[Blog/Commentary] [USA] Baltimore County literally puts public toilets off-limits to Hispanics, Muslims, others
Stephanie Stevens
Baltimore County literally puts public toilets off-limits to
Hispanics, Muslims, others
Submitted by Michi Eyre on Wed, 02/22/2012 - 23:40
This week, the Baltimore County Council passed Bill 3-12
<http://resources.baltimorecountymd.gov/Documents/CountyCouncil/bills%202012/b00312.pdf>
, a human relations bill that adds sexual orientation and a very broad
social-driven definition of "gender identity and expression" as
protected classes in regards to employment, housing, public
accommodations and other aspects of everyday life from discrimination.
When this legislation was written, there was much hysteria raised over
potential fears that "men in dresses" will enter public restrooms and
"rape women and children".
To try to appease both sides, Baltimore County borrowed some wording
from the recently passed Howard County, MD ordinance that puts an
exception in the employment and public accommodations law that it does
not apply to:
The provision of accommodations that are distinctly private or personal.
First of all, this language is vague and subject to interpretation.
But when you assume the intent of the language was to address the
issue over public restrooms and showers, the way that the wording was
placed into the law should be a bigger alarm.
If you were to read the entire public accommodation law in Baltimore
County with these changes, this is what it would look like.
§ 29-1-101(d) adds sexual orientation, gender identity and expression
to a list that includes race, religion, sex, age, color, creed,
national origin, marital status and physical or mental disability.
§ 29-2-301. “PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION” DEFINED.
(1) In this subtitle “public accommodation” means a place that
holds itself out as inviting the public to use its goods and services.
(2) “Public accommodation” includes a place that is not operated for profit.
§ 29-2-302. PROHIBITION.
An owner, operator, or agent of an owner or operator of a public
accommodation may not engage in discrimination in denying a person any
of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of a
public accommodation.
§ 29-2-303. EXCEPTIONS.
This subtitle does not apply to:
(1) A portion of a private club or similar establishment which is
not open to the public except to the extent that the facilities of the
establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an
establishment within the scope of this section;
(2) An owner-occupied establishment containing less than two
rental rooms or apartments; and
(3) The county government, the county Board of Education, or
county community college.
(4) THE PROVISION OF ACCOMMODATIONS THAT ARE DISTINCTLY PRIVATE
OR PERSONAL.
Where it comes to protected classes, Maryland State and Baltimore
County both indicate race, sex, age, color, creed, national origin,
marital status, sexual orientation (added into Baltimore County with
this law) and disability (Baltimore County distinguishes between
physical and mental disability).
Protected in Baltimore County law and not in Maryland state law would
be gender identity and expression as well as religion. As far as
religion is concerned, one can potentially make an argument that
religious views could fall under "creed", even though creed be seen as
a general belief in something, whether it is religious or secular.
When you look at things from a big picture, most of Baltimore County's
anti-discrimination is overlapped by Maryland state law with the
exception of gender identity and expression and in some ways,
religion.
But even with the overlap in the laws, it is very disturbing that the
County of Baltimore would put a provision that excludes certain public
accommodations (those of a private or personal nature, which has yet
to be defined or challenged) on the books without regard to race, sex,
age, color, creed, national origin, marital status or disability.
This also opens a potential (but challengeable) hole in Maryland law
where if I am the operator of public accommodations in Baltimore
County, I could technically deny you access to a public restroom
because you have identified yourself as a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim,
a Buddhist, etc. So in other words, if you say "I'm a Christian" or "I
am a Catholic", I could deny you access but if you say "I believe that
Jesus Christ is my personal saviour.", that can fall under "creed" and
is protected by Maryland State Law. Here in Wicomico County, I could
make this argument for any public accommodation, personal, private or
otherwise. Confusing? Isn't it?
This will lead to a much bigger issue if someone in the Maryland state
legislature attempts to amend the pending human relations bill SB-212
<http://mlis.state.md.us/2012rs/billfile/SB0212.htm> to add the
"private or personal" language to public accommodations, they may be
unknowingly opening the door to a new era of Jim Crow segregation in
public accommodations as public toilets, showers, locker rooms and
anywhere else that is interpreted as "private or personal" is now fair
game for segregation and discrimination.
Also, what exactly does "private or personal" mean? I am concerned
about the word "personal" may mean something assigned to a person,
like a seat at a lunch counter, a seat at a movie theater, a seat on a
particular part of a bus or train. Could private also mean a hotel
room?
Bottom line is the "private and personal" language, if tested, goes
much farther than just keeping transsexuals who have a medical
necessity out of public restrooms.
This was definitely a bad choice of wording.