The accuracy of the ostensible scare claims depends, I suppose, on what they actually said, and whether men-using-women’s-restrooms, as it was characterized by Allen Asch, is the same as people who were assigned one sex at birth based usually on genitalia using restrooms in conformity with their gender identity. Even if there are meaningful differences, we’re talking about political discourse here, so one (read, I) would hope that the City would have more to hang its defenses on than just that distinction.
David B. Cruz Professor of Law University of Southern California Gould School of Law Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071 U.S.A. From: <Volokh>, "Volokh, Eugene" <vol...@law.ucla.edu<mailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu>> Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>> Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 at 8:03 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>> Subject: RE: "City subpoenas pastors' sermons in equal rights ordinance case" I did a bit of looking, and saw that a Colorado Civil Rights Division panel interpreted a ban on “transgender status” discrimination to indeed conclude that people (in that case, children) who are biologically male but who self-identify as female are legally entitled to use women’s restrooms. It thus seems that the claims that the Houston ordinance would have such an effect were at least defensible and possibly quite correct, unless I’m missing something here. Eugene
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
