Andrew and Robin (both biological females) were married in Washington, D.C. Andrew identifies as a m ...

---

Andrew and Robin (both biological females) were married in Washington, D.C. Andrew identifies as a man therefore Andrew's gender preference is a male.  Barbara and Donald (both biological males) were married in Massachusetts.  Barbara identifies as a female therefore Barbara's gender preference is a female.  Andrew and Barbara want to eliminate gender discrimination in bathroom or restroom use at the company and make all public and private bathrooms for unisex use or gender neutral.  If the company is not willing to change to a non-gender/gender neutral or unisex restroom policy, then Andrew wants permission to use the "Men's" bathroom or restroom at work and Barbara wants permission to use the "Women's" restroom or bathroom at the company.  Both Andrew and Barbara are Virginia residents where same sex marriages are now legal based on the United States Supreme Court decision above.  A local ordinance and a Virginia State Statute prohibits a biological man from entering and using a biological female bathroom or restroom and a biological female from entering and using a bathroom or restroom for biological males. Both Andrew and Barbara, as employees, were prohibited from using the bathroom of their preference or gender identity before the U.S. Supreme Court decision.  Otherwise, the company refused to allow them to use the bathroom or restroom of the opposite biological sex.  Both Andrew and Barbara sue the company to recognize their gender identification or preference as an intimate fundamental right and to challenge the Virginia local ordinance and Statute prohibiting them to use the bathroom or restroom of their preference as unconstitutional in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses.  In essence, gender discrimination for public and private bathroom use is unconstitutional pursuant to the Virginia and United States Constitution and the recent United States Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S.____ (June 26, 2015) against gender discrimination for obtaining a marriage license and legalizing same sex marriages.  The local courts held in favor of the employer's gender discrimination bathroom policy for public and private use. The Virginia Supreme Court held the local ordinance and the Virginia Statute Constitutional. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) challenges the decision of the Virginia Supreme Court by filing a lawsuit in  a Virginia Federal District Court.  (The ACLU cited HR-5 Equality Act of 2019). The Virginia Federal District Court held the Virginia local ordinance and state statute unconstitutional.  The State of Virginia filed an appeal in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Fourth Circuit Appellate Court upholds the Federal District Court decision.   The State of Virginia filed an appeal to the United States Supreme Court arguing that the Virginia local ordinance and Statute prohibiting members of the opposite sex to use the same bathrooms or restrooms in the State of Virginia is Constitutional via the 10th Amendment based on a State's right to protect the citizens and public in Virginia based on public safety and health. The United States Supreme Court grants a writ of certiorari and agrees to hear the case.  Post your answer(s) directly into the Discussion Board and you may also attach it but attachments are not necessary.  I prefer that you post (copy and paste) your answer directly in the Discussion Board.  Again, submit one reply post containing your answers to both Discussion Board Questions (1&2)  below: