Finally someone said it:Why should Group demand minority status based on what they do in the bedroom

[Pumpkin Row]

Why don't you cry about it? I hear that's a common reaction among lefties.

Actually we put up quite a cry about handicapped access

Of course....Republucans were on the wrong side of history on that one

I'm not Republican, so you can't use me as an excuse to complain about them even more. Then again, facts haven't seemed to stop you before~

Sure you aren't

Who did you vote for in the last election?

Uh. Nobody. I wasn't and still am not old enough to vote. You're not going to find anything to fit your false narrative here.

Sorry.....didn't realize I was dealing with a child

And I didn't realize I wasn't. Oops~

 

[frigidweirdo]

"This is the first group that demands minority status based on what they do in their bedrooms. And that’s what makes it so dangerous."

"What about the privacy, the modesty of women and girls?" he said. "But in our legal system that’s irrelevant because the rights of so-called transgenders are far more important.”

To be honest those two statements are full of ignorance. No one is demanding minority status based on what they do in the bedroom. Its based on their sexual preference which is obvious in alot of cases due to social norms.

You mean that gay couple that wanted the wedding cake weren't banging each other in the bakery?

Dear Timmy

The discrimination lawsuits went too far
with cake delivery services that required people to attend
a same sex wedding OUTSIDE THEIR PLACE OF BUSINESS
which was AGAINST THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

If the point is NOT to judge or impose on people for their beliefs,
then why is this happening by penalizing anyone for their beliefs?

If people with beliefs sign up to do business, then they sign up to accept the laws of doing business. If they don't want to go against their religious beliefs, they're perfectly free to no sign up to do business.

Yeah, disabled people, pregnant women etc, they can just stand on buses and trains while able bodied people sit down because they too might get a little tired. We don't discriminate.

I'm glad you understand. Of course, people who aren't selfish can feel free to give up their seat.

So pregnant women gets on a train and there's a seat for people who need seats and all the people sitting down are selfish, so the pregnant woman should just stand then?

Pretty much. Sounds a bit like life, doesn't it?

What, encouraging assholes to be assholes?

More like allowing people to have the freedom to choose to be. Or do you think that restricting rights is super neat? Sounds like you're okay with our government deciding how we should act even when not infringing on the rights of others.

So, a man chooses to sit on a plane with no females, so all the females have to get off the bus then?

You talk about "restricting rights", what do you mean? All rights are restricted. Freedom of Speech doesn't protect treason, libel, hate speech etc. Freedom of Religion, you do know that polygamy is banned in the US, don't know, even though the Mormons claim it as something religious? The Sun Dance and Potlatch were banned by the US govt too. Any religion that wants human sacrifice will find that this is banned too. There's nothing new in restricting rights.

 

[Timmy]

Minority status shouldn't exist, regardless.

More ignorance from the right.

Again, there is no such thing as ‘minority status.’

The Constitution prohibits government from seeking to disadvantage a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are, absent a rational basis, objective evidence in support, and a legitimate legislative end.

This might concern race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, as well as choices all Americans make about their personal, private lives, such as whom to marry or whether to have a child or not.

In the case of transgender Americans, it’s the protected liberty to decide who you are, how you might live your life, and how you express yourself as an individual to society in general – decisions which are all entitled to Constitutional protections.

Government, therefore, may not seek to disadvantage transgender Americans based on lies, fear, bigotry, and hate.

On the other hand, the government is completely okay with giving advantage to a certain race, as Democrats love affirmative action laws.

Not that Democrats have a problem with violating the constitution, given the current president has violated it 64 times, and nobody has stopped him.

Of course, the most ironic thing is you calling anyone ignorant.

How about an example of this "advantage " .

 

[defcon4]

WHAT special rights ? An example please.

Dear Timmy:
Example A:
Houston passed a bathroom policy where Transgender people could not even be questioned in the restroom or that could count as harassment and incur a fine up to $5,000.

No other group would have this special rights protection against harassment where someone couldn't question them in the restroom.

So other people lose their free speech to ask questions to make sure it is safe for someone of male appearance to be in the women's restroom.

So the LGBT have protected status that other people don't have, at the expense of the equal civil rights of other members of the public.

Example B:
When states passed laws banning same sex marriage and only recognizing traditional marriage, that violated constitutional laws and was struck down.

But when laws were passed imposing same sex marriage through the state govt, against the beliefs of people this violates, that is enforced as law.

Thus the beliefs of LGBT are enforced through govt against the beliefs of those who are in conflict; but when the beliefs in traditional marriage were imposed in conflict with LGBT, that was struck down.

Again, along with PENALTIES against business owners who can be forced to attend gay weddings against their beliefs if this is a recognized status.

So that is discriminating against people for their beliefs.

A. the people OF LGBT beliefs are favored by govt
B. the people of other beliefs are penalized by govt

that is taking sides, and not neutral.

If govt was fair, it would be disallowed for groups to be forced
to do business together who have conflicting beliefs,
so that both are equally protected from the other.

Again, like Hindus and Muslims. Govt would never be used to defend one belief from persecution by the other, where one side is penalized and the other side is defended as a special class. Common sense would tell us to separate these groups if they disagree so much, mind their own business, and don't impose on each other if they can't work it out civilly. But not force one belief on the other THROUGH GOVT.

Actually . Having. "Men" and "women" bathrooms is special status . You lose .

No, Timmy because the LGBT still recognize
the same Male/Female segregation or else they would
ask for all neutral restrooms. But they aren't.

They are asking for LGBT men to use the women's
restroom instead of the men's. They are asking for that distinction.

Many schools and many cases have settled this issue
by gender neutral and unisex facilities.

If that were accepted by the LGBT, we wouldn't have this issue!!!

Still don't understand the conservative hysteria over where you pee

I don't understand you. Why do you want to expose underage girls to perverts "legally displaying" their genitals to them? Or women at large. Do you hate children and women?

"Indecent exposure laws in most states make it a crime to purposefully display one's genitals in public, causing others to be alarmed or offended."
Indecent Exposure - FindLaw

 

[rcfieldz]

Where's the tranny/shemale porn links?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Where's the tranny/shemale porn links?

No talking in class. School is in session.....

 

[emilynghiem]

frigidweirdo

You only say that when it comes to justifying the side of the argument you want to defend.

When LGBT are asked to keep their beliefs
in private, suddenly this is discrimination.

If Christians are barred from abusing govt to push too far as to DEFEND their beliefs and ESTABLISH them through govt, then the same should be enforced for LGBT beliefs that are faith based as well.

Both sides beliefs should be kept out of govt.
Don't you think that would be equal, neutral and fair to let people resolve their own disputes and not use govt to force on side on the other?

Or are you only for govt intervening when the govt takes the side you happen to agree with?

"This is the first group that demands minority status based on what they do in their bedrooms. And that’s what makes it so dangerous."

"What about the privacy, the modesty of women and girls?" he said. "But in our legal system that’s irrelevant because the rights of so-called transgenders are far more important.”

To be honest those two statements are full of ignorance. No one is demanding minority status based on what they do in the bedroom. Its based on their sexual preference which is obvious in alot of cases due to social norms.

You mean that gay couple that wanted the wedding cake weren't banging each other in the bakery?

Dear Timmy

The discrimination lawsuits went too far
with cake delivery services that required people to attend
a same sex wedding OUTSIDE THEIR PLACE OF BUSINESS
which was AGAINST THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

If the point is NOT to judge or impose on people for their beliefs,
then why is this happening by penalizing anyone for their beliefs?

If people with beliefs sign up to do business, then they sign up to accept the laws of doing business. If they don't want to go against their religious beliefs, they're perfectly free to no sign up to do business.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

"This is the first group that demands minority status based on what they do in their bedrooms. And that’s what makes it so dangerous."

"What about the privacy, the modesty of women and girls?" he said. "But in our legal system that’s irrelevant because the rights of so-called transgenders are far more important.”

To be honest those two statements are full of ignorance. No one is demanding minority status based on what they do in the bedroom. Its based on their sexual preference which is obvious in alot of cases due to social norms.

You mean that gay couple that wanted the wedding cake weren't banging each other in the bakery?

Dear Timmy

The discrimination lawsuits went too far
with cake delivery services that required people to attend
a same sex wedding OUTSIDE THEIR PLACE OF BUSINESS
which was AGAINST THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

If the point is NOT to judge or impose on people for their beliefs,
then why is this happening by penalizing anyone for their beliefs?

If people with beliefs sign up to do business, then they sign up to accept the laws of doing business. If they don't want to go against their religious beliefs, they're perfectly free to no sign up to do business.

I'm glad you understand. Of course, people who aren't selfish can feel free to give up their seat.

So pregnant women gets on a train and there's a seat for people who need seats and all the people sitting down are selfish, so the pregnant woman should just stand then?

Pretty much. Sounds a bit like life, doesn't it?

What, encouraging assholes to be assholes?

More like allowing people to have the freedom to choose to be. Or do you think that restricting rights is super neat? Sounds like you're okay with our government deciding how we should act even when not infringing on the rights of others.

So, a man chooses to sit on a plane with no females, so all the females have to get off the bus then?

You talk about "restricting rights", what do you mean? All rights are restricted. Freedom of Speech doesn't protect treason, libel, hate speech etc. Freedom of Religion, you do know that polygamy is banned in the US, don't know, even though the Mormons claim it as something religious? The Sun Dance and Potlatch were banned by the US govt too. Any religion that wants human sacrifice will find that this is banned too. There's nothing new in restricting rights.

Treason and Libel infringe on the rights of others, hate speech shouldn't be against the law in the first place. Freedom of Religion and freedom of practice aren't the same thing, and pretending they are is just ignorant. Obviously you're free to worship whoever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others, so about the time you try to kill a human being while claiming it's worship, you'll have murder charges to worry about.

 

[emilynghiem]

Where's the tranny/shemale porn links?

Look in your browser history, rcfieldz
Or maybe they're saved under bookmarks or favorites? JK ;-)

 

[rdean]

It's OK. Republicans want gays dead. The hate is real.

 

[Vandalshandle]

frigidweirdo

You only say that when it comes to justifying the side of the argument you want to defend.

When LGBT are asked to keep their beliefs
in private, suddenly this is discrimination.

If Christians are barred from abusing govt to push too far as to DEFEND their beliefs and ESTABLISH them through govt, then the same should be enforced for LGBT beliefs that are faith based as well.

Both sides beliefs should be kept out of govt.
Don't you think that would be equal, neutral and fair to let people resolve their own disputes and not use govt to force on side on the other?

Or are you only for govt intervening when the govt takes the side you happen to agree with?

"This is the first group that demands minority status based on what they do in their bedrooms. And that’s what makes it so dangerous."

"What about the privacy, the modesty of women and girls?" he said. "But in our legal system that’s irrelevant because the rights of so-called transgenders are far more important.”

To be honest those two statements are full of ignorance. No one is demanding minority status based on what they do in the bedroom. Its based on their sexual preference which is obvious in alot of cases due to social norms.

You mean that gay couple that wanted the wedding cake weren't banging each other in the bakery?

Dear Timmy

The discrimination lawsuits went too far
with cake delivery services that required people to attend
a same sex wedding OUTSIDE THEIR PLACE OF BUSINESS
which was AGAINST THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

If the point is NOT to judge or impose on people for their beliefs,
then why is this happening by penalizing anyone for their beliefs?

If people with beliefs sign up to do business, then they sign up to accept the laws of doing business. If they don't want to go against their religious beliefs, they're perfectly free to no sign up to do business.

The government pretty much put an end to our solving our own disputes in Georgia in 1961, or so. otherwise, we would still be having FOUR restrooms in every business like we did then...

 

[Timmy]

"This is the first group that demands minority status based on what they do in their bedrooms. And that’s what makes it so dangerous."

"What about the privacy, the modesty of women and girls?" he said. "But in our legal system that’s irrelevant because the rights of so-called transgenders are far more important.”

To be honest those two statements are full of ignorance. No one is demanding minority status based on what they do in the bedroom. Its based on their sexual preference which is obvious in alot of cases due to social norms.

You mean that gay couple that wanted the wedding cake weren't banging each other in the bakery?

Dear Timmy

The discrimination lawsuits went too far
with cake delivery services that required people to attend
a same sex wedding OUTSIDE THEIR PLACE OF BUSINESS
which was AGAINST THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

If the point is NOT to judge or impose on people for their beliefs,
then why is this happening by penalizing anyone for their beliefs?

If people with beliefs sign up to do business, then they sign up to accept the laws of doing business. If they don't want to go against their religious beliefs, they're perfectly free to no sign up to do business.

So pregnant women gets on a train and there's a seat for people who need seats and all the people sitting down are selfish, so the pregnant woman should just stand then?

Pretty much. Sounds a bit like life, doesn't it?

What, encouraging assholes to be assholes?

More like allowing people to have the freedom to choose to be. Or do you think that restricting rights is super neat? Sounds like you're okay with our government deciding how we should act even when not infringing on the rights of others.

So, a man chooses to sit on a plane with no females, so all the females have to get off the bus then?

You talk about "restricting rights", what do you mean? All rights are restricted. Freedom of Speech doesn't protect treason, libel, hate speech etc. Freedom of Religion, you do know that polygamy is banned in the US, don't know, even though the Mormons claim it as something religious? The Sun Dance and Potlatch were banned by the US govt too. Any religion that wants human sacrifice will find that this is banned too. There's nothing new in restricting rights.

Treason and Libel infringe on the rights of others, hate speech shouldn't be against the law in the first place. Freedom of Religion and freedom of practice aren't the same thing, and pretending they are is just ignorant. Obviously you're free to worship whoever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others, so about the time you try to kill a human being while claiming it's worship, you'll have murder charges to worry about.

Hate speech is not against the law .

You just make shit up !

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Minority status shouldn't exist, regardless.

More ignorance from the right.

Again, there is no such thing as ‘minority status.’

The Constitution prohibits government from seeking to disadvantage a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are, absent a rational basis, objective evidence in support, and a legitimate legislative end.

This might concern race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, as well as choices all Americans make about their personal, private lives, such as whom to marry or whether to have a child or not.

In the case of transgender Americans, it’s the protected liberty to decide who you are, how you might live your life, and how you express yourself as an individual to society in general – decisions which are all entitled to Constitutional protections.

Government, therefore, may not seek to disadvantage transgender Americans based on lies, fear, bigotry, and hate.

On the other hand, the government is completely okay with giving advantage to a certain race, as Democrats love affirmative action laws.

Not that Democrats have a problem with violating the constitution, given the current president has violated it 64 times, and nobody has stopped him.

Of course, the most ironic thing is you calling anyone ignorant.

How about an example of this "advantage " .

Affirmative action in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[rcfieldz]

Where's the tranny/shemale porn links?

Look in your browser history, rcfieldz
Or maybe they're saved under bookmarks or favorites? JK ;-)

Cute trick...
Look in yours for dopey stuff...emilynghiem

 

[Pumpkin Row]

To be honest those two statements are full of ignorance. No one is demanding minority status based on what they do in the bedroom. Its based on their sexual preference which is obvious in alot of cases due to social norms.

You mean that gay couple that wanted the wedding cake weren't banging each other in the bakery?

Dear Timmy

The discrimination lawsuits went too far
with cake delivery services that required people to attend
a same sex wedding OUTSIDE THEIR PLACE OF BUSINESS
which was AGAINST THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

If the point is NOT to judge or impose on people for their beliefs,
then why is this happening by penalizing anyone for their beliefs?

If people with beliefs sign up to do business, then they sign up to accept the laws of doing business. If they don't want to go against their religious beliefs, they're perfectly free to no sign up to do business.

Pretty much. Sounds a bit like life, doesn't it?

What, encouraging assholes to be assholes?

More like allowing people to have the freedom to choose to be. Or do you think that restricting rights is super neat? Sounds like you're okay with our government deciding how we should act even when not infringing on the rights of others.

So, a man chooses to sit on a plane with no females, so all the females have to get off the bus then?

You talk about "restricting rights", what do you mean? All rights are restricted. Freedom of Speech doesn't protect treason, libel, hate speech etc. Freedom of Religion, you do know that polygamy is banned in the US, don't know, even though the Mormons claim it as something religious? The Sun Dance and Potlatch were banned by the US govt too. Any religion that wants human sacrifice will find that this is banned too. There's nothing new in restricting rights.

Treason and Libel infringe on the rights of others, hate speech shouldn't be against the law in the first place. Freedom of Religion and freedom of practice aren't the same thing, and pretending they are is just ignorant. Obviously you're free to worship whoever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others, so about the time you try to kill a human being while claiming it's worship, you'll have murder charges to worry about.

Hate speech is not against the law .

You just make shit up !

Say that to Frigid Weirdo, he made the claim. I only said it shouldn't be against the law, not that it is.

 

[rightwinger]

WHAT special rights ? An example please.

Dear Timmy:
Example A:
Houston passed a bathroom policy where Transgender people could not even be questioned in the restroom or that could count as harassment and incur a fine up to $5,000.

No other group would have this special rights protection against harassment where someone couldn't question them in the restroom.

So other people lose their free speech to ask questions to make sure it is safe for someone of male appearance to be in the women's restroom.

So the LGBT have protected status that other people don't have, at the expense of the equal civil rights of other members of the public.

Example B:
When states passed laws banning same sex marriage and only recognizing traditional marriage, that violated constitutional laws and was struck down.

But when laws were passed imposing same sex marriage through the state govt, against the beliefs of people this violates, that is enforced as law.

Thus the beliefs of LGBT are enforced through govt against the beliefs of those who are in conflict; but when the beliefs in traditional marriage were imposed in conflict with LGBT, that was struck down.

Again, along with PENALTIES against business owners who can be forced to attend gay weddings against their beliefs if this is a recognized status.

So that is discriminating against people for their beliefs.

A. the people OF LGBT beliefs are favored by govt
B. the people of other beliefs are penalized by govt

that is taking sides, and not neutral.

If govt was fair, it would be disallowed for groups to be forced
to do business together who have conflicting beliefs,
so that both are equally protected from the other.

Again, like Hindus and Muslims. Govt would never be used to defend one belief from persecution by the other, where one side is penalized and the other side is defended as a special class. Common sense would tell us to separate these groups if they disagree so much, mind their own business, and don't impose on each other if they can't work it out civilly. But not force one belief on the other THROUGH GOVT.

Actually . Having. "Men" and "women" bathrooms is special status . You lose .

No, Timmy because the LGBT still recognize
the same Male/Female segregation or else they would
ask for all neutral restrooms. But they aren't.

They are asking for LGBT men to use the women's
restroom instead of the men's. They are asking for that distinction.

Many schools and many cases have settled this issue
by gender neutral and unisex facilities.

If that were accepted by the LGBT, we wouldn't have this issue!!!

Still don't understand the conservative hysteria over where you pee

I don't understand you. Why do you want to expose underage girls to perverts "legally displaying" their genitals to them? Or women at large. Do you hate children and women?

"Indecent exposure laws in most states make it a crime to purposefully display one's genitals in public, causing others to be alarmed or offended."
Indecent Exposure - FindLaw

Guy in a dress enters a ladies room, finds and empty stall, pees,washes, goes to the mirror, fixes his makeup and leaves

No crisis for society

 

[rightwinger]

Minority status shouldn't exist, regardless.

More ignorance from the right.

Again, there is no such thing as ‘minority status.’

The Constitution prohibits government from seeking to disadvantage a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are, absent a rational basis, objective evidence in support, and a legitimate legislative end.

This might concern race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, as well as choices all Americans make about their personal, private lives, such as whom to marry or whether to have a child or not.

In the case of transgender Americans, it’s the protected liberty to decide who you are, how you might live your life, and how you express yourself as an individual to society in general – decisions which are all entitled to Constitutional protections.

Government, therefore, may not seek to disadvantage transgender Americans based on lies, fear, bigotry, and hate.

On the other hand, the government is completely okay with giving advantage to a certain race, as Democrats love affirmative action laws.

Not that Democrats have a problem with violating the constitution, given the current president has violated it 64 times, and nobody has stopped him.

Of course, the most ironic thing is you calling anyone ignorant.

How about an example of this "advantage " .

Affirmative action in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Affirmative action helped all American families

Why it even helped young ladies like punkin

 

[Timmy]

Minority status shouldn't exist, regardless.

More ignorance from the right.

Again, there is no such thing as ‘minority status.’

The Constitution prohibits government from seeking to disadvantage a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are, absent a rational basis, objective evidence in support, and a legitimate legislative end.

This might concern race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, as well as choices all Americans make about their personal, private lives, such as whom to marry or whether to have a child or not.

In the case of transgender Americans, it’s the protected liberty to decide who you are, how you might live your life, and how you express yourself as an individual to society in general – decisions which are all entitled to Constitutional protections.

Government, therefore, may not seek to disadvantage transgender Americans based on lies, fear, bigotry, and hate.

On the other hand, the government is completely okay with giving advantage to a certain race, as Democrats love affirmative action laws.

Not that Democrats have a problem with violating the constitution, given the current president has violated it 64 times, and nobody has stopped him.

Of course, the most ironic thing is you calling anyone ignorant.

How about an example of this "advantage " .

Affirmative action in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And ?

Should we discuss legacies ? Veteran prefences ?

 

[defcon4]

Dear Timmy:
Example A:
Houston passed a bathroom policy where Transgender people could not even be questioned in the restroom or that could count as harassment and incur a fine up to $5,000.

No other group would have this special rights protection against harassment where someone couldn't question them in the restroom.

So other people lose their free speech to ask questions to make sure it is safe for someone of male appearance to be in the women's restroom.

So the LGBT have protected status that other people don't have, at the expense of the equal civil rights of other members of the public.

Example B:
When states passed laws banning same sex marriage and only recognizing traditional marriage, that violated constitutional laws and was struck down.

But when laws were passed imposing same sex marriage through the state govt, against the beliefs of people this violates, that is enforced as law.

Thus the beliefs of LGBT are enforced through govt against the beliefs of those who are in conflict; but when the beliefs in traditional marriage were imposed in conflict with LGBT, that was struck down.

Again, along with PENALTIES against business owners who can be forced to attend gay weddings against their beliefs if this is a recognized status.

So that is discriminating against people for their beliefs.

A. the people OF LGBT beliefs are favored by govt
B. the people of other beliefs are penalized by govt

that is taking sides, and not neutral.

If govt was fair, it would be disallowed for groups to be forced
to do business together who have conflicting beliefs,
so that both are equally protected from the other.

Again, like Hindus and Muslims. Govt would never be used to defend one belief from persecution by the other, where one side is penalized and the other side is defended as a special class. Common sense would tell us to separate these groups if they disagree so much, mind their own business, and don't impose on each other if they can't work it out civilly. But not force one belief on the other THROUGH GOVT.

Actually . Having. "Men" and "women" bathrooms is special status . You lose .

No, Timmy because the LGBT still recognize
the same Male/Female segregation or else they would
ask for all neutral restrooms. But they aren't.

They are asking for LGBT men to use the women's
restroom instead of the men's. They are asking for that distinction.

Many schools and many cases have settled this issue
by gender neutral and unisex facilities.

If that were accepted by the LGBT, we wouldn't have this issue!!!

Still don't understand the conservative hysteria over where you pee

I don't understand you. Why do you want to expose underage girls to perverts "legally displaying" their genitals to them? Or women at large. Do you hate children and women?

"Indecent exposure laws in most states make it a crime to purposefully display one's genitals in public, causing others to be alarmed or offended."
Indecent Exposure - FindLaw

Guy in a dress enters a ladies room, finds and empty stall, pees,washes, goes to the mirror, fixes his makeup and leaves

No crisis for society

You seem to be evasive with your answer...

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Minority status shouldn't exist, regardless.

More ignorance from the right.

Again, there is no such thing as ‘minority status.’

The Constitution prohibits government from seeking to disadvantage a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are, absent a rational basis, objective evidence in support, and a legitimate legislative end.

This might concern race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, as well as choices all Americans make about their personal, private lives, such as whom to marry or whether to have a child or not.

In the case of transgender Americans, it’s the protected liberty to decide who you are, how you might live your life, and how you express yourself as an individual to society in general – decisions which are all entitled to Constitutional protections.

Government, therefore, may not seek to disadvantage transgender Americans based on lies, fear, bigotry, and hate.

On the other hand, the government is completely okay with giving advantage to a certain race, as Democrats love affirmative action laws.

Not that Democrats have a problem with violating the constitution, given the current president has violated it 64 times, and nobody has stopped him.

Of course, the most ironic thing is you calling anyone ignorant.

How about an example of this "advantage " .

Affirmative action in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Affirmative action helped all American families

Why it even helped young ladies like punkin

Not providing any evidence that disprove any of my claims.

As expected of a lefty.