Almost six years ago I wrote a post with the same title as the current post (without the Roman numeral, of course). There I was examining the liberal idea that, if something isn't against the law, everyone else has to cooperate with it in a positive way. The example I used was that liberals assume that, if a minor girl is not legally required to tell her parents that she is having sex, a pharmacist is legally obligated to sell her contraception to enable her fornication.
The most recent examples of a similar attitude arise in the insane context of the "transgender" debate. The assumption is that, if some law cannot successfully be passed by a government entity legislating on the matter of whether biological males must use separate bathroom facilities from biological females, business have zero freedom in this matter and must "not discriminate" against people claiming to be the opposite sex.
This, of course, doesn't follow. State and local governments could simply be silent on the matter altogether while permitting local businesses to decide how to handle this. I suppose, with the insanity growing, that city government buildings and employers would have to have some policy, but this might even vary from one city to the next or one supervisor to the next, reflecting local mores.
But I often attempt to convey to libertarians that if someone is determined enough to press an issue, government can get involved in almost anything, and is likely to. If the state and local governments tried to remain neutral in the situation I just described, and some local business were having trouble making a man stop using the women's restroom, then they might end up having to call the cops to evict the man for trespassing. Or they might have to be allowed to use their own private security guards to exercise force to evict him, and the usual permission for use of force by private business security guards would have to apply.
But on the other hand, if the government unit insists on "non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity," then the security guard would be the one committing assault. (Similarly, if suicide is fully legal and not even a prima facie indicator of mental health problems, and you wrestle your suicidal friend to the ground and take away his gun before he shoots himself, you're the one committing assault and subject to arrest.)
The latter is what just happened in Washington, D.C. A security guard (who happened to be female) evicted a man who thinks he's a woman (whom all news sources I can find refer to in resolute, Orwellian lockstep as "a transgender woman" and "she") from the bathroom. The security guard was under the impression that no D.C. law requires that men be allowed to use the women's bathroom.
The D.C. police disagreed. They came when called and arrested the security guard for assault. She also may get extra charges for having committed a "hate crime," because her hustling the man out of the store was accompanied by "transphobic insults."
A striking point about all news stories on this is that not a single one actually addresses the guard's claim that no law required her to allow the "transgender woman" (cough cough) to use the women's bathroom. I did a little googling and can't find anything absolutely conclusive, but various transgender advocacy sites indicate that D.C. does have non-discrimination ordinances concerning public accommodations in restrooms that include the T in the alphabet soup.
If this turns out to be true, then this is a straightforward and obviously crazy effect of such non-discrimination ordinances: If any private business tries to apply sane policies on not letting men use the women's bathroom, they could be on the hook not just for discrimination but for assault as a hate crime.
But I find it ominous that the news stories don't even address it. They act as if it's just obvious that the guard must be wrong and that non-discrimination on the basis of "gender identity" is now the law everywhere except in certain benighted enclaves like North Carolina. That, of course, is not legally true. Not everywhere has equally crazy laws, and this matter hasn't been formally federalized for all private businesses, though the Obama administration is working on that.
Meanwhile, this sort of insanity is coming not only to all local businesses but also to a Christian college near you if it doesn't apply for an exemption from Title IX on religious grounds, given the Obama administration's "new interpretation" of Title IX to mean that men who "identify" as women have to be assigned dormitory rooms consistent with their "identity" and allowed to use all shower rooms, bathrooms, etc., as if they are women.
There was a story recently that various groups were trying to "shame" Christian colleges for applying for Title IX exemption. On the contrary, it should be a badge of honor.
The next time someone tells you, perhaps apropos of what he thinks he's heard about North Carolina, that this is about the government "allowing" transgender people to use a particular bathroom, send him this story. The transgender agenda represents a massive intrusion of government coercion into the private sector. This involves fines and arrests for refusal to cooperate with that agenda, which is a strictly insane agenda.
Apropos of which, anyone remember this story? To refresh your memory, a man in Olympia going by the name of "Colleen" was appearing in full frontal nudity before a minor girls' swim team while sitting about in the locker room and sauna. The media portrayed this poor "transgender woman" as being persecuted because at some point, someone asked him to leave. But that didn't last. Evergreen State University said they had to let him continue doing it. To be clear, "Colleen" still has, er, all of his male appurtenances. In a Facebook thread I mentioned this case to a leftist interlocutor, who expressly declared that there was nothing inappropriate at all about little girls' seeing a biological male fully exposed in a shower room or locker room. After all, the nude can be art, yada, yada. So, yes, if anyone asks, it is the agenda of the leftists on the transgender issue to require minor girls to put up with having biological men expose themselves to them in shower rooms. In other words, they want a loophole you can drive a tank through to be put on all laws about indecent exposure, even to minors. And, lest I be unclear, I don't care if "Colleen" and his ilk are merely lunatics who feel like women and who are "just" exposing themselves to women and girls "in the course of" using a locker room.
Businesses engaging in venue shopping should bear in mind these types of requirements and this implication. And non-profits and educational institutions should resolutely eschew government money. Otherwise, cross your fingers and hope the jackbooted thugs don't happen to notice your hateful practices.