Finally, there’s some relief for people in need of…relief. A new Texas state law will now require retail store owners to allow people, regardless of whether they are a paying customer or not, to use their store’s restroom facilities. I feel that this is an important article because it seems like most retailers don’t want to make this new law too public fearing that the public will abuse it. The people that this new law is targeted towards are mainly people with chronic debilitating diseases that require them to answer the call of nature more frequently and unpredictably. However, people suffering from temporary conditions such as food poisoning or the stomach flu might not be aware that they now have the right to use a retailer’s restroom. But retail store owners need not be afraid of the wanton bathroom user, i.e. the homeless, for they have the right to ask for evidence of a medical condition before relinquishing their facilities. I feel like this article is showing that the
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/4984060.html
2 comments:
Very nice effort. Visually, you may wish to embed the links to articles such as this Restroom law ensures those with conditions have access.
While ultimately this sounds like something that should exist in society in the first place (for plain human decency), I am a little confused about how the legislation is worded, or at least how the article cited it.
Best I can tell, the general idea is that one can come off of the street in search of a bathroom and legally get to use it. No more, 'restrooms only for employees', or even 'restrooms only for customers'.
But then the article says:
The law defines customers as those who are lawfully on the premises suggesting that store managers or owners are not required to accommodate anyone off the street demanding a bathroom.
So the first question that comes to mind is what the law is supposed to accomplish IF the 'customer' needs to lawfully be on the premise in the first place? While there certainly ways to be unlawfully on commercial property, it sounds to me like anyone could technically be rejected on that premise?
Secondly:
The new law, formally known as the Restroom Access Act, guarantees customers with certain medical conditions the use of a retail store's bathroom.
So even though the first paragraph suggests those with a simple stomach bug would be granted access to the facilities, it seems that some medical condition is still necessary. Are we to keep doctor notes with us now, or does having a bottle of Peptol in your purse count? I can't help but note that an unfortunate afternoon stomach-ache hardly constitutes a medical condition.
In summation of those two points, it's not that I have any problem with the law, I just can't see how it fixes the current lack of one.
No one has an ulcerative colitis or Crohn's silver bracelet (referring to diabetics), and ultimately the store STILL has the right to refuse service.
It just seems that there may be some holes in this new law, at least upon initial inspection.
And as for your own response, I find this commentary a little unfortunate:
But retail store owners need not be afraid of the wanton bathroom user, i.e. the homeless, for they have the right to ask for evidence of a medical condition before relinquishing their facilities.
I hate to point it out, but despite however long the homeless will be ignored in our society, their bodies function just like the rest of ours. When they have to go, they have to go. Cities typically make no accommodations for public restrooms and the reality is that streets are desecrated with human waste.
And what about a homeless man who DOES have a medical condition? Should s/he not be included here too?
Finally, bear in mind that they [the homeless] are the very people that will have no one to stand up for them when they ARE actually denied a toilet.
It just seems a tad inhumane - IMO.
Post a Comment