>

It’s literally creating jobs so people can spend money. That’s how our system works.
Ima have to agree with this, some places definitely do a better place than others, my buddy once had an emergency and we were next to a subway and they held him up and said he couldn’t use the restroom unless he was a customer so he had to buy a cookie… >

Yeah, that’s just so morally wrong. >

But why? They need to be cleaned afterwards >

That's incorrect. They are scheduled to be cleaned at certain times. That cleaning will happen regardless of whether or not that specific person uses it. So it's not causing any extra cleaning.
Unless you are claiming that where you live they go and clean them after every single person who uses them? >

Okay than… water use and toilet paper use, maybe the trashcan is getting used. All of that causes extra money >

Only toilet paper use in some situations. And even when relevant, it wouldn't even be a pennies worth.
Minimal water use.
Incorrect again about the trash can. A bin being used by 1 additional person does not cost extra money. Again, like the cleaning, the bins will be emptied and collected regardless. The only argument you have here is if literally thousands of non-customers are using the facilities every day. And that just isn't realistic.
If a company is going to stop someone who needs the toilet from going because it might cost them 1p (or 1c or whatever currency) then it isn't logic dictating that choice, and they shouldn't be defended for it. >

You don’t use toilet paper every time?! >

I'm a guy, so no, not if I'm peeing. Same as every other guy. >

You still should use toilet paper to get rid of little drops 🤷🏾‍♀️ >

What makes you think that? I've never heard of that or seen anyone doing it. And at urinals they don't provide toilet paper for you to do it. >

Every Bus Stop?! >

This would generally lead to spending a lot of money to have bathrooms built that ended up being too damaged and dirty for most people to use. >

Then they should be cleaned and repaired. We can get the money for it >

Are you taking that from the school fund? Park maintenance? Road repair? Money has to come from somewhere. >

Assuming OP is American
The military budget of the USA can be cut a bit >

Yeah, but then all the countries in NATO would have to start paying their share >

my guy they do >

The US contributes the most to NATO by far, it's not even close. >

NATO is a North american alliance. I know it has other members but like, its main purpose is keeping the US safe. Canada does our part by doing the missile tracking over the poles. The whole point of NATO is pkeeping america safe, of course they contribute the most. >

Not all the countries contribute what they're supposed to. Only 10 do, and we contribute more than we're supposed to.
I'm objectively correct >

Everything i said is also objectively correct. Its the reasoning behind why it is how it is. >

So I guess you just shat yourself at a bus stop OP? >

No, my friend did >

If someone has to provide it for you it's not a right, nor can it ever be.  You can't compel others to do something because it's your "right". >

Uhh they would be disgusting. The homeless people would most likely sleep in them and they would smell horribly >

… then the homeless should have somewhere else to sleep >

But they don’t really have that. >

That should change >

Of course. We already have some public toilets in my city, they cost like 1 euro to use i think. But they are extremely dirty and smell terrible because the homeless use them to sleep or leave their drugs behind. >

Well do you want the homeless to shit in the toilet or to shit on the sidewalk? >

Never see shit of homeless people on the streets >

It’s a thing in some American cities because instead of having charged public bathrooms, the only bathrooms are in shops where you have to buy something or can’t use the bathroom. So with no other option, homeless people take shits where they can. >

In Germany we don’t have free restrooms at all. Still never seen it >

Germany has a much better distribution of wealth than the US, health system, criminal Justice system, and a ton of other things. The two are really not comparable. >

Did you really have to write washroom because I kept reading mushroom lmao >

Tf else would I write? Can’t call it a bathroom cuz there’s no bath in it >

A bathroom with no bathtub/shower in it is a half-bathroom, at least in the US. >

Is it a joke i've never heard it said like that people allways just say bathroom or restroom even if there's no bath >

Nah, no joke. I was making the distinction that's usually most prevalent in house buying/renting. I too just call it all "bathroom" or "restroom." >

If it requires someone else labor then it isn’t a human right >

Often the place to get a drug fix.  Ugh >

It's a very nice thought that would be horrible in practice. >

I agree, in San Francisco they have really nice, well taken care of bathrooms all over the city. They have a person who stands outside and "manages it" which is key, otherwise it'll get taken over by gross worthless drug addicts or prostitutes. 
Yes...I know I said gross and worthless. Try living in SF before you downvote me. >

There used to be better access to washrooms but you can thank the druggies, and sex perverts for their demise. >

Stop slapping the term "human right" on everything willy-nilly. It dilutes the importance of actual human rights.
A developing country that can't supply a bathroom at every bus stop is not committing a violation of human rights. There is no need to waste the UN Human Rights Council's time over it. They do not need to be brought up on charges at the Hague. >

I hate the dillution of the importance of human rights. A human right is something that everyone has at birth. If something requires the labour of someone else it is not a human right, in fact, it violates human rights. 
A washroom is not a human right because it requries people to build, maintain and pay for them. What OP is requesting is essentially to reintroduce slavery at the threat of imprisonment for those responsible for the washrooms. >

When the government is already this bad, you really want them to provide and control washroom access? Oh, lordy. >

Just because you say something is a human right, doesn't make it a human right. >

Yeah, I hate this kind of thinking. Anything that requires another person's labor can't be a human right. >

Bus stops??? Those are usually just places on the side of the street. You want port-a-potties? >

Human rights this, human rights that. Are you gonna take care of the washroom? Gonna clean the highly infectious fecal matter off the walls every day? Clear out unstable and posibly dangerous people every day? It's fine for you to sit here and expect others to deal with the problem, but at least be honest about the problem >

Yeah I would clean it actually. Just gotta be for the right price >

The "right price" is more than the government  is willing to spend, i assure you. >

Depends on the government I guess >

For those who don’t agree, you can’t get mad at people for pissing and shitting in public then. If you got to go then you got to go lmao. >

I don't agree only because a lot of adults don't know how to use a toilet and keep it clean, without someone cleaning it multiple times per day it would became unusable very fast >

That’s why there are people who do such a thing for fairly decent money. >

So now it’s not just tax-funded washrooms, but also tax-funded employees and supplies to maintain the washrooms, and tax-funded administrators to manage employees, supplies, service contracts, etc. 
Let’s focus on cutting some of the fat In government before we start allocating money that we don’t even have.