It was beneficial for fifty years' worth of women with unwanted pregnancies.
An actual
law would have been better. Because we would then still have its protection.
Obviously. I've been saying so for years. It would have been better even though that's not a "solution that all states and cities would find acceptable as a top-down, firearm-enforced mandate."
The SCOTUS are feds too, and they're apt to impose another top down federal solution, probably one that obviously favors one ideological faction over another.
That much is certain. And you only think that's a
good thing
You might want to rethink your conviction that you have ESP -- you really aren't good at it. Where on earth did you get the absurd notion that I think it's a good thing? I literally just cited it as a counterargument to your argument against further federal legislation.
because you think they'll do something akin to this Scottish court.
Seriously, dude, why do you feel so bloody entitled to just make stuff up about people? I don't know what they'll do if they get such a case but I think it's pretty much guaranteed not to be much like the UK* court's decision, since there's nothing in the US governmental system analogous to Parliamentary supremacy.
(* There was no "this Scottish court". It's a British court and most of the judges are English.)
and corrolary insistence that businesses "only" serve their potential customers' needs for fear of lawsuit.
Women who'll be put off by men using the women's room count as potential customers too. If it's left up to owners' choice then some owners will certainly serve their potential trans customers'
needs preferences, yes; but we'll probably find most owners can do arithmetic.
Did you forget what we were talking about? You were arguing that business owners prefer universally to have only two bathrooms, one male and one female, but because they were terrified by the Wendy's lawsuit, are now building non-gendered bathrooms as well to avoid being attacked by the EEOC, which did and does not go after businesses for having two bathrooms, an incredibly common and indeed still overwhelmingly normative situation outside of a few tiny pockets of liberality on the edges of the country.
Apparently you find what I'm saying to you to be completely reasonable and very probably correct -- otherwise you wouldn't need to keep putting words in my mouth that are easier targets for your invective. No, I was not arguing that. You added the "only" and "universally" (un)qualifiers to my description of a general trend; and the "now building" bit is pure invention on your part. I claimed nothing of the sort; what I said was "ongoing proliferation of all-gender restrooms". If you actually believe those words imply employers are
building anything more than restroom
door signs, then you're surprisingly unimaginative for someone so prone to fantasies about other posters.
(And before you edit your fantasy into a new fantasy about me, no, I'm also obviously not saying the EEOC has been telling businesses with two bathrooms to relabel one to all-gender. It's been telling businesses to let men use the women's room and women use the men's room, labels be damned. The relabeling is truth in advertising -- putting customers on notice that they may find a man in what used to be the women's room.)
In any case, if the problem is "women being put off by men using the women's room", then the EEOC is acting to correct that arguing problem by "forcing" business owners to provide more options and thus making your doomsday situation less likely.
But as you note they weren't forcing business owners to provide more options; they were just disallowing the option women typically prefer. (Of course now that Trump is the EEOC's boss, the bathroom use lawsuits may be going away. The jackass will probably ditch the actual harassment cases too. Baby, meet bathwater.
)
