Court Rules Woman Did Not Suffer ‘Emotional Distress’ From Planet Fitness’ Allowance of Man in Women’s Locker Room

MIDLAND, Mich. — The Michigan Court of Appeals has unanimously ruled that a woman did not suffer sexual harassment and emotional distress when her local Planet Fitness allowed a man who identifies as a woman to use the women’s locker room.

“Plaintiff’s allegations that defendants’ policy is extreme and outrageous because ‘it would allow men to be present while women are changing, showering, or using the restroom’ and ‘would allow a man to disrobe and be naked with the women who are also using said facilities’ are insufficient to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress,” the court wrote on June 1.

“Transgender rights and policies are polarizing issues and each individual may have a feeling on the issue and on what locker room such individuals should be using. Regardless of whether an average member of the community may find the policy outrageous, the fact is that plaintiff did not suffer severe emotional distress as a matter of law,” it concluded.

As previously reported, Yvette Cormier, 48, sued Planet Fitness in 2015 after she walked into the Midland women’s’ locker room and was surprised to see a man wearing makeup and a wig.

“I just stopped right there in my tracks,” she told ABC News. “It was a man for sure.”

Cormier then went to the front desk to express concern. She was told that others had complained, but that the facility allows patrons to use the locker room with which they identify.

“That should be something they pointed out when I signed up,” Cormier opined. “If you have male parts you don’t need to be in the women’s locker room. I don’t care what you are; I don’t care if you’re gay, lesbian, transgender or transvestite. I am uncomfortable with you as a male in my locker room, in my restroom.”

  • Connect with Christian News

She went back to Planet Fitness a few days later, at which time she began to warn other female club members that a man had been present in the women’s locker room.

The next day, the corporate office of Planet Fitness called Cormier and informed her that she had violated their “no judgment” policy and that it had decided to revoke her membership.

After the matter went public, Planet Fitness spokesperson McCall Gosselin outlined in a press release that Cormier’s membership wasn’t canceled simply because she complained, but rather because of the way that she handled the matter.

“The manner in which this member expressed her concerns about the policy exhibited behavior that management at the Midland club deemed inappropriate and disruptive to other members, which is a violation of the membership agreement and as a result her membership was canceled,” she said in a statement.

The man who Cormier had discovered in the locker room later came forward, advising that he isn’t a member, and that he had used the area on a few occasions to hang his coat and purse while he visited with a friend.

Weeks later, Cormier filed suit, citing invasion of privacy, wrongful retaliation, Consumer Protection Act violations and breach of contract.

“Defendant’s decision to institute the policy was extreme and outrageous because it would allow for men to be present while women are changing, showering, or using the restroom,” the legal challenge read. “Further, it would allow a man to disrobe and be naked with the women who are also using said facilities, thus invading Mrs. Cormier’s and other female members’ privacy.”

A trial court dismissed the case in favor of Planet Fitness in January 2016, concluding that Cormier had “failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.”

“Plaintiff may have reasonably expected only women would be present in the women’s locker room, even in the common area; however, she could no longer reasonable expect only women would use the facility after being told about the ‘judgment-free zone’ policy of Planet Fitness,” wrote Judge Michael Beale.

Cormier appealed, stating that Planet Fitness’ “judgment free” slogan does not clearly indicate to women that they might have to share their facilities with men who identify as women.

“[T]he trial court ruled that Mrs. Cormier should have known that the phrase ‘judgment-free zone’ put her on notice that she had consented to men viewing her as she disrobes and to men showering with her,” the appeal read. “Apparently [according to Beale], Mrs. Cormier should have known that by signing the Planet Fitness membership agreement, … she waived all of her rights and reasonable expectations to be able to use the locker room free from a man watching her.”

“This begs the question, what exactly does Planet Fitness’ ‘judgment-free zone’ mean?” it asked.

However, the Michigan Court of Appeals unanimously upheld Beale’s conclusion this month, finding that the woman did not experience any actual harm because the man never saw her undressed and didn’t make any sexual advances toward her.

“[E]ven assuming plaintiff had a right to keep the exposure of her naked body private from members of the opposite sex in the women’s locker room, she has simply not alleged an intrusion of that privacy,” it wrote. “Again, plaintiff alleged that she left the locker room after encountering ‘a large, tall man’ and then ‘thoroughly check[ed]’ the locker room before using it on subsequent visits.”

“Thus, plaintiff did not undress and shower in the presence of a biological male at defendant Planet-Fitness-Midland’s facilities,” the court opined. “Further, any intrusion would not have been conducted by defendants or their agents, but by other club members and guests.”

Cormier’s attorney, David Kallman, plans to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly
  • Nidalap

    Normal (or ,I guess ‘cis’) emotions will no longer be considered as valid in der new order…

    • parquet

      They never wanted equality, quite the contrary, they want to reduce Christians to 2nd class citizens. Look at the huge fines imposed on the Christian bakers and florists. Slapping someone with a fine for hurting the feelings of homosexuals, but no fine at all for hurting the feelings of Christians. This is what they call “social justice.”

      • Croquet_Player

        The bakers and florist were not fined because they were Christian, but because they broke the law in their states. And the law is not about “hurting feelings” but turning away people who have every right to purchase products at public businesses.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          And then doxxing the plaintiffs.

        • Bob Blaylock

            The First Amendment is the law, and as part of the Constitution, is the highest law in this nation.  Those who abused the power of government to punish decent people for refusing to participate in openly immoral activities violated the law.  Why is it that corrupt public servants get to violate the highest law with impunity, in order to impose unjust and blatantly unconstitutional laws under which to violate the rights of their rightful masters?

          • Croquet_Player

            Don’t want to bake wedding cakes for some people? Fine! Don’t sell wedding cakes in states that have anti-discrimination laws. No one’s being forced to sell wedding cakes, or wedding flowers against their wishes. And nobody’s First Amendment rights are being violated by non-discrimination laws. Don’t like the laws? Take it up with the voters.

          • Bob Blaylock

              The First Amendment cannot be legitimately superseded by a mere vote.  It can only be superseded by ratifying a new amendment to the Constitution that overturns it.

              The First Amendment explicitly protects freedom of religion and expression (including nonexpression), and strongly implies freedoms of thought, conscience, and association.

              Forcing a baker, or any other businessman, to give support to a sick, immoral homosexual mockery of a wedding, in violation of his own religious and moral values, as a condition of being allowed to make a living, blatantly violates the First Amendment.

          • Croquet_Player

            I seem to have missed the part of the Constitution where citizens are guaranteed the right to run a business any way they like, regardless of the laws regulating businesses.

          • Bob Blaylock

              Everyone needs to make a living.  This means either running one’s own business, or working for someone else who runs a business.

              Nothing in the Constitution supports any power of government to compel anyone to waive any of his Constitutional rights as a condition of being allowed to engage in commerce.

          • Bob Johnson

            You have the right to lie – 9th Amendment. Yet as a business you could well be committing fraud.

          • Michael C

            You seem to be saying that the First Amendment protects the right of business owners to refuse service to customers for religious reasons.

            This concept is at odds with non-discrimination laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

            If the First Amendment granted business owners the right to do whatever they wanted, racist bakers would be permitted to refuse to sell wedding cakes to interracial couples.

            Is this truly what you’re arguing?

          • Jason Todd

            Irrelevant.

          • Croquet_Player

            Does a devout Jewish person who must be home by sunset on the sabbath have a right to break the speed limit in their car to get home from work in time? No. Are their First amendment rights being abridged by traffic laws? No. People may worship freely and hold whatever religious views they like. But once they are involved in other activities, like driving or commerce, they must follow the laws which regulate those activities. There are no laws requiring a person to go into a particular line of work.

          • Bob Blaylock

              And I seem to have missed the part where sick, immoral perverts have a right to impose their evil on sane, decent people.

              In any event, it certainly strands to reason that engaging in commerce, in order to make an honest living, is a necessary part of life, and although not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, at least falls among those rights implied in the Ninth Amendment, as an area in which government needs to have a strong case for a need to intervene before it can be allowed to do so.

              There isn’t really any similar case that can be made for any “right” on the part of immoral perverts to force their evil on sane, decent people, where the sane, decent people can’t at least as equally claim a right not to have this filth forced on us against our wills.

          • Croquet_Player

            I understand that you feel some of your fellow Americans are “sick, immoral perverts”, and you are entitled to that opinion. I feel the same way. I believe it is sick, immoral, and perverted, that in the United States, right now, some people can avoid prosecution by claiming “religious privilege” because they believe that modern medicine (or any medicine) is an affront to God, and they will simply “pray” over fatally ill people, instead of taking them to a doctor or calling 911, as a remedy, and if they die, it’s simply “the will of God”. And I’m working on laws to prevent this. Not because I think people can’t believe what they like, but because when it comes to the point of a tumor the size of a grapefruit on a three year old’s eye socket, I think it’s better to remove the child from the parent’s care, and remove the tumor and hopefully save the eye, or if that ship has sailed, remove the tumor so it doesn’t spread and kill them in the next few years.

            I don’t understand where you are being force to “agree” with things you feel are wrong. No one is making you marry a gay person, or preside over a gay wedding. And you have every right to say what you like.

            Do you “agree” with gay weddings? No, you clearly don’t. Who is stopping you from holding that opinion? Or talking about it,as you are here? I really want to know. Because I will the first one on your side against anyone who says you can’t hold that opinion, for religious reasons or otherwise. I’m an American, and you’re my fellow American. (I think, I could be wrong, but whatever. I think everyone has a right to their religious opinions.)

          • Ambulance Chaser

            ” The First Amendment explicitly protects freedom of religion and expression (including nonexpression), and strongly implies freedoms of thought, conscience, and association.”

            Yes, but it doesn’t specify where the line gets drawn when that right conflicts with other rights.

            “Forcing a baker, or any other businessman, to give support to a sick, immoral homosexual mockery of a wedding, in violation of his own religious and moral values, as a condition of being allowed to make a living, blatantly violates the First Amendment.”

            No it doesn’t. The Supreme Court ruled in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States that the First Amendment didn’t forbid the government from passing laws that forced public accommodations to serve a specified class of clientele.

          • Bob Blaylock

              There is no right to another person’s labor.  Nothing in the Constitution implies or hints at any such right.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            So, then by your logic, we should overturn ALL laws regarding discrimination in public accommodations? Should business owners be allowed to refuse someone because of their race? I know, I know, people always say we shouldn’t bring race into this….OK, fine, how about religion? I’m an atheist; should I able to, if I had a business, refuse to serve Christians because I think they are immoral? (for the record, I don’t think that, but this is just for sake of argument)

            One right doesn’t take precedence over another, that is true, but like AC said, rights have to coexist.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            The “legitimate basis” is that the Supreme Court ruled it. You can disagree with the ruling all you want but it’s there and it’s law, and your disagreement is irrelevant to American jurisprudence.

          • Bob Blaylock

              The Supreme Court does not have the authority—no matter how many times it has gotten away with illegally usurping it—to override the Constitution.  No part of the Constitution can legitimately be overridden or overturned by anything short of a Constitutional Amendment.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Who says they did? You? Does your opinion override the Supreme Court?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            They don’t “override” the Constitution, they interpret it.

          • Bob Blaylock

              Calling a thing by a different name doesn’t change what it is.

              When the courts “interpret” the Constitution to mean something contrary to what it clearly says, then they are overriding it, and engaging in open corruption and malfeasance.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            ” When the courts “interpret” the Constitution to mean something contrary to what it clearly says, then they are overriding it,”

            Fine, but show me where they’ve done that.

          • Jason Todd

            This is SO “Animal Farm.”

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I don’t understand what kind of system you think we run. Do you think that Supreme Court rulings are only valid conditionally? Who gets to determine when rulings are valid or not? Any random person? Is our system just anarchy?

          • Bob Blaylock

              The Constitution is the highest law, and all public servants, in all levels of government, are under a sworn duty to uphold, obey, and defend it.  Any act of any public servant, which violates the Constitution, is invalid and illegal.  This certainly includes the acts of corrupt judges who “interpret” the Constitution contrary to what it clearly says.

              There is a problem, of course, when those who we charge with the duty of upholding the law choose, instead, to pervert and violate it.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Still not answering my question, just soapboxing.

          • Bob Blaylock

              It’s unclear what answer you are expecting, or what answer would satisfy you.  The Constitution is the highest law; and you seem bent on arguing that it is subordinate to the wills of corrupt judges who would “interpret” it away from its clear meaning.  You are simply wrong in that position.

          • Bob Johnson

            Certainly some interpretation is required. What does “press” in the 1st Amendment or “his” in the 6th Amendment mean? However, in this case, it seems that what is clear to you is not the same as what is clear to several courts with scores of judges over several decades.

          • Bob Blaylock

              To a very limited degree, yes, some legitimate interpretation is called for.  But then we have plenty of instances where the Constitution is absolutely clear on a matter, and we have courts trying to twist it to mean something other than what it says.  Consider the Second Amendment.  We have courts, up to and including the Supreme Court, issuing rulings about when and where and how the government may infringe the people’s right to keep and bear arms.  The Second Amendment already clarified that.  Government is forbidden from infringing this right at all.  Period.  Yet the courts and other parts of government absolutely refuse to obey this part of the Constitution.

              The First Amendment is clear about religious freedom, freedom of expression, and freedom of association.  And yet our government violates these rights, in order to uphold fake “rights” that are nowhere even hinted at in the Constitution.  This is not “interpretation”; it is corruption and malfeasance.

          • Bob Johnson

            It is not just the courts. Congress has passed bills and the president has signed into law measures preventing me from stockpiling Uranium 235. And remember that this same U-235 is mentioned in international “arms agreements.”

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No, I’m asking you who makes the final decision about what the Constitution means.

        • Reason2012

          They didn’t turn anyone away because they were homosexual – they were turned away, homosexual or not, for asking the baker / florist to promote anti-Christian ACTS. Huge difference.

          Try asking a black baker to bake a cake for a “the beliefs of black people do not matter” gathering, or a muslim to bake a cake for a “draw muhammad” party, then get back to us on “rights” of customers making such requests.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Except that same sex marriage ceremonies are not anti-Christian acts. They don’t necessarily mention Christianity at all. They simply have nothing to do with Christianity. They’re neutral and unrelated to it.

          • Croquet_Player

            Bakers have a right to refuse to put particular messages on cakes. But they don’t have a right to refuse to sell their ordinary products to certain members of the general public. Nor are bakers being asked to “promote” certain views buy selling a product which they already sell every day.

          • Reason2012

            To force black bakers to bake a cake for an announced anti-black act is attaching a “message” to that cake -and as you said they have the right to deny cakes that have obvious messages on them, written or unwritten.

          • Croquet_Player

            Well, no, I did not say “unwritten”, but let’s leave that aside for the moment. We can also leave aside the fact that I never see you making statements of support for racial equality, unless you’re trying to make arguments in defense of denying certain people cakes or flowers.

            Let’s say I’m a baker, with a shop open to the general public. There are all kinds of orders I can legally refuse, and rightly so. I can refuse cakes that are beyond the capability of my bake shop. (You want an eight foot tall cake for 600 people? I’m sorry, we simply don’t do those, and we don’t feel confident we can manage it successfully.) You want a cake for three hundred tomorrow? (I’m sorry, we’re backed up and full of orders, which is why we ask customers to order things like that six weeks in advance, and pay a deposit.) You want a regular cake you see now for sale in our display case but you want us to pipe a “white power” message on it? (No, but you can buy the cake and add your own further decor as you like. We think it’s terrible, and you’re a bad person, but what you do with our cake after you buy it and take it home is up to you.)

            I understand that you feel homosexuality is wrong, and a “sin” and marriage equality is also a “sin”. And you have every right to hold those views. I would simply ask you (I’m guessing you’re an American citizen) what right do public businesses have to turn you away? Not because you’re drunk, or refuse to pay a deposit on a special orders, or other reasonable factors, but simply because you want to buy an ordinary product from the shop, which is sold all the time to the general public? Two people in line ahead of you just bought the same thing, and there are several more available, but you are refused. Are you fine with that?

          • Reason2012

            I never see you making statements of support for racial equality, unless you’re trying to make arguments in defense of denying certain people cakes or flowers.

            Show me racists going into a black baker and demanding he make a cake for “the beliefs of black people do not matter” and you’ll see me. But people don’t do that because it’s hate. But not to the lgbt activists – tehy use hate to attack Christians.

            Where are your posts denouncing those into islam slaughtering lgbt every day?
            Where are your posts denouncing those into islam who slaughtered 50 lgbt in Orlando? LGBT activists can never cite any. But they hate Christians for daring to protect little girls from perverts who insist on going into locker rooms and bathrooms with them. They’ll rabidly go after them while ignoring lgbt being slaughtered daily, showing they’re most like just pro-islam anti-Christian activists pretending to be lgbt activists.

            You want a regular cake you see now for sale in our display case but you want us to pipe a “white power” message on it? (No, but you can buy the cake and add your own further decor as you like. We think it’s terrible, and you’re a bad person, but what you do with our cake after you buy it and take it home is up to you.)

            If they wanted an unmarked cake and felt the need to make it clear it’s for a “white power” meeting, it can then be denied as well, as they now attached a message with the cake. If they keep their mouth shut and order the cake, fine – then you didn’t make the seller part of your hate.

            I understand that you feel homosexuality is wrong,

            Homosexual behavior is wrong, yes. But the topic is forcing others to adhere to the worldview that it’s just fine and forcing them to change their lives to conform, just like forcing others to conform and go along with hate against black people would also be an issue.

            marriage equality is also a “sin”.

            Everyone already has “marriage equality” – not wanting it is not the same as not having it. Marriage: one mand and one woman and EVERYONE has that right. And claiming that it’s about “marriage” equality is also deception because these same poeple screaming marriage equality are against an 18 year old girl marrying her dad, or two 18 year old girls both marrying their dad, or a man marrying 5 women and so on. It’s called decency and morals and the fact God defined marriage long before any government ever existed.

            And you have every right to hold those views. I would simply ask you (I’m guessing you’re an American citizen) what right do public businesses have to turn you away?

            A black person is not “turning you away” because of your race – he’s turning you away for forcing him to support an anti-black request. And so it goes with Christians being forced to support an anti-Christian act or a muslim being forced to support an anti-muslim act. If a islamist was asked to bake a cake for a “draw muhammad day” party, it would be his right to deny the request no matter who made it. And so it goes with anti-Christian requests.

            Two people in line ahead of you just bought the same thing, and there are several more available, but you are refused.

            Buying a cake for the marriage of one man and one woman (whether you’re the one getting married or not) is not the “same” as asking for a cake for
            – an 18 year old and her dad (no matter who made the request)
            – an 18 year old and her sister both marrying their dad (no matter who made the request)
            – a man and three women (no matter who made the request)
            – two men (no matter who made the request)

          • Croquet_Player

            “Show me racists going into a black baker and demanding he make a cake
            for “the beliefs of black people do not matter” and you’ll see me. But people don’t do that because it’s hate. But not to the lgbt activists – tehy use hate to attack Christians. ”

            I’m sure we can both wait a very long time for racists to shop at business owned by people they don’t like. And of course, black people are targeted for violence by white supremacists. I have yet to see some outbreak of violence, or even a unified voice calling for it, against Christians by the LGBT community and their supporters.

            “Where are your posts denouncing those into islam slaughtering lgbt every day? Where are your posts denouncing those into islam who slaughtered 50 lgbt in Orlando?”

            Right here: Like almost all religions, Islam is a popular cultural fantasy. There is no evidence to support the claim that the Quran is “divinely inspired by God”. All evidence points to it being written by people in the 5th and 6th centuries, drawing largely upon earlier works from other religions, and adding some new nonsense of their very own. Its “prophet” Muhammad was an illiterate yet “successful” violent tribal warlord of his day, and by our standards today, a pedophile.

            Now, does that mean we must dismiss all (roughly 1.8 billion) Muslims? Certainly not. Unless we dismiss all Christians (roughly 2.2 billion) who kill people in the name of their faith too.

            Furthermore, and this is tragic in the extreme, there is some evidence to support the hypothesis that the Orlando shooter was a deeply closeted homosexual Muslim man. He was known to some people at the club, he had a profile on a popular gay dating site, etc. etc. As we know from long and sad experience, what better way is there to “prove” you’re not gay than to beat up other gay people, or marry a woman and vote against every pro-LGBT legislation possible, etc., etc.? We’ve seen this play out time and time again. In fact, every time I hear someone carrying on relentlessly about gay people, my first thought is “sad, miserable closet case”.

            “If they wanted an unmarked cake and felt the need to make it clear it’s
            for a “white power” meeting, it can then be denied as well, as they now
            attached a message with the cake. If they keep their mouth shut and
            order the cake, fine – then you didn’t make the seller part of your
            hate.

            Actually, no. Unless someone makes a specific threat “I am going to buy this cake and hold someone’s face in it until they suffocate” then they cannot refuse to sell the cake.

            “Homosexual behavior is wrong, yes. But the topic is forcing
            others to adhere to the worldview that it’s just fine and forcing them
            to change their lives to conform, just like forcing others to conform
            and go along with hate against black people would also be an issue.”

            NO ONE is being forced to say homosexuality is o.k., or in any way change their beliefs about homosexuality. Look at you right here, saying “Homosexual behavior is wrong, yes.” And clearly people who hate black people are able to carry on just fine too. Because there are no laws against hating black people. Nor are there any laws about hating homosexuality. Because you may think what you like. You may legally disapprove of whatever you like. You may legally speak out against it. If we actually started arresting people for disapproving of homosexuality or hating black people, where would we put them all? Forget the United States, there aren’t enough jails on the planet. Stop acting like following commerce laws means you suddenly have to change your mind and “agree” with laws.

            “Everyone already has “marriage equality” – not wanting it is not the
            same as not having it. Marriage: one man and one woman and EVERYONE has
            that right. And claiming that it’s about “marriage” equality is also
            deception because these same people screaming marriage equality are
            against an 18 year old girl marrying her dad, or two 18 year old girls
            both marrying their dad, or a man marrying 5 women and so on. It’s
            called decency and morals and the fact God defined marriage long before
            any government ever existed.”

            Says you. Same sex couples may legally marry in the Unites States. I don’t care what your religious opinions are on the matter.

            “A black person is not “turning you away” because of your race – he’s
            turning you away for forcing him to support an anti-black request. And
            so it goes with Christians being forced to support an anti-Christian act
            or a muslim being forced to support an anti-muslim act. If a islamist
            was asked to bake a cake for a “draw muhammad day” party, it would be
            his right to deny the request no matter who made it. And so it goes
            with anti-Christian requests.”

            You didn’t answer my question: what right do public businesses have to turn you away?

            Oh look, I drew Muhammad: ¯_(ツ)_/¯

            “Buying a cake for the marriage of one man and one woman (whether you’re
            the one getting married or not) is not the “same” as asking for a cake
            for
            – an 18 year old and her dad (no matter who made the request)
            – an 18 year old and her sister both marrying their dad (no matter who made the request)
            – a man and three women (no matter who made the request)
            – two men (no matter who made the request)”

            Again, says you. And tell me why none of your arguments can’t be used to support refusing to do business with Christians simply because they are Christian.

          • Reason2012

            I’m sure we can both wait a very long time for racists to shop at business owned by people they don’t like.

            Way to dishonestly ignore the point. They don’t go into shops and demand black backers make a cake to support “the beliefs of black people do not matter” meetings or the like.

            Right here: Like almost all religions, Islam is a popular cultural fantasy.

            So you cannot cite any on articles that show lgbt are slaughtered by those who follow islam. But better spend hours a day going after those bad Christians who are trying to stop lgbt activists from making victims out of women and girls.

            Now, does that mean we must dismiss all (roughly 1.8 billion) Muslims? Certainly not.

            And there you go defending islam right on que. How forgiving of you when hundreds of MILLIONS of them consent to the slaughter of lgbt in 13 countries run by islam / sharia law. Yet you spend hours going after Christians trying to protect women and girls from being victimized by perverts in bathrooms and lockerrooms – the behavior of lgbt activists is imbalanced: utter hate for Christians but defend islamists while they slaughter lgbt. That’s the behavior of pro-islam, anti-Christian activists who are posting as lgbt activists in their attack on Christianity.

            Furthermore, and this is tragic in the extreme, there is some evidence to support the hypothesis that the Orlando shooter was a deeply closeted homosexual Muslim man.

            Keep defending islam while they slaughter lgbt – proves my point. You should add how islam is a religion of peace even though hundreds of millions of them consent to the slaughter of lgbt and Christians.

            Actually, no. Unless someone makes a specific threat “I am going to buy this cake and hold someone’s face in it until they suffocate” then they cannot refuse to sell the cake.

            If they demand a black baker bake a cake for an anti-black meeting, I guarantee you they can. The racists bigots will be shown to be those who made the request.

            NO ONE is being forced to say homosexuality is o.k., or in any way change their beliefs about homosexuality.

            False. First they’re forced to forfeit their right to privacy, their right to safety, their right to not being victimized by a predator, all in the name of “equal rights”. Those who refuse to support pro-=homosexual ACTS are sued and treated like a criminal. LGBT activists go into all schools and expose everyone else’s kids / grandkids to images / ideas of homosexuality. Those who dare point out marriage is one man and one woman are called homophobes. The LGBT activists are anti-Christian fascists who just happen to help islamists defend islam as the religion of peace.

            Look at you right here, saying “Homosexual behavior is wrong, yes.” And clearly people who hate black people are able to carry on just fine too. Because there are no laws against hating black people.

            They don’t go up to black backers and black t-shirt makers and demand they make a product supprting anti-black causes. Even they don’t hate enough to try that – but lgbt activists do.

            Says you. Same sex couples may legally marry in the Unites States. I don’t care what your religious opinions are on the matter.

            They already had the right to “marry” – they didn’t want that right and isntead want the government to establish a new version of religious institutions to establish by law this new state religion. So yes, mission accomplished. Then they use it to indoctrinate everyone else’s kids. Google homosexual kindergarten. The real reason they wanted this new State Religion. So much for activists’ other favorite lie of just “wanting to be left alone”.

            You didn’t answer my question: what right do public businesses have to turn you away?

            Ignoring the answer doesn’t mean it wasn’t answered. Islamists have the right to turn anyone aways that demands they make something to support a “draw muhammad” parties.

            Again, says you.

            Translation: you cannot refute the facts.

            Keep defending islam that has hundreds of millions consenting to the slaughter of lgbt while pretending to be for lgbt, but spend hours daily attacking those baad old Christians for trying to defend women and girls from being victimized by perverts. The behavior exposes said lgbt activists as pro-islam, anti-Christian fascists posing as lgbt supporters, using them as leverage for their anti-Christian agenda of hate.

          • Croquet_Player

            You literally misrepresented everything I said. I dismissed Islam out of hand, and you say I’m “defending” it. I most certainly am not. And you wrap yourself in a “hero cape” claiming to “defend women and girls from being victimized by perverts”, which of course is the identical thing Islamist extremists do too. Unlike you, I’m able to see the difference between extremists, of any variety, and the vast majority of most people of faith, who don’t adhere to their faith’s more radical notions. A key difference, which is lost upon you, apparently. But you’re clearly a fan of the “broad brush” approach to targeting people you don’t like.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “They didn’t turn anyone away because they were homosexual – they were turned away, homosexual or not, for asking the baker / florist to
            promote anti-Christian ACTS. Huge difference.”

            Is it really that huge of a difference? The ACTS you’re talking about are supposedly “anti-Christian” because the people involved are homosexual, after all.

          • Reason2012

            You mean there’s no difference between

            denying 100% of people that ask you for a cake for a certain act,

            and

            if a homosexual asks for a cake for such a certain act you do it, but if a heterosexual asks for a cake for the EXACT SAME act you decline it

            You’re being dishonest if you want to pretend that’s the same thing. In the former case, it’s clear the act that’s being denied.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            If you are refusing to sell cakes for same-sex weddings, you’re discriminating against the people who are having the wedding, regardless of who actually buys the cake.

          • Bob Blaylock

              It gets down to freedom of expression.  Demanding that one produce an artistic work that expresses support for something that the artist opposes.  Just as government cannot forbid someone from expressing something that one supports, government equally cannot legitimately compel someone to express what one opposes.

              Forcing an artist to express support for a sick, immoral, homosexual mockery of a wedding, when the artist opposes that sickness, absolutely violates the First Amendment.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            For thing, is selling a cake – one with no particular message on it – really an expression of anything on the part of the person selling it?

            And also, you’re wrong. The government can do those things in some instances. Yes, we have freedom of speech, but there are laws against slander, hate speech, etc. And like I said before, there are laws against discrimination based on things like race, religion, and so forth. If I thought all Christians were immoral, and Christian marriage was sick and disgusting, that wouldn’t change the fact that it would be illegal for me to refuse to sell to them. Maybe you think we shouldn’t have laws like that, but I do.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            As I’ve explained already, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. And their rulings are law. Yours are not.

          • Bob Blaylock

              The Constitution is the law.  The Supreme Court ruling that the Constitution does not say what it very clearly does say is only corruption and abuse of power.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            That doesn’t answer my question.

        • Oboehner

          Which law, the First Amendment?

          • Croquet_Player

            We’ve already had that discussion, above. Here’s an idea, make a list of laws that people are entitled to violate based on their First amendment rights. Let’s see some cases.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            It’s too bad Oboehner doesn’t believe in case law. He only really needs to read one case: Reynolds v. United States, which held that “It’s my religion” is not a get-out-of-jail-free card that exempts you from having to follow otherwise constitutional laws.

          • Croquet_Player

            We’ve all had this discussion, to varying degrees, with various people here. Over and over. It’s astonishing.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “Astonishing” is a good word for it. I’ve been practicing law for nearly ten years, and I’ve never seen anything like it. Case law and precedent are LITERALLY Day One material in law school. There isn’t a single practicing lawyer anywhere in America who doesn’t accept it. Literally everything we do is based on cases, even if we’re not explicitly referencing them (i.e. clauses in contracts are written the way they are to comport with case law about how certain wording will be interpreted in litigation).

            To say we don’t, or shouldn’t, use case law is like telling a physicist he doesn’t need to use math. I literally CANNOT overstate how absurd the concept is.

          • Croquet_Player

            Thank you! I’m not a lawyer, but I do pay a lot of attention to how government and law function, it’s a great interest of mine. And I’m so grateful for your expertise on the matter, which you so generously provide here. <3

          • Oboehner

            Here’s one better, make a list of laws which can supersede the Constitution.

          • Croquet_Player

            I asked you first. Can’t do it, huh? Laws are judged to be constitutional or unconstitutional. If they’re ruled unconstitutional, they’re thrown out. Anti-discrimination laws do not violate anyone’s First amendment rights.

          • Oboehner

            “Laws are judged to be constitutional or unconstitutional” If that is by anyone other than we the people, THAT is unconstitutional. Anti-discrimination laws cannot be tossed around at will, nor does someone’s lifestyle CHOICE trump someone else’s constitutional right.

          • Croquet_Player

            I think the judicial branch of government has been explained to you before, so I won’t go over it again, but yes, I agree with you that someone’s lifestyle choice does not trump constitutional rights. So, for example, I, as a straight woman, cannot be denied services at a public business by owners because of my lifestyle choices, or theirs.

          • Oboehner

            I think the Constitution is crystal clear as to whom may legislate and the absence of anything giving the judicial the power to strike laws.
            The First Amendment has no “buts” in it. Being a normal straight woman is just that – normal. Now choosing a lifestyle that involves sexual deviance does not qualify.

  • Michael C

    I don’t care what you are; I don’t care if you’re gay, lesbian, transgender or transvestite. I am uncomfortable with you as a male in my locker room, in my restroom.”

    This sounds like a very entitled statement.

    The country is moving in the direction that acknowledges transgender men as male and transgender women as female in respect to how they are treated, socially. Some people are uncomfortable with this. As our history teaches us, social changes often leave some people uncomfortable.

    • Bob Blaylock

        As a matter of immutable, undeniable scientific fact, a “transgender women” is not, and never will be a woman; will never be anything other than a mentally-ill, morally-defective, mutilated man.

        And no, society is not moving in that direction.  The overwhelming bast majority of us know the difference between men and women, and are not swayed by the demands of a tiny noisy handful of sick perverts such as yourself, who demand that we treat blatant lies and madness as if they are truth.

      • TheKingOfRhye

        I wouldn’t be so sure about that last paragraph. I just found a Pew Research poll from 2016. According to that, 51% of Americans believe transgender people should be allowed to use the bathroom of the gender they identify as, and among 18 to 29-year-olds that jumps up to 67%. So, sorry, there’s hardly an “overwhelming majority” that feel the way you do, and yeah it does look like it’s “moving in that direction”.

        • Bob Blaylock

            All of the polls told us that Hillary Clinton was going to win the last Presidential election.  I don’t give any credence to polls any more.  Too many problems with trying to get a sample of respondents that isn’t heavily biased in one direction.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Try asking some women that you actually know, if they’d be OK with a
            creepy male pervert pretending to be a woman, watching them while they
            undress and shower in a locker room.”

            No thanks, I’d rather ask them something that sounds a little closer to reality…like say, would they be okay with a transgender woman minding their own business in a locker room while they do the same.

          • Bob Blaylock

              Calling something by a different name doesn’t change what it is.  No matter how you try to spin it, what you call a “transgender woman” is not, and never will be, female; is, in fact, a creepy male pervert, and most women will never be OK with having him watch her while she’s undressing and showering, nor is there any reason that they should be OK with that.

              To demand that women put up with such an outrageous violation of their privacy and modesty is blatantly misogynistic, showing deep hatred and contempt for women.  And, of course, this comes from the side that is so fond of falsely accusing its opposition of waging a “war on women”.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Do you know any transgender women yourself? Do you have any basis for your assumption that they are all “creepy perverts” whose only reason for entering a bathroom or locker room is to watch women undress? How do you know they aren’t coming in there just to take a shower, change, and be on their merry way, like just about everybody else? Not to mention the fact that some trans women aren’t even interested in women in the first place anyway…

            A “creepy pervert” is a “creepy pervert” no matter what gender they are; being transgender doesn’t make a person one.

            And I am equally in favor of allowing trans men to use men’s rooms, so how is THAT “misogynist”? Are only women deserving of the privacy and modesty that is supposedly violated by sharing a bathroom with a transgender person?

          • Bob Blaylock

              Pretty much by definition, a man who thinks he’s a woman, who demands that others recognize him as a woman, and who demands the “right” to violate the privacy and modesty of actual women, is a creepy pervert.  There’s no way you can argue your way out of that.

              So why it is that you are openly taking the side of these sick perverts, against that of women and girls?

              That symbol that you use as an avatar?  That has something to do with some other form of sick sexual perversion, doesn’t it?  Perhaps, in connection with that perversion, you have a fetish for seeing women humiliated and degraded, by compelling them to undress and bathe in front of strange men?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            OK, since you didn’t really answer my question, I’ll take your response to mean that you don’t know any trans people, and you’re just making assumptions based on your own prejudices.

            “There’s no way you can argue your way out of that”

            Yes there is, I can at least argue based on actually knowing some transgender people. All you’re doing is making assertions, apparently with no evidence to back them up.

            As for that symbol….it’s the “BDSM rights flag” if you must know. And sorry, but I don’t have any fetish for a scenario like you came up with, since I have no desire to involve “strange men” or indeed anything at all non-consensual in anything I’d be doing.

          • Bob Blaylock

              You have to admit that one has to be pretty f•••ed up in the head, by the time one is an adult, to not know the difference between men and women, and to look between one’s legs, see obvious “boy parts” and still believe one’s self to be female.

              I don’t need to personally know anyone with that particular form of madness, to recognize it for what it is.

              Girls and women have a right to have their privacy and modesty protected, to not be compelled to share intimate facilities with men of any kind, much less those that are as f•••ed-up in the head as the individual that we are discussing.

              That you would deny girls and women this most basic dignity, in order to pander to sick perverts, only demonstrates the degree of utter hatred and contempt that you have for women and girls.  Any real man, with any vestige of worth, has a duty to protect women from such perverts.  You must be a pretty pathetic excuse for a man, if you don’t feel that obligation.

              But then your “BDSM flag” avatar suggests that you’re the sort who gets off on hurting women, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            So, again, like I thought at first, you don’t have a real argument, you just have ‘ad hominems’ and unfounded assumptions. You even admit you don’t know any trans people, but you seem to have no problem classifying an entire group of people as “f-ed up in the head.” You know, that’s close to the very definition of bigotry right there. Or maybe prejudice would be better word.

            “But then your “BDSM flag” avatar suggests that you’re the sort who gets off on hurting women”

            Ah, there it is. I should have known you wouldn’t understand BDSM either. Or is it the concept of consent you have trouble with? (that being what makes BDSM BDSM and not abuse, btw)

          • Bob Blaylock

              It’s rather obvious.  To believe one’s self to be something that as a matter of objective, observable, provable fact, one is not—for example, a man who believes that he is a woman—is a very clear sign that one is not in good mental health.  It’s a sign that something if very, very, very wrong with that individual—that something is very badly f•••ed-up in that person’s head.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            The consensus view of the medical and psychiatric fields is that gender dysphoria is not a mental illness. They believe (and I have no reason to disagree) that biological sex and gender can be different in certain people. I don’t know what qualifications you have to declare any group of people “very badly f•••ed-up in the head”, but I’ll leave that judgement in the hands of the professionals myself.

          • Bob Blaylock

              This is exactly the phenomenon that Hans Christian Andersen described in his classic tale of The Emperor’s New Clothes, wherein an entire kingdom of foolish people were intimidated into playing along with what they could all see was a lie, for fear of how they would be adversely judged if they spoke the truth.

              Every sane adult knows the difference between men and women, and knows that one cannot become the other.  We don’t need any group of so-called “experts” to tell us that what we can clearly see is false, and that an obvious, insane falsehood is in any way true.  All that this accomplishes is to thoroughly discredit these “experts”, along with anyone foolish enough too cite them as if they somehow still have any vestige of remaining credibility.

          • Bob Blaylock

            Ah, there it is. I should have known you wouldn’t understand BDSM either. Or is it the concept of consent you have trouble with? (that being what makes BDSM BDSM and not abuse, btw)

              The vast majority of women would not consent to undressing or bathing in front of, or otherwise sharing intimate facilities, with strange men, much less with the sick perverts whose side you take.  That you advocate forcing this degradation and abuse on them destroys any credibility that you have in speaking of “consent”, and seems to support the point that I made about your probable character.  You are likely a creep who gets off on hurting women, with or without their supposed consent.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “The vast majority of women would not consent to undressing or bathing in
            front of, or otherwise sharing intimate facilities, with strange men,”

            Did I ever suggest they would?

            “much less with the sick perverts whose side you take.”

            There you go again. Calling an entire group of people “sick perverts” when you don’t know any of them and haven’t even made an effort to understand them. And then you go on to make unfounded accusations about my character as well. Look, if you can’t have a conversation with me without doing stuff like that, there’s no use in me even having a conversation with you.

            “That you advocate forcing this degradation and abuse on them destroys any credibility that you have in speaking of “consent”,”

            By going into a locker room, one consents to having people in there with them, the vast majority of who, whether transgender are not, are there to do the same thing they are; change their clothes, shower, and go about their business. If you view that as “degradation and abuse”, you probably shouldn’t be going into a public locker room in the first place. And no, it doesn’t automatically become that just because there’s a trans woman in there. (who, like I said, is most likely in there just to do what people usually do in locker rooms)

          • Bob Johnson

            “The vast majority of women would not consent to undressing or bathing in front of, or otherwise sharing intimate facilities, with strange men,”
            – Bob Blaylock

            Anecdoyal evidence – from all the hot spring I’ve hiked into, I’m not sure about that. Maybe Gallup should do a poll.

    • Reason2012

      And yet when men who want to pretend they are woman and go in locker rooms and bath rooms with little girls are uncomfortable, then suddenly because they’re uncomfortable, all women and girls must allow themselves to be sexually harassed with their presence, their privacy violated, their conscience violated, by being forced to allow men to go into locker rooms and bathrooms with them. How convenient that when perverts are uncomfortable, everyone else must be the ones to deal with being uncomfortable instead.

      It it’s not a big deal for girls to have men in bathrooms and locker rooms with them, then why have separate ones at all – why not have them ALL together? Because people have a basic right to privacy and decency, something which is foreign to perversion activists who do not care for everyone else, but will make victims out of them all to promote perversion.

      • Michael C

        This isn’t a matter of picking which side deserves not to be made to feel uncomfortable.

        Nobody is guaranteed the right to be free from discomfort.

        If Planet Fitness in Midland, Michigan recognizes customers as being the gender that matches their identity/expression, this means that they’re saying that a transgender woman has the right to be treated like any other woman. Yes, I’m aware that you disagree with this. You don’t even need to tell me. I know. …but your opinion does not dictate Planet Fitness’ policies.

        It’s not about anyone feeling comfortable. It’s about treating everyone equally. Again, I know that you disagree with this. You don’t even need to tell me. I know. …but your opinion does not dictate Planet Fitness’ policies.

        Are some people uncomfortable by transgender men and women being recognized by their gender identity/expression? Yes, apparently some people are uncomfortable.

        Do those people have some sort of “right” to be free from discomfort in public? I’m not aware of any law that outlines that right.

        *edit* formatting

        • Reason2012

          Nobody is guaranteed the right to be free from discomfort.

          Except that’s the argument activists li8ke you use all the time – pretense that it’s “uncomfortable” for men who want to pretend they are women to still go to the men’s room.

          If Planet Fitness in Midland, Michigan recognizes customers as being the gender that matches their identity/expression, this means that they’re saying that a transgender woman has the right to be treated like any other woman.

          That also means they are saying women do not have the right to privacy, do not have the right to not be victimized by perverts pretending to be women, do not have the right to be treated like women everywhere else. The only ones that get a “right’ are those who claim to feel to be the opposite gender. Why do you think the rights of those into playing make belief girl override everyone else’s rights? Your opinion does not dictate the policies of everyone else’s business, where activists like you sue places that do NOT offer such violation fo everyone else’s rights to those who are playing make-believe girl.

          It’s not about anyone feeling comfortable. It’s about treating everyone equally.

          Another lie. Women and girls who have their privacy rights violated, have their decency rights violated, who are subject to perverts taking advantage of this, are not being treated equally. There are laws to protect women and girls from this.

          If a man who only BELIEVES he is a woman is “not being treated equally” by being forced to go to the bathroom and locker room with men, then using your definition, a woman who ALSO BELIEVES she is a woman is “not being treated equally” by being forced to go to the bathroom and locker room with men.

          Therein are the lies of lgbt activists exposed.

          Your opinion does not dictate private businesses that need to cave to this demand lest they be sued.

          Are some women uncomfortable with men going to the bathroom with them? With men in the locker room with them? Yes, pretty much all people. Do women have some sort of “right” to privacy from men in such places, some sort of “right” to protection from perverts in such places, some right to protection from sexual harassment in such places by men walking in on them? Yes, we have laws on book for that. You know – it’s why we have mens and womens restrooms EVERYWHERE, instead of just making restrooms and locker rooms where men can walk in on women. There are decency laws for that.

          Want to pretend there are no such laws? Tell a man to go walk into a women’s restroom instead of the men’s, and when you’re arrested, you can tell them you’re unaware of such laws – won’t get you very far.

          • Michael C

            Except that’s the argument activists li8ke you use all the time – pretense that it’s “uncomfortable” for men who want to pretend they are women to still go to the men’s room.

            I just outlined the argument and it had nothing to do with feeling uncomfortable. Go back and read what I wrote. If you don’t understand it, feel free to ask questions.

        • Jason Todd

          It’s not about anyone feeling comfortable. It’s about treating everyone equally.

          Everyone? Everyone?

          Exactly how are biological women being treated equally? How can they be when you are too busy throwing them under the bus?

    • Jason Todd

      Excuse me? This is not a social change.

      Whether you like it or not, a biological male, no matter what he does with his body, is still a biological male. Period.

      A biological female is absolutely entitled to a reasonable amount of privacy, safety and security in vulnerable places, especially dressing rooms and restrooms. Period. Reasons and motivations are not relevant.

      When you or anyone else says a biological male has a right to use a ladies’ restroom without regard to the privacy, safety or security of biological females, that’s called misogyny.

      Period.

  • Ambulance Chaser

    The plaintiff, who was fully dressed, saw a trans woman in a locker room, who was also fully dressed, and the trans woman saw her. I don’t see where the emotional distress occurred.

    • yabruf

      Lol

      Trans woman is code word for perverted dude in a wig.

      Most likely a sodomite trying to be accepted in their depraved lifestyle.

      • Ambulance Chaser

        If you want to understand gender dysphoria, I recommend you read the websites of the Human Rights Campaign or PFLAG. If you don’t want to understand it, I can’t help you.

    • SFBruce

      I see no emotional distress either, and, much more importantly, neither did this judge.

      • Jason Todd

        The judge probably wouldn’t see distress with a woman who found a man peeking over her restroom stall. Misogyny is what’s behind this, and armed females is what’ll end it.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          After going through the entire thread shouting “irrelevant!” at every person who disagrees with you, you’re now speculating, without evidence, about what a judge under some other circumstances not applicable here, would do?

          • Croquet_Player

            Surprising to see “misogyny” is suddenly an issue of concern for Jason.

    • Reason2012

      Were they both going in there to stay fully dressed? Is that why people go into locker rooms, to remain fully dressed? No, locker rooms were designed as a place to get undressed, maintaining privacy, protection and decency. That lgbt activists try to pretend it was fine because at that moment both were dressed shows how deceptive even these activists judges are.

      • Ambulance Chaser

        What, exactly, would you like the judges to have held? That she suffered emotional distress? Based on what evidence?

        • Reason2012

          Same ‘evidence’ of a man walking into a women’s rest room or women’s locker room and would be arrested as well.

          Where’s the proof that there’s a locker room where it was designed for something OTHER than people also getting undressed?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Since you’re dodging the question, I’ll put it simply and bluntly: What would you like the court to have ruled in this case?

  • yabruf

    What a joke our society has become. A pervert throws on a wig and some makeup and enters a woman’s locker room. Multiple women complain, the pervert stays and the women lose their membership!
    Unbelievable! This country truly is becoming Babylon.

    • Amos Moses – He>i

      Sodom ……….

    • trish

      And isn’t it strange that this is happening globally at the same time? Glad I understand what the Bible teaches about the last days, or I’d be totally confused!

  • Honesty Counts

    Homosexuals, no matter what they label themselves, are perverted and dangerous to our society as a whole.
    It it well past time that Conservatives flex their backbone and standup against this disgusting nonsense.
    The looney tunes are running the government and setting perverted society norms in place of traditional morality and modesty.
    We need to send a strong message to the homosexual lobby and Congress that we, as moral citizens, oppose this perversion of our country’s moral traditions and history.

    • Michael C

      gay ≠ transgender

      • 🍺Jo King ✓ᶰᵒᵗ ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᴬᵀ ᴬᴸᴸ

        You are correct, of course.

        But what are the odds of someone like that concerning themselves with the differences, especially if doing so undermines their narrative?

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        yes it does ….. it has been LGBT since the BEGINNING …… the tranny has always been there …………… and the only goal has been to spread their CONFUSION to the rest of the world ………………….

      • Bob Blaylock

          It’s all part of the same sickness and the same evil.

      • Oboehner

        As they hold hands merrily skipping down mentally challenged lane…

      • Jason Todd

        Explain LGBT then.

        • TheKingOfRhye

          You’re asking why L, G, B and T are grouped together if they’re not all the same thing, is that it? Well, I’m none of those things (so apologies to anyone reading this who is if I don’t know what I’m talking about…lol), but I believe transgender people allied with LGB because they’ve faced similar discrimination. And while being trans is not a sexual orientation in itself, it kind of falls under the same umbrella of ‘gender expression’. After all, isn’t part of the conventional ideas of gender expression displaying an attraction towards the opposite sex?

          Also, perhaps it’s partly because people like you have lumped them together yourselves….,

          Oh, and for what it’s worth, there are some trans people who feel they shouldn’t be grouped with LGB and vice versa.

  • james blue

    I wonder what her reaction would have been if she had walked in the female room and seen a post op female to male trans fully bearded (using the room of birth gender). Her ‘man parts” argument wouldn’t have gotten her too far

  • Patchwork Patty

    The Shapes health clubs used to be all-women. Is there some “right” now for men or trans to force their way into a women-only facility?

    • Michael C

      Firstly, Planet Fitness chooses to allow transgender members to use the facilities matching their gender identity/expression. This is their policy that they have chosen, as a business, to implement.

      As for your comment about Shapes, it’s complicated. Many state non-discrimination laws include fitness clubs within their definition of public accommodations and most (if not all) states protect people from discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of their sex. Because of this, it is considered illegal in much of the U.S. for a fitness center to refuse service to a customer just because they’re either male or female. There are several states, however, that exempt fitness clubs from their sex-based non-discrimination prohibitions, permitting single-sex membership.

      Is there some “right” now for men or trans to force their way into a women-only facility?

      As transgender men and women are increasingly being recognized by their gender identity, it is, actually, becoming a matter of their right to be treated like any other man or woman.

      The woman who sued Planet Fitness is trying to claim that it is her right to not feel “uncomfortable” in public places.

      • Reason2012

        Firstly, Planet Fitness chooses to allow transgender members to use the facilities matching their gender identity/expression. This is their policy that they have chosen, as a business, to implement.

        Yet when every other business has their policy that you enter a restroom that matches your biological gender, not your pretend gender, activists like you scream in rage that they are being bigots, which exposes your lie that it’s fine just because “they have their own policy”

        • Michael C

          The government has the ability to enact laws that prohibit certain types of discrimination.

          Do you disagree with this?

          • Jason Todd

            The government also has no business forcing anyone, whether it be private or governmental entity, to either accept or accommodate a mental illness.

            Do you agree with that?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I don’t know whether Michael C agrees with that or not, but it’s a public message board, so I’ll answer:

            No, I don’t agree with that at all. What do you have against people with mental illness (which, by the way, does NOT include gender dysphoria)?

          • Reason2012

            If it was discrimination to make men stay out of women’s restroom, we wouldn’t have men’s and women’s restrooms or locker rooms, and you wouldn’t get arrested for walking in on women and girls in there.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            We’re not talking about men, we’re talking about a transgender woman.

          • Reason2012

            He’s a man. The fact that he needs surgery, genital mutilation and drugs to try changing the fact he’s a man so that perhaps he’s not as much of a man proves he’s a man.

          • Bob Blaylock

              As a matter of undeniable, immutable, scientific fact, a “transgender woman” is a man, not a woman.  And he has no damn business being in a women’s locker room, while women are undressing and showering therein.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      No, but whether trans women are allowed in the ladies’ locker rooms is not at issue in this case. The case was about whether a fully clothed woman in a locker room seeing and being seen by a fully clothed trans woman constitutes intentional infliction of emotional distress.

      (There were five other causes of action as well, all dismissed and then upheld also, but this story only focused on one of them.)

      • Oboehner

        “trans women” ROFL!!! Mentally ill men is more appropriate, the women have every right to be creeped out, no matter what the whack-job was wearing.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          I see. So do you have some comment of substance you’d like to make? I can’t respond to petty insults.

          • Oboehner

            Can’t respond period.

  • SFBruce

    Shapes has every right to run their business as they see fit, and I thought that sentiment was shared by many conservatives. If Yvette Cormier feels uncomfortable with trans women in her dressing room, she has every right to take her business elsewhere, although it’s my hope that more and more businesses will do the right thing and accommodate trans men and women. What she doesn’t have a right to do, is return, hang out in the locker room and bad mouth the establishment for conducting their business the way they want, which in this case is both legal and, in my view, commendable. .

    • Bob Blaylock

        Letting creepy male perverts into women’s dressing rooms is never the right thing.

        Isn’t it funny, in a rather sick way, that this sort of crap comes from the side that is fond of falsely accusing its opposition of waging a “war on women”?

      • Ambulance Chaser

        The American Psychological Association, as well as every major medical and mental health organization in America, consider trans people to be the gender they present as.

        • Bob Blaylock

            The Emperor is still stark naked, no matter how many foolish people compliment His Majesty on the spectacularly new clothes that His Majesty is supposedly wearing.

            It is a matter of obvious, hard, immutable science, that a man is not, and cannot become a woman.  Anyone who claims otherwise is insane or an idiot or both, and not to be taken as credible on any subject, no matter what numbers or expertise they may claim.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Oh? Well then how about what evidence they present?

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    What feminism wanted all along. When women despise purity and chastity, men despise women. Secularism only upholds staunch immorality and not people’s normal feelings. The world will get a lesson and take it to heart when the Western Sodom collapses. USA needs Christian values to be normal and civilized again.

  • Helena Handbasket

    Pandering to fruitcakes just encourages others to do the same.
    You have to scream “Stop!” to crazy people.

    • Amos Moses – He>i

      “Stop The Insanity”
      ~Susan Powter

  • Kelly Emery

    Absolutely want to vomit! Natural born females should Never have to deal with these mentally ill transgender society in our bathrooms, changing rooms etc. My friend was raped by one of these creatures which was kept from the public. Again, complete and utter disrespect from the former president Obama. SHAME ON ALL WHO SUPPORT THIS

    • Ambulance Chaser

      What do you think the court should have ruled instead?

  • yabruf

    What do they expect. Liberals run Michigan so all manner of depravity will run rampant in that cesspool of a state.
    If you don’t like having perverts in your bathrooms, locker rooms, churches and around your children then move to a state where Godless liberals are not running the show.

    I suggest Texas or Arizona. The sodomites don’t seem to care for the dry heat….lol

    • james blue

      Michigan has a republican governor, republican lieutenant governor, republican Secretary of State, republican Attorney General. In the legislature Republicans have the majority in both houses.

      So exactly how do “liberals run Michigan”?

      • yabruf

        I really new to explain this to you? Have you been under a rock for the last four decades?

        I didn’t think there were many people left out there that actually believe that there is a difference between the Dems and Repubs!

        Or wait, for you to be this naive your probably like what, 15? Sorry kid someone will have to explain to you that the D’s and the R’s are two spokes in the same evil wheel.

        So for future reference pay no attention to the letters behind their names or for that matter the words coming out of their mouths. Just look at the voting records and current policies in the state and you can tell if they are liberal(immoral) or conservative(moral).

        Ok that’s it for today’s lesson. Next session we can discuss the liberal policies enforced in Michigan under the two faced Republican leadership……lol

        • james blue

          Wow, that one is a keeper.

        • TheKingOfRhye

          You know, if you talk to people from other parts of the world, like Europe, they’d say almost the same thing….but they’d consider both Democrats and Republicans to be conservatives.

  • Bob Blaylock

      Look up "Carlotta Sklodowska" on Google.  That’s the guy who Ms. Cormier found in the ladies’ locker room at Pervert Fitness.  A seriously creepy, disturbed pervert.  It is absolutely outrageous and irresponsible for Pervert Fitness to have allowed that creep into the women’s locker rooms, and shows a horrendous degree of contempt and disrespect for their female customers.

    • Michael C

      It’s funny, when I did an image search of the name you provided, one of the photos that popped up was of Aydian Dowling.

      I have a strong feeling that most, if not all, women would more than a little shocked to encounter Aydian Dowling (or Kingston Farady or Michael Hughes) in the women’s locker room like Cormier seems to be advocating.

      • Jason Todd

        Irrelevant. Stay on topic.

        • TheKingOfRhye

          It’s not irrelevant, because if people like you have your way, Aydian Dowling would be forced to use women’s rooms.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      This story takes place at Planet Fitness. I don’t know what or where Pervert Fitness is.

  • KonCern

    This is the effect of a Feminized Culture. And it will get worst. Why? Most women do not appreciate gender differences.

    • Bob Blaylock

        I don’t think that;’s a fair statement at all, lumping “most women” in with a tiny minority of sexually-confused freaks.  If your statement were true, then most women wouldn’t have any rational basis to object to creepy male perverts intruding into their dressing rooms, locker rooms, and similar facilities.

  • Reason2012

    Regardless of whether an average member of the community may find the policy outrageous, the fact is that plaintiff did not suffer severe emotional distress as a matter of law,” it concluded.

    Yet they allow men with mental dysfunction issues who want to play make believe that they are women to go into girls’ restrooms and girls’ locker rooms because otherwise they would “suffer severe emotional distress as a matter of law”. They use the same argument for promoting perversion and victimizing everyone else’s daughters and granddaughters to then also shut down any opposition to it.

    So throw their lies back in their face: If it doesn’t cause any “severe emotional distress as a matter of the law” to have a man go into a woman’s bathroom, or a woman go into a man’s bathroom, then why not make a man who only BELIEVES he’s a woman go into a man’s bathroom, and therein is their propaganda lie exposed. Suddenly it would case “severe emotional distress as a matter of law” to force a man who only BELIEVES he is a woman to have other men in the locker room and bathroom with him.

    Seems the lawyers defending these cases have no idea how to use basic logic to expose these perversion activists’ lies and hypocrisy used to force their anti-Christian pro-perversion agenda on every else.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Yes, it does make perfect logical sense when you ignore the facts of the case entirely and substitute your own.

      No one is saying that forcing trans people to use the restroom of their birth gender would qualify as intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court is saying that merely seeing a trans person in a locker room while all parties are clothed does not constitute IIED.

      No court has yet ruled on the psychological effects of misgendering trans people but the mental health community recommends against it.

      • Reason2012

        So now you implicitly claim those in locker rooms remain dressed 100% of the time. Or you admit it WOULD be a problem if this man had gotten undressed or the woman had gotten addressed. Which is it, as in either case it exposes dishonesty.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          I don’t know what “dishonesty” you’re referring to. She claimed she was subjected to “severe emotional distress” but couldn’t prove it.

          If one or both of them had been undressed, it would have been a completely different case with completely different facts that we can only speculate about because they didn’t happen.

          Courts don’t rule on hypothetical controversies. We just know in this case , the plaintiff failed to prove IIED. They weren’t (and can’t be) asked to rule on some other set of facts that didn’t happen.

  • trish

    The man stated he isn’t a member but uses the facility to leave his coat and purse while visiting a friend. His “friend” can’t accommodate a coat and purse??

  • Luminous

    If only she was a lesbian, they put a very high price tag on their emotional distress.
    $$$$$

  • Trilemma

    Perhaps Planet Fitness should have a separate dressing/showering area for women with penises and another for men with vaginas.

  • Rachelthemillenial

    The women I know would’ve kicked and shoved him out the door, and giving him an earful of abuse he’d never forget. What’s happened to people’s moxie? When did we become dependent on courts to regulate our lives? A man doesn’t belong in a room where women are dressing, I don’t care what the health club said. Do the feelings of some disgusting perv override the feelings of the other patrons?

    • RWH

      I hope that these women don’t mind spending time in prison for assault and battery. These women have a right to call management or the police. They don’t have the right to beat someone up or to push them out the door.

      By the way, what gives these women the right to check someone’s sex organs. That’s exactly what they are advocating.

      • Reason2012

        Don’t need to check when you’re in a locker room that’s designed for getting undressed and hence it’s on display for all to see, which is why there are women’s locker rooms to begin with.

        • RWH

          There are a number of women who have mannish features but are still women. What you want is to discriminate on the basis of appearance, not whether someone is actually a male or female. Nobody has the right to conduct unwarranted searches.

          The bottom line is that people go into a place like this, do their business, mind their own business unless someone makes unwarranted advances. I know of people who don’t want to shower in a common locker room like this. It is their right not to shower, but they don’t have the right to kick others out so that they can have their privacy. The same thing goes for the locker room. You turn your back, mind your business, and get dressed as quickly as possible in a more remote corner where there are no others.

        • RWH

          I have never encountered anyone who made it a practice check people out by staring between their legs. I hope that I’m never in a locker room with you.

          • Reason2012

            It’s rather obvious when a naked man is in a locker room with women. No “staring between the man’s legs” needs to take place to notice this.

            Using your logic they need to let ALL men walk in on women and little girls, and if the women and little girls complain, just chide them with “stop making it your practice to stare between his legs and you’ll be fine”.

            The left continues to show how twisted and perverted they truly are and how no deception is beneath them to push their perversion agenda on everyone else.

          • RWH

            We’re not talking about men simply walking into rooms. We are discussing people who have legitimately transgendered. Places like this have solid policies in place. If you can’t abide by the policy, don’t join.

            By the way, behavior in locker rooms for years has been for people to mind their own business. If you don’t like crowds, come at another time. You want privacy, go to an area where you would have more privacy. You’re that much of a prude, change in a bathroom stall. Polite people don’t go about staring at others, and they mind their own business unless someone invades their personal space with suspicious intentions. A person has a locker next to you, one of you wait patiently until the other person has changed.

            I never met such a group of people who were so obsessed with other people’s sexual organs as some on this list. Count Dracula could enter the room for all I care. As long as he is minding his business, I will mind mine. If I feel uncomfortable being around a vampire, I can quickly get dressed and get out of there. Unless he is coming at me licking his chops, I need to let him be at peace. The last thing transgender people want is to be conspicuous. And there is a lot of difference between a transgendered person and one with evil intentions. Places like this have security guards in place to handle problem people. I would be more worried about someone breaking into my locker or trying to rob me.

          • Bob Blaylock

            We are discussing people who have legitimately transgendered.

              There is no such thing.  As a matter of undeniable, immutable scientific fact, it is biologically impossible for a man to become a woman, or for a woman to become a man.  It cannot happen, and anyone who thinks that it can or has is either insane or unimaginably ignorant or both.

          • RWH

            I’m not about to get into this debate because, frankly, minds are made up. You have your opinion. I have mine. The professional medical and psychiatric organizations disagree with you. I’m not sure if I completely agree with them. However, these people have transitioned. I met the leading medical authority in the State of Pennsylvania who transitioned. I respect her position. I respect her decisions. They may not be my decisions. And I’m not about to pass judgment, and I don’t think that she will lose any sleep over your disapproval. Society is moving on, and a lot of people are more sympathetic toward transgendered people. As a result, this leaves you in a hard position. You have the choice of either disagreeing politely or being a complete inconsiderate, obnoxious person about it. The first choice tells society that you know how to play well with others. The second will not work well for you.

          • Bob Blaylock

              A creepy, perverted man, who claims to be a “trans woman”, and on that basis, violates the privacy and modesty of actual women, is not being respectful toward women, nor is anyone who would defend the “right” of this creepy pervert to do so.  Anyone who defends this crap is worthy only of the lowest contempt and scorn from sane, decent people.  You don’t get to stand up for these degenerate freaks, and defend their abuse of women, and then credibly complain that someone else is being obnoxious, inconsiderate, or disrespectful.

          • RWH

            Did that libelous tantrum make you feel better? It says more about you than it does me. That you don’t know how to differentiate between someone who has legitimately transitioned and perverts says a lot about you. It’s ignorance at its best manifestation. Unfortunately, many of those who think like you also like to burn crosses in front of people’s homes as well. This type of person can’t hold down a respectable job because they don’t know how to respect others and play well with them. Instead of thinking of reasoned, thoughtful responses, they respond with abuse and cruelty. You have your right to your beliefs. They just don’t fit well around nice people.

          • Bob Blaylock

              I’m not terribly concerned about being called “ignorant” by someone who doesn’t even know the difference between men and women.

          • RWH

            You should be concerned. It’s not a matter about recognizing a difference. It’s about treating others with respect. It’s about minding your own business. It about getting an education and finding out that life doesn’t necessarily exist in clear binaries. I work and supervise a number of people who have made choices that I’m not comfortable with. They’re not my choices, but I’m responsible for treating these people with dignity an respect. People with your contemptuous attitudes toward others never last long. They create a hostile workplace, and management has no problems in showing them the door. Allow people like this to fester, and sooner or later they will commit an act of violence.

          • Bob Blaylock

              You want to compel women to undress and shower in front of creepy, perverted men.  That leaves you no room to credibly speak of “respect” or “diginity”.

              Your position demonstrates an extremely contemptuous attitude toward women.  Do something about the beam in your own eye before you worry about the mote in mine.

          • RWH

            According to the Barna Survey, most women are not as obsessive, compulsive about transgenders as you are. They realize that there is a huge difference between someone who is transgender and wants to be left at peace and someone who is a predator. Most people I know mind their own business in bathrooms and locker rooms. I’m wary of people who feel that they need to police others and mind everyone else’s business. If you’re that obsessive about the possibility of people leering at you or others, perhaps you should get professional help about your sexual hangups. Most clubs like this one have policies regarding gender expression, and they have appropriate measures in place to make sure that nothing goes wrong. All of the sexual pandering that goes on in the steam-room and with the hot-tub is more concerning.

            What is more concerning to me is that people with your outlooks on things tend to get violent when they don’t get their way. Spousal abuse, both verbal and physical, seems to be the elephant in the room in a lot of fundy circles.

            This is my last post. All you know how to do at this point is to display more contemptuous and insulting behavior.

          • Bob Blaylock

              I call solid digestive waste from a male bovine on your phony survey.

              Most women that I know—and I have no reason to believe that they are not representative of women in general—are not OK with undressing in front of men with the narrow exception of those with whom they are in intimate relationships.  And most women that I know know the difference between men and women, and are not going to make an exception for any man just because he’s some insane pervert who claims to be female.

              And even if there are women who are OK with undressing in front of creepy male perverts, they don’t get to make that choice for other women.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Count Dracula could enter the room for all I care.”

            Maybe bring some garlic into the locker room just in case. 😉

          • Stevie Williams

            I hope you are sweetie!!!! I will give you a big wet kiss then I will slice ya throat you sexual deviant !!!!

      • Rachelthemillenial

        So you’re actually proud of being a coward?

        Homosexual men are pathetic. You wait for a real man to protect you. That is so sad.

        • RWH

          Go ahead and beat someone up then. I’m sure someone will visit you in prison. Don’t typecast people or stereotype them. Very few gay men are noticeably effeminate. I know of plenty of gay men who would be capable of beating the living daylights out an attacker. Centuries ago when I was in high school, a group of bullies tried to physically harass a younger student who looked rather weak and defenseless. It turns out that the weak and defenseless one knew judo. He sent his attacker to the hospital and got away with it since the bully threw the first blow. It’s interesting how the “brave” ones like you are the first to run away and call foul when the tables are turned.

          • Rachelthemillenial

            Senile old woman.

          • RWH

            Name calling, throwing insults, and advocating physical violence is the last resort of intellectually limited people. It worked with the Nazis who desired to believe the party’s lamebrained attitudes toward others.

          • Rachelthemillenial

            I’m done here, go play shuffleboard.

          • RWH

            No, I would rather go up in a hot air balloon.

  • nineleven

    this is the fruit of 8 years of Obama’s renegade mentality. to be honest, hundreds and thousands of Christians need to do what this woman has done to get into the faces of reprobate companies in order to get them to turn from their sinful behaviour. It up us in prayer and in action to see a change. Look what a concerted boycott did to Target! Let the repurcussions begin from all concerned members.

    • Bob Blaylock

        The Democrats have been moving in this direction for a very long time, but under Obama, it massively accelerated—They’ve become a party that openly takes the side of criminals, perverts, terrorists, illegal aliens, and other subhuman filth; against that of honest, decent, law-abiding Americans.

        Mrs. Clinton was widely seen as a candidate that would continue in this direction, and for all his flaws, Mr. Trump was widely seen as the candidate that opposed this direction, and I believe this was a major reason for his victory, as well as the big Republican wins in the House, the Senate, and in many state-level offices across the nation.  Mainstream Americans wanted elected representatives who would represent us, rather than betraying us to stand for the interests of the very lowest subhuman dregs at the darkest fringes of our society.

  • Reason2012

    They pretend that because no one got undressed, even though that’s precisely what locker rooms are for, that nothing wrong was done by allowing men in there. It shows they’re just defending that perversion agenda. It also unwittingly exposes that the court knows it WOULD be wrong if either became undressed, hence they try to say ‘well no one got undressed”, which shows that allowing that in a locker room DESIGNED for people to get undressed is an attack on privacy, an attack on being protected from perverts, an attack on normalcy.

    It’s like letting a would-be_rapist go because “well you didn’t actually get_raped”.

    It would be like letting a business that enables women at higher risk to get raped if “well you didn’t actually get_raped”.

  • williaml

    vote with your feet!
    when planet fitness loses enough customers, they will change their policy.

  • Chet

    There’s no such place on Earth as a “Judgment Free Zone” as depicted in this piece as the eyes of the Lord are in every place beholding the evil and the good… And He keeps perfect records soon to be revealed…