The fight over who can use which bathroom has a new battleground–Target. The retail chain announced it will allow individuals to use whichever bathroom matches their gender identity. Now, some are boycotting Target over that announcement, with the hashtag #BoycottTarget.

The announcement came on Tuesday, when Target posted a statement on its website. It explained the motivations for the policy, stating in part:

Inclusivity is a core belief at Target. It’s something we celebrate. We stand for equality and equity, and strive to make our guests and team members feel accepted, respected and welcomed in our stores and workplaces every day.

We believe that everyone—every team member, every guest, and every community—deserves to be protected from discrimination, and treated equally. Consistent with this belief, Target supports the federal Equality Act, which provides protections to LGBT individuals, and opposes action that enables discrimination.

When trans-inclusive bathroom policies are enacted, sexual assaults do not increase. What does increase is the safety of those in the transgender community. A 2013 study found that 70 percent of transgender respondents were ‘denied entrance, were harassed or assaulted when attempting to use a public restroom of their identifying gender.’

Yet, that hasn’t stopped #BoycottTarget from trending; as of now, just under 400,00 people have signed the petition, and plenty of people are voicing their views on Twitter, and other forms of social media.

We are announcing boycott of @Target due to their dangerous bathroom policy. https://t.co/GQI0Oe8VAO #BoycottTarget pic.twitter.com/RB11tfeXDW

— American Family Assc (@AmericanFamAssc) April 21, 2016

@Target I have loved shopping at your stores: spent A LOT of money. No longer, though. Bathrooms are biological, not social. #BoycottTarget

— Cathy Knowlson (@Ckbeme) April 21, 2016

It’s gone too far. @Target I used to be proud I once worked for you. #BoycottTarget pic.twitter.com/EUuAfwNmAO

— Proud Trumpkin (@MomBlogs4Trump) April 21, 2016

Why isn’t @Target forced to provide a safe restroom for my daughter yet a baker is forced to bake a cake!?! WTH!?! #boycotttarget

— Jo Anne Smoot ºoº (@joannesmoot) April 20, 2016

It seems like with this boycott of Target, and in light of anti-LGBT laws recently passed in both North Carolina and Mississippi, this is a debate that isn’t going to go away anytime soon. 

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #BoycottTarget: Backlash After Target Announces Inclusive Bathroom Policies appeared first on Law Street.

It’s a sad time for LGBTQ rights in North Carolina and Mississippi, where discriminatory legislators have recently passed horrifyingly intolerant laws that specifically target members of the LGBT community. In response to these laws, companies, celebrities, and communities have begun to speak out for the rights of LGBTQ people and stand up for the repeal of hateful policies.

The North Carolina bill, which requires transgender people to use bathrooms that match the sex listed on their birth certificate, was signed into law last month by Governor Pat McCrory. The Governor claims that this law is a matter of protecting the safety and privacy of women and children in North Carolina. The new law in Mississippi allows churches, religious groups, and private businesses to deny service to people based on their gender or marriage status if they conflict with the businesses’ religious beliefs. Not only are these laws draconian, but they are also getting both North Carolina and Mississippi into some serious trouble.

For starters, these laws are probably going to be challenged constitutionally in court. While it is most likely that these bills are being driven by unwarranted fear and misunderstandings about gender identity, rather than a pure hatred for the LGBTQ community, there is a question of the constitutionality of blatantly discriminatory laws.

North Carolina’s law, specifically, could lose the state $4.5 billion in federal education funding from Title IX because of its violation of the Title’s provisions:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

This law discriminates against transgender students in the school system, and, therefore, could call into question whether or not the state should still earn Title IX funding.

On the topic of financial hits the two states will be taking, North Carolina is expected to lose millions after PayPal pulled out of its planned expansion in Charlotte. The expansion was going to bring around 400 new jobs to the state, each with estimated yearly salaries of around fifty-one thousand dollars. On top of these tangible losses, large companies, and tech businesses are voicing their opposition to discriminatory laws like the ones in Mississippi and North Carolina. Some of Mississippi’s largest employers, like Nissan and Toyota, have spoken out about how the law will hurt tourism and harm the state’s economy. Funny or Die released a parody tourism commercial for Mississippi, tastefully highlighting exactly how these laws will drive away tourists.

In addition to decreases in tourism, entire cities and states are banning business travel to Mississippi and North Carolina because of these recently enacted laws. Minnesota, New York, Vermont, and Washington are four states who have prohibited employee travel to these two states, with many more sure to join in soon. Several cities including Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Portland, and San Francisco  have also placed travel bans to both states. While travel bans are, for the most part, symbolic, they have the potential to affect local economies and reinforce the overwhelming lack of support for these two states.

If all of the economic hits and the national shame weren’t enough to convince you of how terrible these laws are, big names from all across the country are also lashing out, including, but certainly not limited to, Joel McHale, Ellen Degeneres, and The Boss himself–Bruce Springsteen.

Springsteen canceled his tour stops in North Carolina in response to the bill, claiming that:

Some things are more important than a rock show, and this fight against prejudice and bigotry, which is happening as I write, is one of them. It is the strongest means I have for raising my voice in opposition to those who continue to push us backwards instead of forwards.

“Bruce Springsteen joins North Carolina backlash”https://t.co/NBiQWZJxkf

— Bruce Springsteen (@springsteen) April 9, 2016

Ellen, who is an avid supporter of the LGBTQ community, tweeted support for the people who are being targeted in North Carolina and Mississippi.

The people of #NorthCarolina and #Mississippi deserve better. We won't stop fighting until they get it.

— Ellen DeGeneres (@TheEllenShow) April 5, 2016

And finally, in perhaps what is the best response to this law, Joel McHale decided to perform in Durham, North Carolina and then donate all of his profits to the LGBTQ center of Durham. After reasonably pointing out that “this [law] is fucking crazy,” he announced this decision and promptly received an uproarious cheer from the audience.

Honestly, these laws are downright embarrassing and a great reminder of exactly why we need to keep fighting for all kinds of equality in this country. It is asinine that in 2016 we are still having to tell elected representatives that banning people from using a bathroom and refusing to serve customers because of their sexuality or gender identity is blatant discrimination. So, to Pat McCrory (the governor of my home state), Phil Bryant (Mississippi’s Governor), and the rest of state representatives who have voted in favor of or spoken in favor of laws that are taking our country back centuries in terms of civil rights, I say pull it together. Stop making myself and countless other American citizens feel ashamed of our hometowns because of your antiquated, evil, discriminatory laws. Stop being so hateful towards people who are literally just being themselves. Stop making your states the laughing stock of the entire country and do your actual job: stand up for your people and their rights instead of tearing us all down.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post North Carolina and Mississippi: States Face Consequences for Discriminatory Laws appeared first on Law Street.

North Carolina just passed a ridiculous new law that makes it impossible for cities and towns in the state to pass their own anti-discrimination laws. North Carolina legislators called a special session this week just to pass this law, after the city council of Charlotte dared to vote for a local ordinance that would ban discrimination against LGBT individuals this February.

Of course, fear-mongering played a big role in why the North Carolina House and Senate were so desperate to pass this bill. One big sticking point was that Charlotte’s ordinance would allow transgender individuals to use the bathroom that corresponds with the gender identity that they identify with. The popular and untrue reaction to relatively innocuous provisions like this around the country has been to raise the alarm that it will be used by “sexual predators” to prey on women and girls in bathrooms and locker rooms.

That claim is essentially an outright lie, as there’s no evidence to suggest that passing non-discrimination laws that allow transgender people to use the restroom that conforms to their gender identity leads to more sexual assaults. States and cities that have passed such provisions have not reported increased instances of sexual assault–police departments from various locales in Iowa, Hawaii, Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Texas have all gone on the record to say so. According to Vincent Villano, the director of communications for the National Center for Transgender Equality, the organization:

Has not heard of a single instance of a transgender person harassing a non-transgender person in a public restroom. Those who claim otherwise have no evidence that this is true and use this notion to prey on the public’s stereotypes and fears about transgender people.

However, the legislators in North Carolina fell for the panic and decided to pass a law that not only ignores what the people of Charlotte want, but could actually cause issues for its schools and public buildings. As David A. Graham of the Atlantic put it:

The student-restroom laws raise other questions, such as how schools might seek to enforce then, and whether enforcement would make schools fall afoul of federal Title IX regulation and thus endanger federal funding. (It would be somewhat ironic if the state’s attempt to preempt cities was itself preempted by federal law.)

So, North Carolina’s reactionary new law accomplishes little besides making it harder to protect people from discrimination. That’s not really a legacy to be proud of.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post North Carolina’s Reactionary New Anti-LGBT Law appeared first on Law Street.

Sometimes it seems like airlines would do absolutely anything to squeeze an extra few bucks out of customers. From checked bags, to snacks, to Wi-Fi, it seems like there’s a fee for almost everything. But one lawmaker–Congressman Dan Lipinski (D-Illinois)–appears to be concerned about what kind of charges will be next, and has proposed a bill to prevent airlines from charging bathroom fees in the future.

Lipinski introduced the Comfortable and Fair Flights Act of 2015, in an attempt to combat what he sees as some unreasonable present or potentially future policies from airlines. In a press release from his office he highlighted two key provisions of the proposed legislation–prohibiting airlines from charging for bathroom use, and the fact that many airlines still charge customers baggage fees even if the bags are lost or delayed.

Lipinski stated, via press release:

More and more, when airline passengers get on a flight they expect to suffer from uncomfortable conditions; as a frequent flyer I understand this. One thing they should never have to worry about is access to a bathroom.  Unfortunately, commercial flights are not required to depart with a functioning bathroom, sometimes forcing passengers to endure a trip without this basic necessity.  Moreover, as ancillary fees continue to grow, the specter of an in-flight bathroom fee continues to loom in the background since first being broached in 2010.

Additionally, many of us are all too familiar with paying baggage fees and have come to accept them as part of the flying experience.  While lost and delayed baggage rates are declining, passengers who suffer from this inconvenience do so without the right to a refund, even after hours or days of delay.  Simply put, if you pay for a service, you should get that service promptly or get your money back.

While it may seem totally crazy that airlines would begin charging for bathroom use, it’s not totally out of the realm of possibilities. Ryanair, a European low-budget airline, proposed the idea in 2010, although no American company appears to be suggesting such a notion.

It’s not just about the fees, either, it’s about bathrooms for all. The bill would allow fliers to change their flights if the bathroom on their plane was out of service. According to Popular Mechanics, “FAA regulations do not specify whether airlines must have working restroom facilities aboard; it’s something that remains at the discretion of the airline itself.”

So, it doesn’t look like we’ll be having to shell out cash for bathroom access on flights anytime soon–and that’s a very good thing. But while we’re on the topic, can we get someone to do something about this equally horrifying patent from Airbus?

I’m not sure I would #enjoy the new @Airbus#Patent for #airplane#seat arrangement… pic.twitter.com/ldwLrl8m52

— Giovanni Banzola (@gbanzola) October 15, 2015

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Congressman Introduces Bill to Prevent Airlines from Charging Bathroom Fees appeared first on Law Street.