Top LGBT Leaders Are Divided Over Compromising On The Bathroom Fight

https://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/lgbt-leaders-divided-bathroom-fight

Buzzfeed.com
By Domenic Holden
Oct. 25, 2016

On Aug. 1, two dozen of the country's top LGBT activists held an invitation-only phone call to hash out a disagreement that had pitted them into two camps.
...
...  one faction argued they could make gains with Republicans by accepting a compromise. In particular, several supported a bill in Pennsylvania that would ban LGBT discrimination in workplaces and housing — but not in public places, like restaurants and stores. Many on the call believe this could emerge as a model for other swing states where they've hit barricades — namely in Ohio, Florida, and Arizona.

By dropping public accommodations from the bills, they would mostly avoid the bathroom issue and religious objections. Transgender people, like LGB people, would be covered in housing and employment. But such a deal would allow, for example, business owners to reject gay customers and require transgender women to use male facilities.

The article further mentions that the Gill Foundation pushes this compromise, and the National Center for Transgender Equality has supported it.  The ACLU has lost Gill Foundation funding because it does not agree to the compromise.

QuoteBut such a deal would allow, for example, business owners to reject gay customers and require transgender women to use male facilities.

One of these things is not like the other.

It is generally pretty easy for a gay person to pass.  Transgender women, not so much.

If I'm shopping for a wedding cake I expect to take some time and try several places. One rejecting me is not a big deal.

If my bladder is full there's a bit of urgency involved.  Telling me I can only pee in an environment that places me in immediate risk of harm isn't like cake shopping.

Gosh, are these nice people throwing me under the bus again?  I wonder if it will be my friend?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can understand the arguments and concerns, especially relative to what happened in Houston TX.  I can understand the the art of compromise as a long term politician.

What i do not understand or accept is the willingness of some to forget about the loss of credibility and solidarity by national groups that will apparently compromise on our very basic safety and participation in the public sphere.

We recall MARTIN NIEMÖLLER: "FIRST THEY CAME FOR THE SOCIALISTS" but i was not a socialist so I did not speak up.  That was his experience in standing up to the Nazis.  There is a strong case to be made for the current rise of nationalism and fascism and our lowly place on the totem pole.  Once the LGB world is protected will they really be speaking up in numbers to keep us safe and out in public?  No compromise is acceptable to me.

Another article on the same topic, from the TransAdvocate:

http://transadvocate.com/the-gill-foundation-ncte-chooses-money-over-trans-lives_n_19102.htm