North Carolina GOP Block Gay Anti-Discrimintion Law

[Bob in Mich]

I haven't followed this issue. I haven't read this thread either but I found The Daily Show's piece pretty funny. (bad language)

 

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/emmbcg/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-putting-north-carolina-s-anti-lgbt-law-to-the-test

[B-Man]

I haven't followed this issue. I haven't read this thread either but I found The Daily Show's piece pretty funny. (bad language)

 

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/emmbcg/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-putting-north-carolina-s-anti-lgbt-law-to-the-test

 

Nothing funnier than taking a subject all out of context and exaggerating a false premise.......

 

 

Stick to the "Grass is good for you" thread.

 

.

[Joe Miner]

 

Nothing funnier than taking a subject all out of context and exaggerating a false premise.......

 

 

Stick to the "Grass is good for you" thread.

 

.

 

That's the entire premise the Daily Show has always existed on.

[B-Man]

That's the entire premise the Daily Show has always existed on.

 

 

I know...............sadly many on the Left rely on it for their information.

[unbillievable]

I haven't followed this issue. I haven't read this thread either but I found The Daily Show's piece pretty funny. (bad language)

 

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/emmbcg/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-putting-north-carolina-s-anti-lgbt-law-to-the-test

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/daily-show-no-gays-food-truck_us_57f3b380e4b0703f7590ee42#comments

 

The fact that people are more upset that they're being called gay than being refused service is hilarious. How deep are these liberals in a bubble if they can't see how stupid they look doing this.

[unbillievable]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/target-goes-millennials-small-focused-221900215.html

 

Months after Target's CEO declared that customers will come crawling back, boycott over bathroom policy still hurting sales. Target starts strategy to draw millennials with smaller convenience stores; a strategy that Wal-mart already tried and abandoned.

 

So choosing to mock 50% of your customer base to appease SJW's that don't shop at big box stores doesn't work. Who would've predicted that?

[B-Man]

I still have to laugh at Gator's misguided thread title...................

 

 

Illinois judge cites “cisgender” subjects in transgender bathroom ruling

 

A judge in Illinois has dealt another blow to parents seeking to protect the privacy of students in bathrooms, locker rooms and showers. This is a case which dates back to last winter when the families of girls in Illinois school District 211 went to court asking for an injunction against a new federal mandate saying that boys who “identify” as girls should be allowed in their toilet and changing facilities. That case has bounced back and forth a few times now, but the most recent ruling just came down and it went against the parents. A federal judge has ruled that there is no constitutional right not to share restrooms or locker rooms with transgender students and the wording of his ruling is rather jaw dropping. (Washington Post)

A federal magistrate judge recommended Tuesday that a transgender girl at the center of a lawsuit over restroom and locker room access be able to use the girls’ locker room at her Illinois high school, writing that the Constitution doesn’t protect students against having to share such facilities with their transgender peers.

 

In an 82-page report, Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert sided against a group of students and parents who sought a preliminary injunction to force the girl to use the boys’ locker room or a private bathroom while the court moves forward with the case.

The case is one of many that challenge the Obama administration’s efforts to expand bathroom access for transgender students based on their gender identity rather than their birth certificates.

 

 

 

Having this case go in favor of the plaintiff wasn’t all that surprising since much rests on the judge you draw and which court you’re in. But in this case some of the wording in the ruling sounds like it came straight out of a Social Justice Warrior handbook. Observe the following:

“High school students do not have a constitutional right not to share restrooms or locker rooms with transgender students whose sex assigned at birth is different than theirs,” Gilbert wrote.

“A transgender person’s gender identity is an important factor to be considered in determining whether his or her needs, as well as those of cisgender people, can be accommodated in the course of allocating or regulating the use of restrooms and locker rooms,” he continued. “So, to frame the constitutional question in the sense of sex assigned at birth while ignoring gender identity frames it too narrowly.”

 

 

 

Yes, you read that correctly. “Cisgender” isn’t even a word, but it’s now in a federal court ruling. It’s a derogatory reference cooked up by the SJW to further separate people into pigeonholes and reinforce the idea that your biological makeup and DNA have no bearing on gender. This type of loaded language has no place in the courts, particularly since the Supremes have yet to weigh in on the subject.

 

It’s all part of a growing trend in the media, however. You may recall when a Charlotte newspaper declared that school age girls need to overcome their discomfort over seeing male genitals. The fact that many parents are rightly horrified by this is completely disregarded in SJW circles, but we are sadly seeing some judges taking these attitudes to heart.

 

It might be nice to hear the candidates take a firm position on this question before the election, particularly since one of them will be appointing Supreme Court Justices soon. Can someone with a Y chromosome and male genitals be a “girl” in the eyes of the law? And do school age girls need to “get over their discomfort” at seeing a penis in the school showers and locker rooms?

Edited October 19, 2016 by B-Man

[B-Man]

Judge Upholds Ban on Obama’s Transgender Bathroom Policy

 

Stop with the federal overreach.

 

In May, Texas and 12 other states filed suit against the Obama administration when it issued a transgendered bathroom policy across the nation in public schools. U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor put a freeze on the policy in August when he found the “administration did not follow proper procedures for notice and comment in issuing the guidelines.”

 

Well, today, Judge O’Connor rejected the “administration’s request to narrow a nationwide injunction banning enforcement” of the policy.” He made a few changes to his original ruling, but now the Department of Education cannot “bring new cases enforcing transgender students’ access” to these “intimate facilities.”

(more…)

[B-Man]

No, There’s No SCOTUS Precedent That Justifies the Administration’s Transgender Locker-Room Mandate
by Gail Heriot

Last week, I wrote an article about the Supreme Court’s upcoming opportunity to weigh in on the Department of Education’s notorious transgender locker-room mandate. The case — Gloucester School District v. G.G. — has drawn friend-of-the-court briefs from organizations on both the Left and the Right urging the Court to take up the issue.

Here is one more easily-debunked argument sometimes put forth to justify the mandate: The Department of Education is just following the Supreme Court’s 1989 decision in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins.

Wrong.

Price Waterhouse was an employment case brought under Title VII. It concerned a woman who allegedly was not promoted, because she had an aggressive personality. The Court agreed that, if a man with a similar personality would have been promoted, then she was a victim of sex discrimination under Title VII.

Fine. But try applying that logic to the transgender locker-room mandate. It will only tie you in knots: It’s true that if an intact anatomical male were an anatomical female, he would be permitted to use the girls’ toilets, locker rooms and showers. But that logic would apply to all males, not just transgenders. The Price Waterhouse analogy thus proves too much. Something must be wrong with its logic.

To shake loose of those knots, just remember this: Title VII does indeed prohibit passing over a female employee for a promotion when a similar male employee would have been promoted. That’s pretty much the definition of sex discrimination. But Title IX’s implementing regulations make clear that separate intimate facilities do not constitute sex discrimination. Those regulations specifically allow schools to “provide separate toilet, locker room and shower facilities based on sex,” so long as those facilities are “comparable.”

School districts like Gloucester County have been doing exactly that for decades and it is perfectly legal. Price Waterhouse simply doesn’t apply.

As I discussed in my earlier article, Title IX doesn’t require Gloucester County to assign students to locker rooms and showers based on sex. It just permits it. School districts can choose to assign them based on just about any other basis — from astrological sign to gender identity — if that were what their students want. But when the Department of Education purports to requires school to assign students to locker rooms and showers based on gender identity rather than sex, it is not interpreting the law. It’s making it up.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

[grinreaper]

I think that it is unfair to not have urinals in the ladies room.

[Chef Jim]

I identify as a 70 year old male (been a rough couple weeks). Can I collect my social security now?

[What a Tuel]

 

“A transgender person’s gender identity is an important factor to be considered in determining whether his or her needs, as well as those of cisgender people, can be accommodated in the course of allocating or regulating the use of restrooms and locker rooms,” he continued. “So, to frame the constitutional question in the sense of sex assigned at birth while ignoring gender identity frames it too narrowly.”

 

 

This part is so infuriating because the transgender person was offered special accommodations, and even to allow people who didn't mind to change with her. But no, she HAS to be in the same room with the people who do not share her gender. She just HAS to. How the is this not alienating the privacy of people who do not feel comfortable? She is specifically pointing out that she will not stop until she is in the same room as them? For what reason? To feel normal? She has to see other young girls changing in the lockerroom to feel normal?

 

Like how do people not see this as ridiculous? They solved the problem, she doesn't have to change alone, and the privacy of the other students is not alienated, but nope, it isn't equal rights until she gets to alienate their privacy.

[boyst]

The part that's so infuriating is women going in men's bathrooms to avoid lines while police just watch. Yet, if 5hose women saw a penis they'd scream victim. If a man went to a women's bathroom to avoid a line, it'd never work

[What a Tuel]

Anecdotal case but who would have guessed that a adolescent teenager would flaunt their new given rights to violate other's privacy.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/9/minnesota-parents-sue-after-transgender-student-tw/

[IDBillzFan]

Anecdotal case but who would have guessed that a adolescent teenager would flaunt their new given rights to violate other's privacy.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/9/minnesota-parents-sue-after-transgender-student-tw/

 

Shocked, I tell you. Shocked.

[Cugalabanza]

The lawsuit might get some traction. Minnesota is not a right t'werk state?

[Azalin]

The part that's so infuriating is women going in men's bathrooms to avoid lines while police just watch. Yet, if 5hose women saw a penis they'd scream victim. If a man went to a women's bathroom to avoid a line, it'd never work

 

Just last week I entered the men's room at my local tequila mill to relieve myself, and there was a rather attractive lady washing her hands at the sink. I was proud of myself for not batting am eye at seeing a woman in the men's restroom, and she didn't bat an eye when I had no problem peeing with her next to me.

 

The lawsuit might get some traction. Minnesota is not a right t'werk state?

 

 

That was completely uncalled for -

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

Shocked, I tell you. Shocked.

 

About as shocked as I was to see the revised jobs data, again.

 

 

[DC Tom]

Anecdotal case but who would have guessed that a adolescent teenager would flaunt their new given rights to violate other's privacy.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/9/minnesota-parents-sue-after-transgender-student-tw/

 

Wait, I'm confused. They say a "transgendered male" student. That term means a female who identifies as male...so parents are suing because a biological femaie/behavioral maie was using the girl's locker room? Or is the article wrong, and they meant "transgendered female?" In which case...how do you sue for a female using the girl's locker room? This case is going nowhere, simply because no one's going to be able to keep their gender pronouns straight enough to explain what the !@#$ was going on.

 

Thus illustrating the practical simplicity of my "Have a Y, you're a guy" philosophy.

The lawsuit might get some traction. Minnesota is not a right t'werk state?

 

Very well done. You have earned one "Get Out Of Being Called an Idiot Free" card.*

 

*Not transferable to other idiots, particularly Jobu. Expires in one hour.

[Cugalabanza]

Very well done. You have earned one "Get Out Of Being Called an Idiot Free" card.*

 

*Not transferable to other idiots, particularly Jobu. Expires in one hour.

You know who's real good? That Tom Petty! For my money, I don't know if it gets any better than when he sings "American Girl."