LOL civil rights legislation to address a non-issue in no way related to actual civil rights abuses. I mean, there's some posters here on the left that are reasonably intelligent, but the level of naivete and short sighted thinking required to buy into this BS fundraising scam is just staggering.
An attack? Lol. It's giving them a choice just like states are given a choice to make 21 the drinking age or lose federal transportation funding. Or it's just a Marxist Communist Maoist Obama plot to destabilize American society before he executes the Kenyan invasion part of Jade Helm.
It is really hard to decide who is the stupidest between you, Northside, and Sweet Lou. It is a tight battle but you are really close to winning. Keep up the good work!! This competition is giving us all a good laugh. Sadly it is really weak when religious phobic people like yourself can only attack on religious grounds on which you have no feaking idea what you are talking about.
I'm sure they get their talking points from the same places so of course they'll sound similar with their spin campaigns.
Religious phobic... LOL. Is that the new war on Christianity term? That is awesome! Giving us a good laugh? You and God? Isn't your opposition to abortion, stem cell therapy, the gays, etc. on religious grounds? You derive your positions on religious grounds, people contest your religious ground based positions, and then you cry about being attacked on religious grounds. What the ****? LOL
Because a federal appeals court got sick of a school confining a transgender individual to their own bathroom against their will, after hearings where he was called an "animal" and where he caused zero incidents. Under the law, gender identity protections are now required to be respected when it comes to Title IX, and you only have rampant transphobia to blame.
religious phobia? lol, why be phobic of something that is dying everyday. I do hope inconsistencies in the law die, and that's happening everyday too! Long live SECULAR America.
I understand you are a no-compromise type of liberal guy, but I am curious. Are you ok with an self-segregation unisex bathroom style? In other words, we make no changes to the actual facilities (signage) but we allow any person to go freely to whichever facility they prefer? Or we make no changes and we give TG's the exception to the current rule. (which I suspect is the case)
I really think there are enough rules of behavior in place to have dealt with those problems. This is just not a serious problem for enough people to warrant this amount of time and energy at this time in our nation's life. The great concern is that this was done by presidential edict not law-making; is that true about the drinking age limit and those federal funds? Lt. Gov. Forrest was on local radio this morning talking about the rampant violations of Title IX-- none of which have cause President Obama to leap into the fray. I wish I could remember what some of them were. Word is that most of these cuts, if they come to NC public schools, are going to harshly impact the reduced breakfast and lunch programs in NC. Hit 'em where it hurts-- right in the empty gut!
I'm totally fine with that, so long as nobody discriminated against who could enter either bathroom (which it sounds like you are proposing). What frustrates me is that this debate doesn't focus on the obvious wrongs that triggered the whole debate in the first place and its root causes. This bout of legislative fighting is due to two factors IMO: 1) The growing assertiveness of cities to impose themselves in the rural vs. urban divide of American politics. 2) Obergefell v. Hodges unifying animus and dignity into the horrifying realization for conservatives that civil rights left denied IS an evil worth rectifying, and federal lawmakers acting accordingly with regards to gender identity across a broad variety of laws, many of which have nothing to do with bathrooms. Under the Obama Administration, the EEOC has aggressively pursued claims of wrongful dismissal for transsexuals for expressing their identity and reached just settlements. They have challenged why transgender individuals are not covered under hate crime provisions under state laws with aggressive persecution under federal law. This case isn't just about bathrooms. It is about a disenfranchised minority who has been persecuted just because, and is only now getting its justice. The only way to guarantee them that justice is to elevate them to a protected class, as has been seen countless times in American history. And the only (somewhat) successful counter-argument has been creepers in the bathroom, which is nonsensical. #2 relies on inconsistent state laws being reconciled, and on interpretations of laws that are currently being fought over, and will be fought over until it goes to the Supreme. In dealing with #1 and #2, conservative legislatures have shown their hypocrisy on federalism, their jump to illogic that would fail rational review basis, and they have revealed glimpses of the animus that fuels discussion of transgender individuals.
Well, you were and still are wrong considering what happened to the plaintiff. Title IX is part of a law that was and is an Act of Congress, and when a federal appeals court that governs the state in question directly says that it is countermanding federal law, you can chirp Obama for "selective enforcement" but it is pretty much damn plain that the law should be enforced. You might think this is trivial, but I have never considered the legislation that protects sexual minorities from irrational discrimination trivial, so we'll have to agree to disagree. As for the tax argument: spare me. Low-tax, personal responsibility individuals will be happy to know the threat of federal funding going Tea Party will diminish significantly as soon as NC's lawsuit and the counter-lawsuit wind their way up to more rational thinkers.
This whole issue is kind of funny really if you think about it. People are actually trying to claim it's discriminatory to not let males use female facilities if they feel like it and to not let females use male facilities if they feel like it. Going so far as to claim it's a civil rights issue! It's just one of those wacky liberal causes that play as a punch line to the average person. The only grounds in which you could try to make this a legitimate civil rights issue is if you are saying that segregation of the sexes is inherently discriminatory as segregation of the races once was....and I don't think they really want to go that route. It's yet another situation where short sighted liberals might have their heart in the right place, but their brains are not being used whatsoever. The whole argument is impractical and ridiculous. Why not lend that bleeding heart to other "sexual minorities" like pedophiles or necrophiliacs? What legislation could we push to help those tortured souls who are so discriminated against? Shouldn't we seek similar "civil rights" for all "sexual minorities" rather than just those who have scores of well established, well funded special interest groups that can funnel cash to politicians you might support?
No, I was stating that there would be two different restrooms, however anyone can freely go in between. I have a problem with it because it doesn't deal with the unintended consequences. Everyone is too busy throwing out red herrings. When it comes down to it, adults are adults. Regardless of which side of the argument feels vindicated, sometimes one needs to suck it up and deal with lifes issues. I dont feel sympathy for adults, however I do for kids. I follow the logic why a kid will have the desire to use the other restroom. However kids do not think on the same level as adults. When it comes to peeping toms and creepers, its middle and high school where I have a concern for this. Your blanket legislation allows this to happen .. and it will happen. Frequently. A non sexual issue now becomes a sexual issue and kids can be forever damaged by this.
The 1984 National Minimum Drinking Age Act, [23 U.S.C. § 158], requires that States prohibit persons under 21 years of age from purchasing or publicly possessing alcoholic beverages as a condition of receiving State highway funds. A Federal regulation that interprets the Act excludes from the definition of "public possession," possession "for an established religious purpose; when accompanied by a parent, spouse or legal guardian age 21 or older; for medical purposes when prescribed or administered by a licensed physician, pharmacist, dentist, nurse, hospital or medical institution; in private clubs or establishments; or to the sale, handling, transport, or service in dispensing of any alcoholic beverage pursuant to lawful employment of a person under the age of twenty-one years by a duly licensed manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer of alcoholic beverages", [23 C.F.R. § 1208.3]. FEDERAL CITATIONS AND RELEVANT TEXT EXCERPTS 23 U.S.C. § 158. National minimum drinking age. (a) Withholding of Funds for Noncompliance. (1) In general. The Secretary shall withhold 10 per centum of the amount required to be apportioned to any State under each of sections 104(b)(1), 104(b)(3), and 104(b)(4) of this title on the first day of each fiscal year after the second fiscal year beginning after September 30, 1985, in which the purchase or public possession in such State of any alcoholic beverage by a person who is less than twenty-one years of age is lawful. The Presidential edict is merely the opinion of the executive and the justice department on existing law which has yet to be adjudicated as it pertains to transgendered people. Giddy logic conspiracy averted. On June 23, 1972, the President signed Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §1681 et seq., into law. Title IX is a comprehensive federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded education program or activity. The principal objective of Title IX is to avoid the use of federal money to support sex discrimination in education programs and to provide individual citizens effective protection against those practices. Title IX applies, with a few specific exceptions, to all aspects of federally funded education programs or activities. In addition to traditional educational institutions such as colleges, universities, and elementary and secondary schools, Title IX also applies to any education or training program operated by a recipient of federal financial assistance. The Department of Education has issued regulations on the requirements of Title IX, 34 C.F.R. § 106.1et seq. The Title IX common rule published on August 30, 2000 covers education program providers/recipients that are funded by other federal agencies. We will have to remember whenever a Republican wins the office and starts issuing executive orders... I mean, edicts, so we can throw fits about it.
In case you hadn't noticed there are crimes of every ilk committed every day. I saw three 912s myself yesterday! Laws don't prevent crime; they may deter it. Yeah, those guys in Washington are doing a great job enforcing the immigration laws. You extrapolate some bullying incidents into a level of "irrational discrimination" that deserves this amount of fuss and bother and consternation? Indeed. People are always happiest when their kids are going hungry...
So some detail here is so crucial that it took almost 40 years for someone to make a fuss about it? All those Clinton years and most of the Obama years, no one cared... bastards!
You just make up something in your head without any evidence. How do you know it will happen and happen frequently? I can make one statement that I think is pretty accurate - peeping toms and creepers are not going to suddenly increase in number because TG can use women bathroom. On forever damaged. Perhaps it's already that way. They have been and will be forever damaged because of certain values and way of thinking taught to them as kids. Maybe that's the fear you people all have. How the heck do we teach kids that there are more than supposedly God given strict M and F. So much so that when allowing deviation of those squeezes are kind of fears out of you.
.03% of the population is transgender, you are more likely to see a spotted owl in the restroom. But let's say a human being with a penis but wearing a dress has to pee. He's going to go in a stall and close the door. What bathroom do you think he would cause the less ruckus in?
