Customers hit Target for allowing staff and customers to use restrooms of their choice, saying policy endangers women and kids

Employees work at a Target store at St. Albert, Alberta, Canada. Reuters

In defiance of a recent law passed in North Carolina prohibiting people from using public bathrooms that do not correspond to their biological sex, retail giant Target has decided to "stand for inclusivity" by allowing customers and staff to use whatever bathroom they feel most comfortable in.

However, Target's decision to accommodate its LGBT customers appeared to have backfired as many customers reacted angrily to the action it took, with some even threatening to boycott the company.

The American Family Association, a conservative Christian advocacy group, started a petition urging people to boycott Target until the bathroom policy is changed, according to Fortune. The group reasoned that Target's reasoning is wrong because it "endangers women and children by allowing men to frequent women's facilities."

Over 383,000 people have already signed the petition since it was first launched. When sought for a comment regarding the issue, Target failed to provide any.

"Inclusivity is a core belief at Target. It's something we celebrate," the company earlier said in a statement. "We stand for equality and equity, and strive to make our guests and team members feel accepted, respected and welcomed in our stores and workplaces every day."

Target said it supports the federal Equality Act, which provides protections to members of the LGBT community and opposes anything that would discriminate against them. The company believes that it has a responsibility of making sure that everyone—from its staff, customers, and members of the community—will be treated equally in its stores.

"In our stores, we demonstrate our commitment to an inclusive experience in many ways. Most relevant for the conversations currently underway, we welcome transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity," the company said.

North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory said the state's legislature passed House Bill 2, also dubbed as "anti-LGBT law," because the lawmakers wanted to protect their children from sexual predators.

If the law offended the LGBT community, this was not intended, he added.

"I have come to the conclusion that there is a great deal of misinformation, misinterpretation, confusion, a lot of passion and frankly, selective outrage and hypocrisy, especially against the great state of North Carolina," McCrory said. "I know these actions will not totally satisfy everyone, but the vast majority of our citizens want common sense solutions to complex issues."

McCrory said having a "women's facility and a men's facility" has worked out pretty well over the past years, and he does not see any reason why the government should interfere with that.

News
Sex offender ‘manipulating’ system to stay in the UK as ‘Christian’ asylum seeker
Sex offender ‘manipulating’ system to stay in the UK as ‘Christian’ asylum seeker

Immigration judges found his history of sexual offences did not invalidate his claim to Christian conversion

Disappointment as St Albans council votes to end prayers before meetings
Disappointment as St Albans council votes to end prayers before meetings

A local Christian leader in the city of St Albans has criticized a vote by the council to scrap prayers before official meetings.

Who was St Joseph and what do we know about him?
Who was St Joseph and what do we know about him?

The 19th of March is St Joseph’s Day, which in some countries is known as Father’s Day, but who was St Joseph and what do we know about him? This is the story …

Calls for urgent policy reforms to address widening marriage gap between rich and poor
Calls for urgent policy reforms to address widening marriage gap between rich and poor

A new report released by the Marriage Foundation has called for urgent policy changes by the government to address what it describes as a "calamitous" marriage gap of 51 per cent between wealthy and low-income couples.