person that may have difficulties even in an ADA stall, or whomever.

Long and short of it is that single seater unisex restrooms being available are a good option to have around.

[Rotobeast]

(08-18-2016, 02:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The private restrooms are not for the transgenders.  They are for people afraid of transgender people using the same restroom as them

That was the mistake I made, reading the article.

It does seem to come off that way, but they are labeled "Family Restrooms", and transgenders have families too.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(08-18-2016, 02:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'd say they are for anyone that wants to use the bathroom in private for whatever reason. Whether it be a trans person trying to avoid harassment, or someone that doesn't like the idea of sharing a bathroom with a trans person, or a family trying to wrangle little ones, or a handicapped person that may have difficulties even in an ADA stall, or whomever.

Long and short of it is that single seater unisex restrooms being available are a good option to have around.

Pretty much how I viewed it as well.

[fredtoast]

(08-18-2016, 02:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'd say they are for anyone that wants to use the bathroom in private for whatever reason. Whether it be a trans person trying to avoid harassment, or someone that doesn't like the idea of sharing a bathroom with a trans person, or a family trying to wrangle little ones, or a handicapped person that may have difficulties even in an ADA stall, or whomever.

Long and short of it is that single seater unisex restrooms being available are a good option to have around.

I agree.


I was just disagreeing with Bfines claim that anyone would call this new plan by Target "discrimination".  The only way people would call it discrimination is if the new restrooms were just for transgenders.

[fredtoast]

(08-18-2016, 02:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So the transgender-phobe is being discriminated against?

No.  They are free to use either restroom.  

[*bfine32*]

(08-18-2016, 03:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  They are free to use either restroom.  

Oh, I thought you said it was for certain folks. WTS, Target is a private company and IMO can do whatever they wish with their bathrooms and other facilities.

The contention of reasonable accomidation comes more when we start having to fight this in public facilities such as schools and government buildings.

A third unisex facility will be/is a reasonable accomidation, the rub comes which party is being accomidated on based on policy.

If public policy is use facility you identify with, the the third facility would be for those that do not want to share facilities with the other sex. If public policy is use the facility that matches your biological sex; then the accomidation is for those that do not want to share facilities with the other gender. In either case a person has the legal choice of 2 facilities.

If you think having to use a third facility to make you more comfortable will not be grounds for someone to cry discrimination; then as usual, we disagree.

[fredtoast]

(08-18-2016, 03:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If public policy is use facility you identify with, the the third facility would be for those that do not want to share facilities with the other sex. If public policy is use the facility that matches your biological sex; then the accomidation is for those that do not want to share facilities with the other gender. In either case a person has the legal choice of 2 facilities.

If you think having to use a third facility to make you more comfortable will not be grounds for someone to cry discrimination; then as usual, we disagree.

You are comparing apples to oranges.

In one instance a person is forbidden by law to use the facility that they want to.  In the other instance everyone is free to use which ever facility they want to..

You can't cry "discrimination" when you are not forbidden to use the facility that you want to and just choose not to use it.

[*bfine32*]

(08-19-2016, 02:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You are comparing apples to oranges.

In one instance a person is forbidden by law to use the facility that they want to.  In the other instance everyone is free to use which ever facility they want to..

You can't cry "discrimination" when you are not forbidden to use the facility that you want to and just choose not to use it.

We shouldn't always base our laws on wants (comfort)

[fredtoast]

(08-19-2016, 02:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We shouldn't always base our laws on wants (comfort)

I agree.  No ones rights should be limited unless they interfere with the rights of another person.

That is why everyone should have the right to use whatever restroom they identify with.  No need to restrict anyone's rights when they are not interfering with the rights of other people.

[*bfine32*]

(08-19-2016, 02:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I agree.  No ones rights should be limited unless they interfere with the rights of another person.

That is why everyone should have the right to use whatever restroom they identify with.  No need to restrict anyone's rights when they are not interfering with the rights of other people.

Everyone should be free to use the facility that matches their biological sex. No need to restrict anyone's rights when they are not interfering with the rights of other people.

[fredtoast]

(08-19-2016, 03:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Everyone should be free to use the facility that matches their biological sex. No need to restrict anyone's rights when they are not interfering with the rights of other people.

Everyone is ALREADY free to use the bathroom that matches their biological sex.  No one is trying to change that at all.  Allowing transgender people to use the bathroom they identify with does not restrict the rights of people to use the bathroom of their biological sex.

You don't even understand what we are talking about.