I went out and found the injunction that was granted and read the document. It was interesting to me that the case presented by the district was very much like the defensive position to justify HB2 here in NC (I live in NC) The case presented by the plaintiffs was also similar to that on the anti-HB2 side. I see little chance the plaintiffs will lose their case, ultimately. Whether the board will appeal or not, I don't know. So I do not know if it will reach SCOTUS. It should serve as some precedent anyway.
This PA case is a tame, focused, version of the bathroom bills that are being passed or considered in so many states. It deals with specific persons and a controlled environment, unlike the HB2 style bills. Appeals to the ether (Parental fears of what might, possibly, could, I think happen to my child because of one of "them" or someone pretending to be one of "them". What about the student that wants to claim transgender status for the day for nefarious purposes? Bad and discredited research from agenda driven sources. And other red-herrings we hear from the HB2-proponent crowd.) for justification by the defense didn't get very far with the judge. Settling this issue on the Fourteenth Amendment basis is the way it should be done because it settles the case on the basis of unequal treatment of a minority without the sufficient justification of a greater good.
I, for one, will be disappointed if HB2 is repealed. I want this patchwork of state laws to be resolved at the Constitutional level in the same way the gay marriage issue was. If it is repealed, it will no longer be a piece in achieving the progress we need to make in advancing this to the SCOTUS. The states have the right to regulate marriage as they see fit as long as they don't violate the rights of any minority in the process. Likewise, the states have the right to regulate bathroom use as long as they don't violate the rights of any minority in the process. As patchwork of gay marriage solutions by the states forced the SCOTUS to address that issue. The same thing is going to happen to the bathroom issue, as well.
If McCrory had left the sleeping dog lie, we would forever have been in that questioning state. Remember the frequent OPs that asked where it was permissible/safe to use the restroom of your presentation? This is the painful process of getting the final answer to that question, but the final answer is better than the limbo we were in. If the bathroom issue resolves in our favor under the Fourteenth Amendment, how is it possible for any other aspect of our lives be viewed as exempt from Fourteenth Amendment protections as well.
I have some fear and trepidation that the upcoming appointment to the SCOTUS is not so much in our favor. However,the PA case shows me how a proper case can be made in our behalf and how weak the case on the part of the HB2 type proponents really is when presented to a judge. Surely the SCOTUS members are competent enought to see that as well. (I hope I am not being naive in thinking the members of the SCOTUS are not totally partisan and uninfluenced by the facts of the case and the intent of the Constitution.)
When HB2 was passed, I thought to myself, I should send the governor a thank you card. If the great state of TX, and other states, as well, add their vitriol to the mix, I see the SCOTUS being all the more willing to have its say on the issue. If the final outcome for us regarding the bathroom bill issue follows what I see from the PA case injunction, I think I might just send the biggest card I can find then to rub it in.
The Fourteenth Amendment covers the various governments and their ability to discriminate. There is still the issue of private citizens and their religious freedoms. I am probably an outlier, in this regard, among the transgender community. I am in a religious minority. (A smaller community than the transgender community, if you can believe that.) I do believe that individuals have the right to associate with me, even hate me, if they wish, based on their religious convictions. At the same time I believe they must be held fully accountable for any harm they cause me even if they feel they have religious grounds. I believe the proper way to address this aspect of our oppression is not by passing laws that infringe their religious rights, but live my life to show them they have no real cause for their hate. Some can softened, some cannot be. I do believe that laws that punish people for actions they do take that harm others are entirely appropriate. If anyone truly has a religious conviction they should be willing to suffer for the consequences of holding to their convictions. (If their convictions are so harmful to so many others, that others have to pass laws to get control of the situation, maybe they should reconsider the basis of their convictions. Just a thought.) They can believe what they wish, they can invite into their homes whomever they want or not, they can roll their eyes all they like, they can cross the street if that is what makes them feel better, they can choose to associate, or not, with whomever they like in their private lives, however, if their actions, springing from their religious convictions, truly cause me substantial harm, I shall hold them to account, by confrontation, if appropriate, by legal action, if necessary. Regarding such individuals and their engagement with me in public commerce, I believe they must treat me as they would any other person that would seek out their services. I think that laws that explicitly state what proper conduct is and penalties for misbehavior are entirely appropriate. So far, I have not been substantially harmed. I do realize, however, that many of us have been very much harmed.
I guess, for me, religious freedom means that you can refuse to serve a meal to me because it is your Sabbath and you don't serve anyone on the Sabbath but you can't refuse to serve me in your restaurant because I am transgender and I am not always dressed to your religiously dictated standards while serving others that better meet your standards. You don't have to sit down and have dinner with me and participate in my life, but you should be required, by force of law if necessary, to serve me to the same standard of quality if you serve others not like me.
But that is another can of worms that needs the Fourteenth Amendment issue decided first, I think. If the various governments don't treat us with equality, how can we even begin to get the governments to force its more wayward citizens to do the same?
Sorry, this got more involved than I intended,
Stephanie
