4/20/16 Bill disrupting California restrooms sent to Assembly floor
SAVECALIFORNIA.COM NEWS RELEASE
April 20, 2016 -- For Immediate Release
Bill disrupting California restrooms sent to Assembly floor
Sacramento, California -- A leading family values organization in California warns that "men" and "women" restroom door signs, and even "boys" and "girls" door signs, could eliminated if a radical bill becomes law.
Today in the California Assembly Appropriations Committee, Democrats voted yes and Republicans voted no on AB 1732, which replaces "men," "women," "boys" and "girls" signs on the doors of lockable, single-person restrooms at all private businesses, including home businesses, religious businesses, schools, church schools, and churches.
"Legislators supporting this radical bill don't know what they're voting for," said Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, which promotes moral virtues for the common good. "If I were supporting the transgender agenda, I couldn't support this bill because it's so poorly drafted and creates many more problems than it claims to solve."
"AB 1732 would tear down 'men' and 'women' signs and replace them with pro-transgender signs at single-occupancy restrooms," Thomasson said. "There is no exemption for home businesses or religious entities. This is a vast overreach that tramples people's constitutional rights. And this bill incentivizes small businesses to go from two restrooms to one restroom."
In the committee's perfunctory substitution of a roll call vote (most of the committee members were not present at the time), committee members were listed as "voting" as follows:
Voting "yes" on AB 1732 were all 14 Democrats: Lorena Gonzalez, Richard Bloom, Susan Bonilla, Rob Bonta, Ian Calderon, Susan Eggman, Tom Daly, Eduardo Garcia, Roger Hernández, Chris Holden, Bill Quirk, Miguel Santiago, Shirley Weber, Jim Wood.
Voting "no" on AB 1732 were 5 Republicans: Frank Bigelow, James Gallagher, Brian Jones, Jay Obernolte, Don Wagner. Republican Ling Ling Chang was reportedly exempted from this automatic vote.
AB 1732 now goes to the Assembly floor for what is expected to be a close roll call vote next week.
SaveCalifornia.com analysis of AB 1732 "single-user restrooms"
What 2 key sentences mean + definition/application problems
(a) All single-user toilet facilities in any business establishment, place of public accommodation, or state or local government agency shall be identified as all-gender toilet facilities, and designated for use by no more than one occupant at a time or for family or assisted use.
1. All the "men"/"women"/ "boys"/ "girls" signs and symbols currently on single-occupancy restrooms at applicable venues must be removed.
2. "All gender" signs and symbols (could be transgender symbols) must be posted instead.
3. Small businesses that wish to save time and money can go from having two restrooms (men and women) to only one restroom ("all gender").
4. Even home businesses come under the "any business establishment" phrase.
5. "Place of public accommodation" is undefined in the bill and could mean private entities of several types. Federal law, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, says the only places of public accommodation are private entities. Under AB 1732, which private entities are included and which are excluded? Small businesses, home businesses, religious businesses, schools, church schools, churches -- where in the bill does it say who is included and who is exempt? Besides the lack of definition for "public accommodation," there is no religious exemption in AB 1732.
(c) For the purposes of this section, "single-user toilet facility" means a toilet facility with no more than one water closet and one urinal with a locking mechanism controlled by the user.
This could mean:
1. For businesses that must have restrooms -- such as food service or gas stations -- under this definition, must they now pay to install men's urinals in current women's restrooms? Why or why not, since "single-user toilet facility" is officially defined as "a toilet facility with no more than one water closet and one urinal."
2. For home businesses, must they now pay to install a men's urinal in addition to paying for and posting an "all gender" restroom sign? Again, AB 1732 defines "single-user toilet facility" as "a toilet facility with no more than one water closet and one urinal."
"AB 1732 would result in unforeseen, negative consequences," Thomasson concluded. "What woman wants a man poking his head in the restroom door that somehow didn't shut or lock? How many women want to us a urine-stained toilet? What conflicts will erupt among strangers from mixing or eliminating gender differences at restrooms? What lawsuits will occur? If familiar 'men' and 'women' restroom signs are torn down, people will ask 'who did this?'"
-- end --
SaveCalifornia.com is a leading West Coast nonprofit, nonpartisan organization standing strong for moral virtues for the common good. We represent children and families in the areas of marriage and family, parental rights, the sanctity of human life, religious freedom, financial freedom, and back-to-basics education.