Target‘s recent decision to allow transgendered individuals to choose the bathrooms of their choice at their retail stores has been a public relations nightmare for the company, considering that it has fielded a lot of complaints from slews of its customers and the Religious Right for bringing “inclusivity” to its stores. Inclusivity is where it belongs in the marketplace of ideas, including the free market, and people have the prerogative and are well-within their rights to object to the inclusive nature of the new bathrooms and the message that Target has been espousing for a long while: the transgendered are people who have individual rights and should freely cater businesses that are LBGT-friendly, even if and when Target is that particularly specific enterprise.
Target’s position on the transgendered bathroom ruckus is a nuanced way of the free market to respond to North Carolina’s law, which actively discriminates against the transgendered from using public accommodations such as restrooms that don’t correspond with their biological sex organs. The new law in the language of the North Carolina bill in great dispute is here, here, and here.
H2v4 (a .pdf file)
Here’s the entire bill that is now public law thanks to the General Assembly of North Carolina as of March 23, 2016:
Target’s press release on their decision can be read here. Keep in mind that Target as a retailer supports the Federal Equality Act, which violates business owners’ private property rights and their rights to freedom of association by using the power of the State to coerce enterprises to support inclusivity, whether the business supports that blind concept or not.
Here’s the full press release from Target:
Target’s new policy ignited a firestorm of fury from rank-and-file conservatives in the Republican Party who are absolutely opposed to this new deal. The conservative Christian organization the American Family Association condemned the move and thus launched a boycott on its website because of the retail giant’s private, free-market decision. The petition can be found here.
Upon performing a cursory review of some of the articles linked at the bottom of the boycott pledge, one article was published by LifeSiteNews.com mysteriously documents a case of a “sexual predator” who “pretended to be a transgendered woman” to sexually assault two women in a Toronto shelter. Toronto shelters are known to be public – not private – shelters in Toronto, Ontario in Canada. And, adding insult to injury, no records of children were molested in a Target store or any other retailer within the U.S. and Canada were ever reported. Point of fact, the targets of this pervert were *ADULT* woman, not little boys and/or girls. Another website, UPI.com, suspiciously reported a case of a Japanese “cross dresser” in Japan who entered women’s bath houses for the sole purpose of “watching naked women.” He was arrested on 17 illegal counts for entering public buildings and engaging in peeping other women’s naked activities. Gee, no Target stores there as well as any that reported illegal child molestation in both mens and women’s bathrooms. In fact, the women upon whom he preyed were *ADULT* women, not little boys and/or girls.
The fact that this Christian group is all hot-and-bothered over a collective group of people using a public restroom because the transgendered want special access to young boys and/or girls for the purpose of child molestation is laughable. The fact is that most transgender people do *NOT* want to rape, molest, sexually fondle, or touch any little child for any reason. More importantly, they condemn this attack simply because it is rooted in absolute bigotry.
GOP presidential contender Donald Trump told Matt Laurer and Samantha Guthrie of the Today Show, according to the New York Times, that he didn’t have a problem with transgender individuals using public restrooms. His remarks were this were clear on the Today Show:
Shortly after that, Caitlyn Jennifer responded to Trump, praising him for his comments on the talk show. She took him up on his offer to use his Trump Tower to use a public restroom, specifically the women’s bathroom.
Here’s her filmed video as it is:
Of course, Cruz responded here.
Cruz supporter and anti-Trump supporter and conservative talk radio show host Dana Loesch (Twitter username: @DLoesch) attacks Target for their decision. Listen to what she had to say on her long-ass hate radio rant:
[Dana Slamming Target and Proving She’s A Bigoted Cunt Against The Transgendered in Hour 1 of The Dana Show, April 20, 2016]
[Dana Demonizing and Vilifying Transgender Bathrooms While Claiming Force Acceptance in Hour 3 of the Dana Show, April 22, 2016]
Her interview with Cruz was over the top and, quite frankly, out of line:
[Dana Interview Sen. Ted Cruz on the Transgender Bathroom Issue in Hour 1 of the Dana Show, April 22, 2016]
THE BOTTOM LINE
The bottom line is this: Target is well-within its rights to welcome or deny any customer, male, female, transgender, or whoever it is, any service and any product that it wishes. Target has a right to freely associate and disassociate with its customers and other patrons for any reason, and it neither has to give a reason nor should it explain why it is doing so. The retailer in this case is associating itself with the transgender crowd, not because of “forced acceptance” as Loesch wrongly assumes, but because it is a good business practice. Does Target have a right to accept customers even the transgendered? Of course it does. Does it also have a right not to accept them? Yes, it does so as well. But that’s not the point, and we all know it.
The point is that the free market has decided not via force or “forced acceptance” that the transgender people are a group of individuals who are free-thinking human beings to whom their rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” also apply. They are also customers as well. Does Loesch, who is nothing more than a spiteful, hateful, and bombastic bitch, get to decide what businesses can and cannot serve? Does Senator Ted Cruz, who is nothing more than a piker in a political contest looking to rule over the lives of so many Americans, get to decide what Target can and cannot do?At least Trump knows a thing or two about running a business: you please your entire customer base including the transgendered, not to politicians like Cruz and certainly not to homophobic, transphobic hit women like Loesch who has whored her way from the liberal side into the arms of a conservative husband and who has risen to the top of the talk radio world thanks to the Religious Right, her husband Chris, and BlazeTV.
(Interestingly enough, Dana has blocked me on my Twitter account @ToddABarnett, because I sided with Montel Williams and against her on some gun rights agenda, which she thinks that she knows a thing or two about it.)
Here’s more of her hate screed:
In defense of Trump’s statement on the Today Show, he wasn’t “caving to the people who want men in women’s restrooms.” Oh, and Dana, by the way, PI (as in politically incorrect), not PC (as in politically correct). Trump was being neither. He was asked for his opinion, and he gave it. He doesn’t give a flying fuck whether you and Ted Cruz agree with him or not; he was very open on his view on transgender individuals using the bathroom.
Take your fucking head out of your shitty ass, you fucking ingrate!
Oh, now we’re accusing Salon.com of having “published articles in defense of pedophilia,” aren’t we? I don’t concur with Salon.com, but I never saw one controversial article aimed by the Right for having published articles condoning the criminal act of pedophilia. Seriously, Dana? That’s the best you can do to fire your salvo of weapons against Salon.com? “Yeah, you published articles defending pedos.” Give me a fucking break, ok?
And, even if it did “defend pedophilia,” did you at least *EVER* condemn the Catholic Church for criminal acts of pedophilia? Get the fuck off your so-called “moral” high horse and be consistent for once. At least I criticized the Vatican in public Yahoo Groups and in private for defending pedophilia. Where *THE* fuck was Ted Cruz on that issue? Let me guess. Dennis Hastert is “innocent until proven guilty” because of his child molestation charges pending against him and so is the Vatican (which is on record having had ties to Hitler’s regime), but when it comes to the transgendered and Salon.com, they’re not accorded with the “innocent until proven guilty” charge as well.
Again, it’s not about “forced acceptance” and “caving to the PC crowd.” It’s about private businesses making decisions that will benefit them in the long run. This is the same rhetoric that applied to the South during the Jim Crow era. Do we want a transgender version of “Whites Only” and “Negros Only” bathrooms that were prominent and well-documented on the old film reels back in the ’60s (which paved the way for the 1964 Civil Rights Act)? Is there “forced acceptance” in society? Yes, Democrats want to use the power of the State to impose their doctrine of political correctness on society. And, yes, there are limousine liberal gay and lesbian and transgendered activists who want to shove their values down everyone’s throat via the guns of the State by political decree. This is because conservatives and libertarians must adhere to a State religiosity that punishes them for not having the correct opinion.
But there is also “forced acceptance” coming from your side as well, Dana. How about that? What about that? Conservatives want to impose their doctrine of political incorrectness on everyone else so that everyone will be forced to think, feel, and act like them. There is also religious correctness – a brand of political correctness that imposes a moralistic religious doctrine that punishes libertarians and liberals who don’t have the correct opinion as well. Businesses should stay out of politics and just serve their customers like they’ve always done, not use the power of the State for favoritism, privilege, protectionism, special treatment, and taxation and regulation of small businesses to insulate big powerful corporations from political control and enable Big Business with all the advantages that small businesses don’t have.
Both the Democrats and the Republicans got it wrong. Democrats want regulation and control of the economy as well as full taxation of it, imposition of eminent domain on people’s own private property and hand it over to corporations with the most political and financial clout, tax-funded State charity (that is, the Welfare State), and military intervention of other countries (like Haiti, Somalia, etc.) in the name of “human rights.” Republicans want a State that regulates and imposes morality, a War on Drugs, a War on Terror, a Surveillance State, military intervention of other countries (like Aghanistan, Iraq, etc.) in the name of “regime change, and tax-funded faith-based initiatives.
As a Libertarian, I want people to be left alone.
Dana, Ted, and every hatemonger out there, leave Target and its transgender customers alone. HB2 ought to be repealed at the state level, and no states should even try to impose State-sanctioned hate in the name of “private enterprise.” That’s not a “free market,” as Dana likes to believe; it’s conservative political correctness, as Austin Petersen says, “with manners.”
[Update: #1, May 1, 2016] Montel Williams appeared on the April 28, 2016 The Kelly File show, where he states the following:
Williams is right. How is HB2 going to be enforced at the state level in North Carolina? Do we need the “potty police” as Megan Kelly notes in her comment to him? Does that entail uniformed cops asking you to whip out your genitals to check whether you are using the “correct” restroom “in accordance with your gender”? And God and Goddess forbid the thought of a 7 or 8 year old walking past the checkout aisle with a parent in tow and a shopping court, only to discover a half-naked man or woman with genitals showing and his or her ass exposed to the public! That would make that person an automatic “sex offender” by default.
And what about the “capping of minimum wage” salaries if the State discriminates by default? This concerns an area of public contracts and employment. Which agency and/or department gets to decide whose “minimum wage” should be capped? Is that even moral and just? Is that right?
These are things for the Left and the Right to think about.