NC has responded to the Feds

[kaz]

Men don't prey upon little boys very fucking often because other men in the men's bathroom will kill them.

you mean like the predatory behavior of guys like jerry sandusky who everybody turned a blind eye to..?

And more is still coming out about how Joe Paterno knew early it was happening. I liked and admired him so much before, now I think he was a totally sick fuck who should have had the hell beaten out of him and he should have been left for dead. How many shattered lives did he help cover up?

 

[daws101]

So we shouldn't address sexual predators who prey on girls because that doesn't fix sexual predators who prey on boys? That's ridiculous.

And no one is saying the transgenders are the sexual predators, the point is that a male sexual predator can use that as a pretext to walk into a girls room in front of other adults.

Try to keep up

how about you try not to make things up?

what happens AFTER they walk in, is what matters...

how about everybody MYOB unless there is an ACTUAL offense...

maybe you can tell me how this law is discriminatory?

ask and answered ,

what?

and you claim not to be stupid,

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Well except for the fact that you're the one that pointed to Title IX of "the CRA", so TN was right , now you're changing your reference, the U.S. code you're pointing to wasn't derived from the CRA (of either 64 or 68) but instead was derived from Tile IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.(signed into law by President Nixon).

That is a distinction without a difference. The CRA was AMENDED AGAIN in 1972. It has nothing to do with bigoted judges which was TN's bogus claim. Basic jurist jurisprudence - an amendment to a law becomes part of that law. The Education Amendments became part of the CRA. Q. E. D.

 

[daws101]

Men don't prey upon little boys very fucking often because other men in the men's bathroom will kill them.

you mean like the predatory behavior of guys like jerry sandusky who everybody turned a blind eye to..?

And more is still coming out about how Joe Paterno knew early it was happening. I liked and admired him so much before, now I think he was a totally sick fuck who should have had the hell beaten out of him and he should have been left for dead. How many shattered lives did he help cover up?

deflection.

 

[TNHarley]

Well except for the fact that you're the one that pointed to Title IX of "the CRA", so TN was right , now you're changing your reference, the U.S. code you're pointing to wasn't derived from the CRA (of either 64 or 68) but instead was derived from Tile IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.(signed into law by President Nixon).

That is a distinction without a difference. The CRA was AMENDED AGAIN in 1972. It has nothing to do with bigoted judges which was TN's bogus claim. Basic jurist jurisprudence - an amendment to a law becomes part of that law. The Education Amendments became part of the CRA. Q. E. D.

I am guessing you just cant explain how that Act is even relevant

 

[daws101]

Well except for the fact that you're the one that pointed to Title IX of "the CRA", so TN was right , now you're changing your reference, the U.S. code you're pointing to wasn't derived from the CRA (of either 64 or 68) but instead was derived from Tile IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.(signed into law by President Nixon).

That is a distinction without a difference. The CRA was AMENDED AGAIN in 1972. It has nothing to do with bigoted judges which was TN's bogus claim. Basic jurist jurisprudence - an amendment to a law becomes part of that law. The Education Amendments became part of the CRA. Q. E. D.

I am guessing you just cant explain how that Act is even relevant

can you explain why it's not?

 

[TNHarley]

Well except for the fact that you're the one that pointed to Title IX of "the CRA", so TN was right , now you're changing your reference, the U.S. code you're pointing to wasn't derived from the CRA (of either 64 or 68) but instead was derived from Tile IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.(signed into law by President Nixon).

That is a distinction without a difference. The CRA was AMENDED AGAIN in 1972. It has nothing to do with bigoted judges which was TN's bogus claim. Basic jurist jurisprudence - an amendment to a law becomes part of that law. The Education Amendments became part of the CRA. Q. E. D.

BTW, the EA only amended title 7.
This is from wiki
Title IX[edit]
Title IX made it easier[how?] to move civil rights cases from state courts with segregationist judges[who?] and all-white juries to federal court. This was of crucial importance to civil rights activists[who?] who contended that they could not get fair trials in state courts.[citation needed]
Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should not be confused with Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs and activities.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Well except for the fact that you're the one that pointed to Title IX of "the CRA", so TN was right , now you're changing your reference, the U.S. code you're pointing to wasn't derived from the CRA (of either 64 or 68) but instead was derived from Tile IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.(signed into law by President Nixon).

That is a distinction without a difference. The CRA was AMENDED AGAIN in 1972. It has nothing to do with bigoted judges which was TN's bogus claim. Basic jurist jurisprudence - an amendment to a law becomes part of that law. The Education Amendments became part of the CRA. Q. E. D.

I am guessing you just cant explain how that Act is even relevant

Since you're guessing, I can unequivocally state you are in error! Again your deflection by employing another straw man is noted. I supplied you with everything you need. Edify thyself!

 

[TNHarley]

Well except for the fact that you're the one that pointed to Title IX of "the CRA", so TN was right , now you're changing your reference, the U.S. code you're pointing to wasn't derived from the CRA (of either 64 or 68) but instead was derived from Tile IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.(signed into law by President Nixon).

That is a distinction without a difference. The CRA was AMENDED AGAIN in 1972. It has nothing to do with bigoted judges which was TN's bogus claim. Basic jurist jurisprudence - an amendment to a law becomes part of that law. The Education Amendments became part of the CRA. Q. E. D.

I am guessing you just cant explain how that Act is even relevant

Since you're guessing, I can unequivocally state you are in error! Again your deflection by employing another straw man is noted. I supplied you with everything you need. Edify thyself!

FOR GAWD SAKES YOU DUMBFUCK
HOW is a law making sexes use their proper sex designated bathrooms discriminatory?

 

[Valerie]

We should take precautions after crimes only?

just couldn't proceed without making things up, huh?

your supposed "precaution" means having to discriminate against harmless citizens.

of course you don't care, because harming THOSE people just doesn't matter...

 

[daws101]

No, I don't converse with people who call me a sexual predator, I've never made the slightest suggestion of such a thing to you

It's called "bait and switch" kaz. Daws is diverting attention away from the fact that he has no clear legal language why any of us should accept that a man is "also a woman". So he attacks you. Perhaps he is also hoping that a flame war will erupt and this very sore subject for the Church of LGBT will "go quietly into the dungeons" here?

sure sill sure .....your are so cute when you're in full psychotic break mode!

 

[daws101]

Well except for the fact that you're the one that pointed to Title IX of "the CRA", so TN was right , now you're changing your reference, the U.S. code you're pointing to wasn't derived from the CRA (of either 64 or 68) but instead was derived from Tile IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.(signed into law by President Nixon).

That is a distinction without a difference. The CRA was AMENDED AGAIN in 1972. It has nothing to do with bigoted judges which was TN's bogus claim. Basic jurist jurisprudence - an amendment to a law becomes part of that law. The Education Amendments became part of the CRA. Q. E. D.

I am guessing you just cant explain how that Act is even relevant

Since you're guessing, I can unequivocally state you are in error! Again your deflection by employing another straw man is noted. I supplied you with everything you need. Edify thyself!

FOR GAWD SAKES YOU DUMBFUCK
HOW is a law making sexes use their proper sex designated bathrooms discriminatory?

define proper.

 

[kaz]

We should take precautions after crimes only?

just couldn't proceed without making things up, huh?

Note you cut it from your post ...

how about everybody MYOB unless there is an ACTUAL offense...

your supposed "precaution" means having to discriminate against harmless citizens.

of course you don't care, because harming THOSE people just doesn't matter...

I don't want to provide free access to girls bathrooms to sexual predators and let guns go flap their dicks in front of them so that transgenders want to feel comfortable around the people who they are crapping and peeing with. Wow, obviously I'm the one here with issues with not caring about people ...

 

[Valerie]

it's a safety issue for trans citizens too... not just "comfort".

 

[NightFox]

Well except for the fact that you're the one that pointed to Title IX of "the CRA", so TN was right , now you're changing your reference, the U.S. code you're pointing to wasn't derived from the CRA (of either 64 or 68) but instead was derived from Tile IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.(signed into law by President Nixon).

That is a distinction without a difference. The CRA was AMENDED AGAIN in 1972. It has nothing to do with bigoted judges which was TN's bogus claim. Basic jurist jurisprudence - an amendment to a law becomes part of that law. The Education Amendments became part of the CRA. Q. E. D.

In reference to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Public Law 92-318, 86, STAT 235) which is the relevant law and the precursor to the U.S. Code you cited.

"An Act of June 23, 1972, Public Law 92-318, 86 STAT 235, to Amend the Higher Education Act of 1965, the Vocational Educational Act of 1963, the General Education Provisions Act (Creating a National Foundation for Postsecondary Education and a National Institute of Education), the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Public Law 874, Eighty-First Congress, and Related Acts, and for Other Purposes" .... (no reference to CRA's here).

CRA 1964 was Public Law 88–352, 78 Stat. 241
CRA 1968 was Public Law. 90–284, 82 Stat. 73

Since you only specified Title IX of the "CRA" it would be understandable that TN assumed you were referring to CRA 1964 Title IX (which does sort of deal with "bigoted judges" and has nothing to do with discrimination in Education).

 

[hazlnut]

and they are suing the Justice Dept.
Waiting for a link
It is breaking on reuters

Homophobes turning another state into a national disgrace.

Fed. Judge is blocking enforcement of the law.

Local cops don't like the law -- it's anything but "Christian".

 

[TNHarley]

and they are suing the Justice Dept.
Waiting for a link
It is breaking on reuters

Homophobes turning another state into a national disgrace.

Fed. Judge is blocking enforcement of the law.

Local cops don't like the law -- it's anything but "Christian".

Homo doesn't = transgender
More ignorant parroting.

 

[NightFox]

I don't want to provide free access to girls bathrooms to sexual predators and let guns go flap their dicks in front of them so that transgenders want to feel comfortable around the people who they are crapping and peeing with. Wow, obviously I'm the one here with issues with not caring about people ...

Er..ummm.. What was stopping those "sexual predators" from going into the girls bathrooms prior to this NC Law? the fact that it wasn't illegal? Hasn't sexually preying on other people been illegal all along and has that fact stopped "sexual predators" from preying on people?

Just because some gang of douche bags in government passes some law doesn't mean that whatever they are outlawing ceases to exist....

This NC law is IMHO nothing more than grandstanding poppycock, the relevant part here IMHO is that a very tiny minority of society thinks that it should get special rights enforced at the point of a government gun to violate what have been (for a very long time) considered societal norms by the vast majority of the citizenry.

 

[kaz]

I don't want to provide free access to girls bathrooms to sexual predators and let guns go flap their dicks in front of them so that transgenders want to feel comfortable around the people who they are crapping and peeing with. Wow, obviously I'm the one here with issues with not caring about people ...

Er..ummm.. What was stopping those "sexual predators" from going into the girls bathrooms prior to this NC Law?

Seriously? Before the laws giving transsexuals access to their "biological" bathroom, you could be WTF. Now you shut up or get sued. You didn't get that? Really?

the fact that it wasn't illegal? Hasn't sexually preying on other people been illegal all along and has that fact stopped "sexual predators" from preying on people?

Just because some gang of douche bags in government passes some law doesn't mean that whatever they are outlawing ceases to exist....

This NC law is IMHO nothing more than grandstanding poppycock, the relevant part here IMHO is that a very tiny minority of society thinks that it should get special rights enforced at the point of a government gun to violate what have been (for a very long time) considered societal norms by the vast majority of the citizenry.

Gotcha, one thing sexual predators won't to is break the law, and they certainly wouldn't lie about their inner selves to do it. That would be just wrong ...

 

[Pop23]

Well except for the fact that you're the one that pointed to Title IX of "the CRA", so TN was right , now you're changing your reference, the U.S. code you're pointing to wasn't derived from the CRA (of either 64 or 68) but instead was derived from Tile IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.(signed into law by President Nixon).

That is a distinction without a difference. The CRA was AMENDED AGAIN in 1972. It has nothing to do with bigoted judges which was TN's bogus claim. Basic jurist jurisprudence - an amendment to a law becomes part of that law. The Education Amendments became part of the CRA. Q. E. D.

I am guessing you just cant explain how that Act is even relevant

Since you're guessing, I can unequivocally state you are in error! Again your deflection by employing another straw man is noted. I supplied you with everything you need. Edify thyself!

FOR GAWD SAKES YOU DUMBFUCK
HOW is a law making sexes use their proper sex designated bathrooms discriminatory?

It doesn't meet even the basic meaning of discrimation.

But, these days what the hell does not matter?