12 Responses

1. interesting are the 2 no votes the 2 frum politicians or are they the of the Republican group?

2. Some people’s vanity just frowns upon having to be regulated to having share the restroom with people of the other gender. Why can’t these strange council members understand that!?
   These democrats are nuts!

3. I have an answer to my question the 2 no votes are Republicans, BOTH Duetsch and Greenfield voted FOR this toeiva bill.

4. @karlbenmarx
   What does a single user gender neutral restroom have to do with the frum community or Republicans?!?
   Why can’t both genders share it? It’s single user

5. Maybe I’m missing something here but what’s the big deal? Single occupant means 1 at a time. Why is this an issue from a frum perspective?

6. I don’t see the big deal. Single occupancy means only one person can be there at a time. That decreases the chances of molestation to the levels of any non-gender specific bathroom.

7. “toeiva bill.”

   ?????????????

   The bathrooms in every frum home I have ever been to are single occupancy and gender neuteral. I guess your home is different.

8. I don’t think it’s actually so bad, but why should there be/why would anyone push for it be a LAW!!?? Huh?

9. There’s no “toeiva” here. Seems to me like the bill is common sense.

10. While there is no apparent problem, this could be a prelude to the more serious case of allowing the trans-toeiva crowd to use whatever restroom they wish. Sort of like “softening up the opposition” before the “real” attack comes. If they can get people to accept this, it won’t be so difficult to “advance to the next stage” in equality.

11. #10 seems to be the only one to understand this slippery slope.

12. #10 you are right on target unfortunately.