Planet Fitness Hit With Lawsuit Over Claims Of Hostile Environment For Women And Children

a reply to: infolurker

Interesting. What happens when what you seem to feel you have the right to claim is a man has bottom surgery? It's been changed to reflect HER chemistry and reality.

Ta reply to: xuenchen

Personally, I don't even like to see the penis between my own legs. Until I get rid of it, I'm not going to subject strangers in the locker room to my nude body.

The problem is the language used. People don't understand there are plenty of trans women in the locker rooms all the time and you'd never know. The language should be all about the penis. Many women have been victimized and penises will trigger some bad stuff. I get that. We just need to simplify it and lose the transgender label in the debate.

Having male junk exposed in a no-penis zone makes no sense when showers are involved. Restrooms, absolutely. Showers, no.

At least that's how I feel about it. The woman in the article was an ass about it, though. I am glad she was kicked from there.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: xuenchen

We can fix this whole "bathroom thing" in one easy move.

Take off the terms "Man and Woman" from Bathrooms.


Replace with pictures of "penis and vagina".

Whatever the hell you "ACTUALLY HAVE THERE, you have you go to that bathroom, locker room, etc.

No wishing I had it, what do you have, that is where you go... problem solved.

Can't argue with that. With shower rooms, anyway. You have this transwoman's support.

It saves me a lot of heart ache when I just wait until I get home to shower.

a reply to: xuenchen

While I may not agree with the locker room policy of planet fitness from what I have read she was dutifully informed of said policy with the reasoning behind it being explained. Also from what I read she was telling other members falsehoods by not adequately explaining the policy of planet fitness to the other members she talked to.

Irresponsible policy and actions? I don't know. If she felt uncomfortable she was given the option of respectfully waiting for the other "woman" to finish using the facilities. I guess asking her to be respectful of the person and the policy is beyond her. Just more litigious nonsense because this self absorbed woman felt offended.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Just to recap here, but because her views didn't conform to the views of the business owner, she should lose, find another place of business that does cater to her views because that's how free markets work?

This has nothing to do with the establishment in question. This woman had a personal problem and in my view narrow minded opinion of a person she had never met.

Its not about keeping women safe, that's the farthest thing from the truth. If she had a problem, the proper thing would have been to meet this person.

And then decide if they pose some kind of threat based on what you know about them. Not based on some preconceived notions.

She then proceeded to harrass other patrons of the business, on its own property. So they revoked her membership.

What sensible business wouldn't do that?

And yes if she doesn't want to go some place because of the rules then much like ATS she can find another venue to occupy.

Some people like echo chambers.

The business wasn't discriminating it was being the opposite, trying to be progressive. And we can disagree about their ideas of what's good and what's not but it doesn't make the story about them.

Its about a silly woman who wants a soapbox and a media machine willing to dole out ridiculous headlines.

-Tenth

a business has the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason.

you cannot force a person or company to serve you.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Just to recap here, but because her views didn't conform to the views of the business owner, she should lose, find another place of business that does cater to her views because that's how free markets work?

Hmmm are you implying a direct relationship to cakes and flowers?

Interesting thought!

So carrying tothe10th logic, if the request of the patron doesn't conform to the viewpoint of the business owner, the patron should find a place of business that does cater to their views?

Interesting.

originally posted by: Atsbhct
Also, I'd like to say, what's the difference between a man being in the locker room who self identifies as a woman, and who may or may not be attracted to women, and women being the locker room who are attracted to women?

What's the woman's basis for this making her feel uncomfortable? Because if it's that there is a man in there who might be ogling you, there might be women in there ogling you, too.

Maybe the offended woman thought having "her" (the transsexual) junk hang out everywhere
was not something the offended women or other women or the children who accompanied the women into the locker room
wanted to be exposed to in a female locker room.

So does being inclusive and non-judgmental now give the right for male to female transsexuals to flap their junk in front of women, who are then bigots and horrid people if they don't want to be exposed to the "junk" in what is supposed to be a vagina changing area.

originally posted by: IntastellaBurst


a business has the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason.

you cannot force a person or company to serve you.

You are so very very wrong.

A gay couple can force any person or company to service them at their wedding or risk losing their business for not serving them.

The same businesses can deny service to any heterosexual couple that is the same race as the service provider, because then its not sexist or racist or homophobic to deny service.

Well, Planet Fitness's motto is:

The Judgement Free Zone

a reply to: beezzer

Just to recap here, but because her views didn't conform to the views of the business owner, she should lose, find another place of business that does cater to her views because that's how free markets work?

She wasn't denied service because she didn't agree with the owner - she was denied service because she was harassing other members and demanding that the owners discriminate on her behalf. Essentially she was trying to force the owner to discriminate - and discrimination is illegal

Woman Sues Planet Fitness For Being Too Respectful Of Transgender People

Earlier this month, the Planet Fitness in Midland, Michigan canceled Yvette Cormier’s membership. Cormier had claimed to see a “man” — a transgender woman — in the locker room and had spent several days complaining to other customers about the gym’s inclusive policy allowing her to be there. Planet Fitness deemed her judgmental behavior “inappropriate and disruptive to other members,” but now Cormier is suing for over $25,000 in damages.

The complaint, filed in state court, accuses the LGBT-inclusive policy of being an “invasion of privacy [that] enables sexual harassment and possible criminal activity, and endangers women and children.”

Just so we understand (those of us that might be confused) what's really going on here - she is represented by:

Cormier’s representation by Kallman Legal Group is likely not a coincidence. David and Stephen Kallman, a father and son team, already have a reputation for opposing LGBT equality in Michigan. In October of 2013, they submitted a legal memo challenging proposed LGBT nondiscrimination protections in Delta Township, claiming that the ordinance would violate others’ religious freedom. The memo compared homosexuality to extramarital sex, polygamy, pedophilia, serial killer rapists, necrophilia, bestiality, and incest and suggested that because gender identity is “internal to the person,” someone accused of discrimination would be required to be a “mind-reader” not to discriminate. Their suit against Planet Fitness for respecting how individuals self-identify their gender seems to disprove this last concern.

In addition to his legal practice, David Kallman serves on the board of the Colorado-based Salt and Light Global ministries, which believes the Bible is infallible and seeks to impose God’s law “in every social sphere in every community.” Both Kallmans also serve as legal counsel for the Great Lakes Justice Center, which has published issue briefs similarly rejecting LGBT protections as a violation of religious liberty and describing such laws as an attempt to promote “civil acceptance of homosexual conduct through the force of law.”

Emphasis mine. Holy cow - through the force of law this guy wants to force all of us to discriminate. Seems kinda mean

So, the owner of Planet Fitness is not discriminating - the owner is (now) forced to fight being forced to discriminate

Discrimination bad...equality good

See how that works beezer?

:-)

Meethinks that woman ought to worry about herself and not others when changing in the locker room.

I try not to stare and look at other naked people in the locker room. Sometimes though it's almost unavoidable. There's always that "one guy". You know that guy. The guy that really shouldn't be putting his leg up on the bench and stretching. The guy that you never actually SEE working out, but just naked in the locker room.

Why does every gym have that guy?

Sorry, I had to inject a little gym humor.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

Why does every gym have that guy?

Yep. That's reason #2 I don't shower in there.

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: IntastellaBurst


a business has the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason.

you cannot force a person or company to serve you.

You are so very very wrong.

A gay couple can force any person or company to service them at their wedding or risk losing their business for not serving them.

The same businesses can deny service to any heterosexual couple that is the same race as the service provider, because then its not sexist or racist or homophobic to deny service.

The gay wedding cake equivalent doesn't make sense, though.

If it were a cake store and they were making a wedding cake for a straight couple and another customer complained about the straight wedding cake and the owner told that person to bug off, that would be similar.

The gym didn't kick out the woman for being a cisgender woman; she was kicked out for making a hostile environment (ironically).

a reply to: grandmakdw

So carrying tothe10th logic, if the request of the patron doesn't conform to the viewpoint of the business owner, the patron should find a place of business that does cater to their views?

No Grammie - what it means is people can't discriminate in public. Not even by proxy

The woman signed a contract, she broke the contract.
Bad luck.
Silly cow.

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
The woman signed a contract, she broke the contract.
Bad luck.
Silly cow.

Bust a deal, face the wheel, I always say.

a reply to: lordcomac

Is that a joke?

Gender is determined by your body. So it is inherently true that a female could not exist in a man's body.

If you decide that you want a sex change, get it done before you wander into the other gender's changing room. Common sense.

Be whatever you want, but while you are whichever you are, follow the rules.

originally posted by: Infinitis
a reply to: lordcomac

Be whatever you want, but while you are whichever you are, follow the rules.

I'm fairly certain the "rules" in this case were "don't harass the other customers"- and she did not follow that one. Instead of accepting the consequences, she's "telling mom"- getting a lawyer.

It's nonsense. That poor person isn't trying to cause a problem, there are plenty of "women only" gyms they could go to if that was their goal. Don't like it? Don't use a public shower. Obviously the establishment doesn't have a problem with it, that one customer did- and I'm sure she was free to file a complaint with management- and I'm guessing others have.
Could this person have just sucked it up and used the mens room? Yes. Should they have? Maybe. Should they have just gone home to shower? I would have. But they didn't- and now it's awkward for others. Does that make this person a jerk? Yeah, a little bit. But maybe they have good reason.


This woman is just a spoiled brat, used to bitching until she gets her way. It's a touchy subject, I get it- but the establishment has to make a level headed decision on how to handle this based on their customers- not one raging crazy bitch who wants to make a scene. Dictating behavior based on who bitches the loudest leads to really screwed up policies.
Just one more reason I could never run a business in this country- these one way discrimination laws are all bull#.

a reply to: lordcomac

So in your mind it's okay to have coed locker rooms? Would you want some guy watching your wife shower or get dressed? If you're a woman you're okay with being watched? This is just one more stupid senseless argument offered for fodder on ATS.
People get a freakin clue for Christ's sake.