- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,077
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Of course you do! I like me too.
See we have so much in common! I like myself too!
Clearly not as much as you like The Good Reverend.
Michigan woman sues Planet Fitness for transgender-friendly locker room policy | MLive.comYvette Cormier of Midland County is suing Planet Fitness in Midland County Circuit Court for more than $25,000...
"Ms. Cormier was wrongfully denied the benefits of her contract with Planet Fitness and wrongfully denied the use of the public accommodations at Defendant's gym because she objected to Defendant's unknown policy," a press release from Kallman Legal Group states. "The policy allows men who self-identify as women to use the women's facilities, including the women's locker room and showers."
It looks like she's suing Planet Fitness for breach of contract:
Michigan woman sues Planet Fitness for transgender-friendly locker room policy | MLive.com
Same argument many in here have made. If you're going to have a policy like this, you need to let people know. Will be good to hear from Planet Fitness on how exactly they've been handling it, since there were no signs, nothing in the contract she signed, and nobody other than employees of PF seemed to know of it.
Not exactly, she did use the locker room after the first incident, but felt it necessary to search the room before feeling comfortable changing. Clearly she (and other women) find the prospect of allowing men to enter a public restroom or locker room frightening/intimidating. The question is whether the intimidating environment created by Planet Fitness rises to the level of sexual harassment as defined by state law. There is a reasonable expectation of privacy from the opposite sex in designated restrooms/locker rooms.Untrue. She had knowledge of the policy prior to her complaining to others at the gym about the policy. She was then asked to stop harassing others and refused, and that is why she lost her membership. And she was never denied access to any facilities at the gym. She could use the locker room, restrooms, etc. She chose not to do so.
It looks like she's suing Planet Fitness for breach of contract:
Michigan woman sues Planet Fitness for transgender-friendly locker room policy | MLive.com
Same argument many in here have made. If you're going to have a policy like this, you need to let people know. Will be good to hear from Planet Fitness on how exactly they've been handling it, since there were no signs, nothing in the contract she signed, and nobody other than employees of PF seemed to know of it.
LMAO well that case will be a complete failure since the reality and facts are she wasn't denied anything and there was no breach of contract.
It was her choice to deny herself and break the rules after she was informed she was in fact breaking the rules and told not too lol this lady is an idiot. But In a way Im glad she is suing, let it set up some precedence against idiots like her.
Michigan Courts...I think she will win.
She didn't deny herself anything. Your post doesn't recognize the basic facts of the case and is therefore irrelevantLMAO well that case will be a complete failure since the reality and facts are she wasn't denied anything and there was no breach of contract.
It was her choice to deny herself and break the rules after she was informed she was in fact breaking the rules and told not too lol this lady is an idiot. But In a way Im glad she is suing, let it set up some precedence against idiots like her.
1.)She didn't deny herself anything.
2.)Your post doesn't recognize the basic facts of the case and is therefore irrelevant
She did go into the locker room. You are certaintly welcome to your own opinion, but not your own facts. So long as you continue to deny the facts, your posts have no real relevance to the discussion.1.) false she denied herself when she decided the rules were not to her liking and choose not to follow them. She was not denied access. Her own bigotry denied it too her not PF. WHo CHOOSE not to go into the locker room? SHE DID lol
2.) you are welcome to that OPINION but unfortunately facts and reality prove otherwise lol, but keep hoping.
WOuld you like to take a DP bet on how this cases turns out?
1.)She did go into the locker room.
2.)You are certaintly welcome to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
3.)So long as you continue to deny the facts, your posts have no real relevance to the discussion.
4.)Sorry. :shrug:
Not exactly, she did use the locker room after the first incident, but felt it necessary to search the room before feeling comfortable changing. Clearly she (and other women) find the prospect of allowing men to enter a public restroom or locker room frightening/intimidating. The question is whether the intimidating environment created by Planet Fitness rises to the level of sexual harassment as defined by state law. There is a reasonable expectation of privacy from the opposite sex in designated restrooms/locker rooms.
She didn't deny herself anything. Your post doesn't recognize the basic facts of the case and is therefore irrelevant
She did go into the locker room. You are certaintly welcome to your own opinion, but not your own facts. So long as you continue to deny the facts, your posts have no real relevance to the discussion.
Sorry. :shrug:
The complaining woman chose her actions in the locker room based on her own irrational fears, nothing more. It is irrational to fear a man being in the locker room. It is especially irrational to fear a transgendered woman being in the locker room, particularly since there is absolutely no evidence that she was a danger to anyone. This is no different than if someone was uncomfortable with a lesbian being in the locker room and "fearing" the lesbian would attack or look at other women.
I think most people think their policy is irrational and uncalled for. Also, stop using the term she to describe a he.
Most people couldn't tell one way or another or wouldn't challenge it if they could. Or they would simply choose not to go back to the place that had such a policy. Are you going to stop trying on clothes from those retailers I posted earlier that allow pretty much anyone in their fitting rooms just because of that? I doubt it. And certainly many of those who are complaining about this policy wouldn't stop going to those retailers either.
I like how your argument is rooted on the fact that people can't see though the deception. It reminds of people telling men that were tricked into sleeping with one of these people that they shouldn't care because they couldn't tell the difference. It's just a nice pile of nonsense is all it really is.
No one is sleeping with anyone in the locker rooms or restrooms. This isn't a relationship between people. It is an encounter in a room, if that. In most cases, you aren't even going to see them naked. And the judgement is made purely on looks, not DNA nor actually seeing genitalia.
The fact still remains they are men in the restroom designed for women. You can talk all day about how splitting up the rooms is stupid or about how people shouldn't be bothered by any of this or how you changed with men(not like I believe you on that), but it still doesn't change the fact these rooms are designed for women and a man is in the room.
The fact still remains they are men in the restroom designed for women. You can talk all day about how splitting up the rooms is stupid or about how people shouldn't be bothered by any of this or how you changed with men(not like I believe you on that), but it still doesn't change the fact these rooms are designed for women and a man is in the room.
Which gyms have policies that allow cameras or people of the opposite sex to spy on people changing without posting signs or otherwise letting customers know of the policy?That is her problem, sort of like someone seeing a news report that a gym (not their gym), had cameras or an employee "spying" on people changing, then the person getting paranoid that their gym might be doing it and suing because it could have happened that someone might be spying on them. The intimidation was in her head, not something the gym should have to pay her for. There is no more actual sexual harassment from a transgendered woman or even a man just seeing a woman naked than a woman seeing another woman naked. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy in a locker room, where people get undressed. The only expectation of privacy there would be in people not touching you or not having someone peek at you when you are behind a shower curtain or a stall door/curtain.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?