According to news reports, a New Jersey man was recently arrested for allegedly filming women in fitting rooms at a Target store.
You may recall Target unveiled a policy letting men enter women’s restrooms, changing areas, and similar facilities in its stores nearly a year and a half ago.
In response, many people expressed public safety concerns about this policy, and more than 1.5 million people signed a pledge to boycott Target until the policy changes.
This latest incident underscores the need for Target to reverse course and protect the privacy and safety of its customers and employees in its stores.
It also reminds us that states like Arkansas need to protect the privacy and safety of public school students and others when it comes to showers, locker rooms, restrooms, and similar facilities in public schools and other government buildings.
Photo Credit: By Mike Kalasnik from Fort Mill, USA [CC BY-SA 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons.
According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, Target’s CEO does not seem to regret the company’s decision to invite men into the women’s changing areas and restrooms at its stores–but he does regret the fact the policy was so widely publicized.
You may recall last year Target announced on its website that customers and employees at its stores would be able to use the changing areas and restrooms of their choice rather than their biological sex.
Many people expressed public safety concerns about this decision, and more than a million people signed agreements to boycott Target.
Now Target’s CEO Brian Cornell admits, “Target didn’t adequately assess the risk [about publicizing the policy], and the ensuing backlash was self-inflicted.”
Of course, Target has not changed its policy as of today, and nearly 1.5 million Americans are still boycotting the retail chain as a result.
Late yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision blocking a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling concerning school restroom policies.
As you may know, last spring the Obama Administration issued “guidelines” to public schools and colleges instructing them to let biological males who claim to be female use the girls’ restrooms, locker rooms, shower facilities, and so forth at school. Meanwhile, a lawsuit has been underway back east, where a biologically female student who claims to be male has sued the school for access to the boys’ restrooms and locker rooms.
The school has insisted restroom and locker room facilities should remain separated based on students’ biological sex–not based on gender-identity. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals had ordered the school to let students use the restrooms and locker rooms of their choice rather than of their biological sex. Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court blocked that decision.
National Organization of Marriage (NOM) issued a statement, saying,
[T]he US Supreme Court has blocked a ruling of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals imposing a transgender bathroom policy by interpreting the term “sex” under Title IX of federal law to mean “gender identity.”
This is a big victory and protects students in the states of North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and Maryland and comes as students will be heading back to school soon. The ruling is a blow to the Obama administration which has been working overtime to impose the gender ideology of LGBT extremists.
The effect of the ruling is to leave intact a Virginia school district’s policy that intimate facilities such as restrooms, showers and locker rooms are segregated based on a student’s actual biologic sex, and not based on “gender identity” or other subjective feelings.
It is expected that the school district will file a motion with the Supreme Court to hear the underlying case this fall. NOM will urge the Supreme Court to rule that federal law enacted decades ago does not define “sex” to mean “gender identity” and that the Obama administration does not have the legal authority to impose their transgender bathroom policy on the nation’s schools.
While the decision does not directly impact Arkansas, it is a major victory that affects the tone of future court cases.