mark handler
SAWHORSE
Dr J
Who's making stuff up that's not in the code?
Who's making stuff up that's not in the code?
-
Welcome to The Building Code Forum
Your premier resource for building code knowledge.
This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.
Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.
Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.
I gotta pee!
- Thread starter SCBO1
- Start date
mark handler
SAWHORSE
Colorado has it's own issues
Colorado Law passed allowing men to use women's restrooms
Jun 19, 2008
With today's signature on SB200, Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, a Democrat, has eliminated gender-specific restrooms and locker rooms statewide, giving woman and girls reason to fear being confronted by predators, cross-dressers "or even a homosexual or heterosexual male," according to a critic.
The state's new "transgender nondiscrimination" bill makes it illegal to deny a person access to public accommodations, including restrooms and locker rooms, based on gender identity or the "perception" of gender identity.
Ritter signed the Expanded Discrimination Prohibitions, approved by the legislature, with this definition:
"'Sexual orientation' means a person's orientation toward heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or transgender status or another person's perception thereof."
"Who would have believed that the Colorado state legislature and its governor would have made it fully legal for men to enter and use women’s restrooms and locker-room facilities without notice or explanation?" said James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, the Christian publishing and broadcast ministry in Colorado Springs.
Colorado Law passed allowing men to use women's restrooms
Jun 19, 2008
With today's signature on SB200, Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, a Democrat, has eliminated gender-specific restrooms and locker rooms statewide, giving woman and girls reason to fear being confronted by predators, cross-dressers "or even a homosexual or heterosexual male," according to a critic.
The state's new "transgender nondiscrimination" bill makes it illegal to deny a person access to public accommodations, including restrooms and locker rooms, based on gender identity or the "perception" of gender identity.
Ritter signed the Expanded Discrimination Prohibitions, approved by the legislature, with this definition:
"'Sexual orientation' means a person's orientation toward heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or transgender status or another person's perception thereof."
"Who would have believed that the Colorado state legislature and its governor would have made it fully legal for men to enter and use women’s restrooms and locker-room facilities without notice or explanation?" said James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, the Christian publishing and broadcast ministry in Colorado Springs.
Dr. J
Silver Member
What I was refering to was IF an AHJ were to make some sort of statement that the requirement for public restrooms are limited to a certain group of occupancies, say M or A, then that would be making stuff up. There is no such limitation. If one is of the opinion that public restrooms are required, they are required in just about every building. A facility that keeps their bathroom behind badge-through security is no different than keeping it under lock and key off a sales floor. Saying it does make a difference would be making stuff up.
Actually, the whole issue of saying public restrooms are required is a matter, not so much of making stuff up that does not exist, but ignoring stuff that does exist. According to the code, only buildings that are intended for public utilization require public restrooms. By definition, if it is not intended for utilization by bums, little kids, people without security badges, or any other segment of the public, it is not intended for public utilization.
Actually, the whole issue of saying public restrooms are required is a matter, not so much of making stuff up that does not exist, but ignoring stuff that does exist. According to the code, only buildings that are intended for public utilization require public restrooms. By definition, if it is not intended for utilization by bums, little kids, people without security badges, or any other segment of the public, it is not intended for public utilization.
Dr. J
Silver Member
From Mark's earlier post, quoting the UBC:
Customers is the operative word here. If you are not buying something or if you don't have any business beyond the security barrier, the business is not obligated to provide you with a restroom. Clearly "customers only". Not "public". On the other hand, "employees only" is not legal.
JBI
REGISTERED
We've all debated this many times before, and some will never agree. The store is required to provide facilities but there is no requirement to leave the door unlocked for use by non-patrons/non-employees.
Asking for the key takes no more time or effort than asking where the room is located. Had the convenience store manager denied the boy accesss (refused to give him the key), and the boy were in fact a patron (or with an adult who was a patron) there would be an enforceable violation - as is the case with the Salvation Army Thrift Store. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but a warning and advisory not to let it happen again would be more reasonable than a fine. The aggrieved customer has the option to seek redress in civil court if they choose.
Asking for the key takes no more time or effort than asking where the room is located. Had the convenience store manager denied the boy accesss (refused to give him the key), and the boy were in fact a patron (or with an adult who was a patron) there would be an enforceable violation - as is the case with the Salvation Army Thrift Store. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but a warning and advisory not to let it happen again would be more reasonable than a fine. The aggrieved customer has the option to seek redress in civil court if they choose.
mark handler
SAWHORSE
Should have pee'd on the clerks leg
Dr. J
Silver Member
That's all I am saying. UPC is better written, but IPC gets to the same place eventually. Since the p-fixture count is based on occupant load, which includes customers, the fixtures are required.
pyrguy
REGISTERED
I used to live in a jurisdiction that only required toilet rooms in 'A' occupancies. The other occupancies could do without. 
:roll:
:roll: