Supreme Court: Urinals with no dividers are unconstitutional

Landmark decision.

In a landmark decision announced this week, the Supreme Court ruled that a Pennsylvania public restroom installer had acted with criminal intent against males who want to relieve themselves with adequate protection from chatty, curious neighbors. While the 6-3 decision solidified several guidelines for public restrooms, the nation's highest court earned the most accolades for declaring urinals without dividers to be unconstitutional.

"This judicial body finds the use of adjacent urinals without dividers of at least 15 inches to be in violation of the constitution's right to private privacy." Justice Clarence Thomas gave the majority opinion. "Public restrooms are already public enough as it is – the constitution protects an inviolable right. Men should be able to keep their privates…private."

Brett Kavanaugh wrote the concurring opinion, demonstrating that "the use of non-divided urinals flagrantly violates a man's God-given right to not be ogled by neighboring urinators" and noting that "the testimony of all human civilization stands in solidarity with this sacred right, along with the printed word of the body of the constitution, the bill of rights, and the subsequent amendments."

The Supreme Court overturned a lower court's ruling in "Bob's Discount Toilets N' Stalls v. The People Of The State Of Pennsylvania," which has become more commonly known as the "Do you mind?!" case. ...

The Supreme Court also announced it would consider adding amendments to enshrine the right to private privacy into law, but current White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre announced that the Federal government stands against the "right to private privacy" as it would interfere with their planned rollout of mandatory gender-reassignment surgery for small children who accidentally pick up toys of the "wrong gender."