Well, first, at this stage there isn't a lawsuit (at least not yet). What is hapening is that the state's Attorney General has been asked to render a "judicial opinion," and as part of that process, he/she is conducting some sort of evidentiary hearing if the article is correct.

Next, note that the quoted article said, "the Attorney General's Office cited a Utah case in which a judge wrote that "many women would be upset, embarrassed and even concerned for their safety if a man used a public restroom designated exclusively for women. Concerns about privacy, safety and propriety are the reason that gender-specific restrooms are universally accepted in our society."

LEGAL THOUGHT # ONE: I'll bet this is where this issue will be decided. In the U.S. (for our friends across the different ponds), "precedent" is major in deciding legal issues!!! Yes, precedent can be overcome, but, that said, precedent usually rules the day. In American jurisprudence, using this type of standard for deciding an issue is called "stare decisis" which means to "stand by by things previously decided." This is a hallmark doctrine of American law, the argument being that it should not be necessary to revisit the same points again and again in litigation, thus DO NOT disturb settled points!

LEGAL THOUGHT # TWO: I'll also bet that TWO PARTS of the cited Utah case will be central to the final AG opinion . . . I can already see the writing on the wall!!! What parts do I think will speciously rule the day??? "Concerns about privacy . . . and propriety." The safety issue would be difficult to sustain given the known statistics. But, by centering -- and speciously so IMHO -- on issues of privacy and propriety, and by applying stare decisis, the AG isn't going to issue an opinion to freely allow gender identity to decide what bathroom to use -- it is too easy to stay "publically and politically safe" by ruling that one should use the bathroom of their anatomical sex.

LEGAL THOUGHT # THREE: the AG's opinion is usually based in no small part on statements of fact and rationale, in addition to points of law. In the main, an AG's opinion is an interpretation, so it is subject to be submitted to a court (thankfully) b/c it is nothing more than an expression of judgement of one who is presumed to have special knowledge, and from that issues an understanding of the law based on the facts as known. It is NOT a final decision!!! That said, if a state's AG issues an opinion, it is going to be considered to have a great deal of weight and will be difficult (though not impossible) to prevail against such in court -- the very fact that a state AG has etered into an issue usually means he or she will remain active in subsequent court proceedings as a matter of upholding the opinion as that of the people of the state at-large.

Quote Originally Posted by ColleenCD View Post
This appears to be more favorable to the bar owner. He is within his rights and is not required to install a third/unisex restroom. The discrimination apsect is hard to prove without asistance of judge and jury. It would be wise if the gurls found another watering hole where they could wet their whistle and check their lip gloss with GG's and club owners support.
Colleen, just MHO, but even with judge and jury, if this issue goes to court, it is going to be difficult to win. I absolutely agree that the owner would provide his customers with a great service by providing a third, unisex bathroom. That said, the owner is under no obligation to do so, and I doubt a court would say otherwise.

MANY of you make impressive arguments that are full of common sense -- but looking at this in strictly legalistic terms, common sense isn't a factor I'm sorry to say.

A'hhhh -- to be back in Paris!!! My first shopping trip to one of Paris's largest department stores, I was astounded to see that the bathrooms wre unisex. Very private stalls, very open sinks.

Okay -- let the rest of the forum's legal membership weigh in! Did I miss anything?!!!?