NC has responded to the Feds

[Katzndogz]

North Carolina sues Justice Department over HB2 - CNNPolitics.com

They are saying that the feds have it wrong, that transgender issues are not the same as the civil rights issues that were addressed in the sixties, and they're absolutely 100 percent correct.

Great picture. Now post a picture of what sexual predators do in the bathroom ...

Why? One has nothing to do with the other. 17 states and 200 localities actually have laws allowing trans folks to use the bathroom of the gender they are transitioning to. Show us where your fears supported by actual incidents.

Savage shot her down pretty quickly, pointing out that predators don’t need to dress up as another gender in order to assault someone.

“That’s bullshit,” he responded. “A child molester doesn’t need to put on a dress to go into a bathroom. You can Google ‘sexually assaulted in a restroom’ and you get thousands of examples of cisgendered straight men.”

Dan Savage Takes On Ann Coulter Over Transgender Bathroom Rights

A sexual predator gets up, walks across the room into a room with middle school and teenage girls. What stops them? Their conscience?

You do run and run and run from that question

Anti Trans laws don't stop them. Anti Trans laws don't protect anyone and are designed to hurt trans people.

As Dan Savage pointed out, "Google sexually assaulted in a restroom’ and you get thousands of examples of cisgendered straight men.”

Yes. And those are precisely the men you want in women's locker rooms, showers, restrooms and changing areas.

 

[Valerie]

no it doesn't..
Still not elaboration of how this is discrimination? I have to say, at this point, I am not surprised

not surprising you don't bother to follow what's already been posted...




Three decades ago, a female employee of a large accounting firm, Ann Hopkins, successfully sued her company for discrimination. Today, her precedent-setting case is being used in a way that Hopkins may never have imagined: to make the argument that discrimination against transgender people is prohibited under federal laws that bar sex discrimination.


That argument — that disparate treatment against transgender people is a form of sex discrimination — is not new. In recent years, state and federal courts, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Obama administration have adopted that position, despite the fact that federal law does not explicitly protect people on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.


But the argument this week has taken center stage in an escalating dispute between the Obama administration and North Carolina, which earlier this year became the first state to require students, state employees and visitors to government buildings to use public restrooms that match their biological sex at birth.


On Wednesday, the U.S. Justice Department issued a letter to North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R), warning that the bathroom restriction violated federal law — and put at risk millions of dollars in federal funding the state receives every year.



“The state is engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination against transgender state employees,” wrote Vanita Gupta, the head of the civil rights division.


The Hopkins case, which was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court, figured prominently in Gupta’s letter. The justices found that discrimination on the basis of sex could include sex stereotyping — the belief that women ought to look and act stereotypically feminine — as well as other “sex-based considerations.”

Gay and transgender plaintiffs have, in recent years, successfully used that conclusion to win discrimination lawsuits against their employers.


Is discrimination against transgender people a form of sex discrimination?

 

[daws101]

Great picture. Now post a picture of what sexual predators do in the bathroom ...

Why? One has nothing to do with the other. 17 states and 200 localities actually have laws allowing trans folks to use the bathroom of the gender they are transitioning to. Show us where your fears supported by actual incidents.

Savage shot her down pretty quickly, pointing out that predators don’t need to dress up as another gender in order to assault someone.

“That’s bullshit,” he responded. “A child molester doesn’t need to put on a dress to go into a bathroom. You can Google ‘sexually assaulted in a restroom’ and you get thousands of examples of cisgendered straight men.”

Dan Savage Takes On Ann Coulter Over Transgender Bathroom Rights

A sexual predator gets up, walks across the room into a room with middle school and teenage girls. What stops them? Their conscience?

You do run and run and run from that question

Anti Trans laws don't stop them. Anti Trans laws don't protect anyone and are designed to hurt trans people.

As Dan Savage pointed out, "Google sexually assaulted in a restroom’ and you get thousands of examples of cisgendered straight men.”

Yes. And those are precisely the men you want in women's locker rooms, showers, restrooms and changing areas.

Only in your fantasy.

 

[Gracie]

This is stupid. What if it's a fruitcake that thinks its a horse? Do bathrooms now have to have a trough?

Make is simple. If it still has a dick...its a guy and he has to use the mens bathroom. If the dick is gone, then sure..SHE can use the ladies restroom. Why is this so hard to do?

 

[NightFox]

Anti Trans laws don't stop them. Anti Trans laws don't protect anyone and are designed to hurt trans people.

So just get rid of ALL the stupid laws and regulations designed to tell people which bathrooms they can and cannot use. Why do we need government to tell us which bathroom to use? what's next? regulations to tell us under which circumstances we can pee standing up and when we need to sit? which hand is legally permissible for wiping one's ass?

For cryin' out loud, Americans are so fucking retarded.

 

[daws101]

This is stupid. What if it's a fruitcake that thinks its a horse? Do bathrooms now have to have a trough?

Make is simple. If it still has a dick...its a guy and he has to use the mens bathroom. If the dick is gone, then sure..SHE can use the ladies restroom. Why is this so hard to do?

Real life is complicated .

 

[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?

Ummm.. the feds are claiming that the relevant law protecting this supposed "right" (in the case of federally funded education institutions) has been in effect since 1972 and prior to that (as far as I can tell) there were no relevant laws one way or the other (so the individual could legally do whatever they wanted as long as it didn't violate the rights of others), so again how does passing a law such as what NC passed do anything to stop these "sexual predators" isn't sexual predation already illegal and hasn't that been the case for a very long time? Why would anybody automatically assume that transgendered individuals are more likely to commit a sexual assault in a bathroom than anybody else?

I don't agree with the "discrimination" claim here (not from a legal, logical, common sense or moral perspective) but as far as I can see this doesn't change the status of sexual predators nor discourage them from committing their crime of choice in any way.

Yes, before it was up to the owner of the bathroom who used it. Democrats in Charlotte changed that and said it's up to people to decide if they are transgender or not and if they are what bathroom they want to use, the owner of the bathroom has no say. The NC assembly said bull, it's up to the owner of the bathroom.

Yes, it's legitimately up to the owner of the bathroom, not politicians

 

[TNHarley]

no it doesn't..
Still not elaboration of how this is discrimination? I have to say, at this point, I am not surprised

not surprising you don't bother to follow what's already been posted...




Three decades ago, a female employee of a large accounting firm, Ann Hopkins, successfully sued her company for discrimination. Today, her precedent-setting case is being used in a way that Hopkins may never have imagined: to make the argument that discrimination against transgender people is prohibited under federal laws that bar sex discrimination.


That argument — that disparate treatment against transgender people is a form of sex discrimination — is not new. In recent years, state and federal courts, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Obama administration have adopted that position, despite the fact that federal law does not explicitly protect people on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.


But the argument this week has taken center stage in an escalating dispute between the Obama administration and North Carolina, which earlier this year became the first state to require students, state employees and visitors to government buildings to use public restrooms that match their biological sex at birth.


On Wednesday, the U.S. Justice Department issued a letter to North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R), warning that the bathroom restriction violated federal law — and put at risk millions of dollars in federal funding the state receives every year.



“The state is engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination against transgender state employees,” wrote Vanita Gupta, the head of the civil rights division.


The Hopkins case, which was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court, figured prominently in Gupta’s letter. The justices found that discrimination on the basis of sex could include sex stereotyping — the belief that women ought to look and act stereotypically feminine — as well as other “sex-based considerations.”

Gay and transgender plaintiffs have, in recent years, successfully used that conclusion to win discrimination lawsuits against their employers.


Is discrimination against transgender people a form of sex discrimination?

"sex discrimination" = Male or Female
You cant pick your sex moron.
Having people piss in their proper sex designated restrooms is the way it should be. It isn't discrimination, it is literally equality.

 

[Gracie]

This LGBT stuff is starting to piss me off. Sure..let them get married. Give them rights. But when it gets to suing bakers and fighting over where to take a dump? THAT'S when it pisses folks off.

 

[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.

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).

Your first point is taken. However, your rationalization of TN's "assumption" is justified because you can channel him? The Education Amendments were never about bigoted judges, and no matter how much lipstick you put on that hog's ass that porker ain't never gonna fly!!

 

[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.

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).

Your first point is taken. However, your rationalization of TN's "assumption" is justified because you can channel him? The Education Amendments were never about bigoted judges, and no matter how much lipstick you put on that hog's ass that porker ain't never gonna fly!!

No one said it was. Title IX of the CRA is!
This circle of stupidity just keeps getting bigger!

 

[kaz]

North Carolina sues Justice Department over HB2 - CNNPolitics.com

They are saying that the feds have it wrong, that transgender issues are not the same as the civil rights issues that were addressed in the sixties, and they're absolutely 100 percent correct.

Great picture. Now post a picture of what sexual predators do in the bathroom ...

Why? One has nothing to do with the other. 17 states and 200 localities actually have laws allowing trans folks to use the bathroom of the gender they are transitioning to. Show us where your fears supported by actual incidents.

Savage shot her down pretty quickly, pointing out that predators don’t need to dress up as another gender in order to assault someone.

“That’s bullshit,” he responded. “A child molester doesn’t need to put on a dress to go into a bathroom. You can Google ‘sexually assaulted in a restroom’ and you get thousands of examples of cisgendered straight men.”

Dan Savage Takes On Ann Coulter Over Transgender Bathroom Rights

A sexual predator gets up, walks across the room into a room with middle school and teenage girls. What stops them? Their conscience?

You do run and run and run from that question

Anti Trans laws don't stop them. Anti Trans laws don't protect anyone and are designed to hurt trans people.

As Dan Savage pointed out, "Google sexually assaulted in a restroom’ and you get thousands of examples of cisgendered straight men.”

I've answered this at least a dozen times. Before a guy walking into a girls room would meet WTF. Now you can't question them, just the insinuation is unacceptable. You seriously don't get that?

And NC saying it's up to the owner of the bathroom being "anti trans" is just the authoritarian leftist that you are

 

[TNHarley]

Justice Department sues North Carolina over transgender 'bathroom law'
The Republican leaders of North Carolina's state legislature also sued the U.S. government over the law on Monday, hours after McCrory's lawsuit.

 

[kaz]

Um ...

 

[TNHarley]

Um ...

?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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?

Another non-response. You fucking demand me to respond, but your dumb ass doesn't do anything but obfuscate and prop up a straw man or two. IF you can't answer that question then God Bless you at that hour of need!

you cant even show me how that fuckin Act is somehow relative to this situation. You fail bro. Big time
How is asking how the act you are claiming is relative, a strawman?

Definition- straw man
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

Instead of responding to the previous post that you quote, you avoid it and go to some other object within your own Universe with is merely tangential to the post which is the basis of reply. GOT IT?

 

[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?

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?

Ummm.. the feds are claiming that the relevant law protecting this supposed "right" (in the case of federally funded education institutions) has been in effect since 1972 and prior to that (as far as I can tell) there were no relevant laws one way or the other (so the individual could legally do whatever they wanted as long as it didn't violate the rights of others), so again how does passing a law such as what NC passed do anything to stop these "sexual predators" isn't sexual predation already illegal and hasn't that been the case for a very long time? Why would anybody automatically assume that transgendered individuals are more likely to commit a sexual assault in a bathroom than anybody else?

I don't agree with the "discrimination" claim here (not from a legal, logical, common sense or moral perspective) but as far as I can see this doesn't change the status of sexual predators nor discourage them from committing their crime of choice in any way.

Yes, before it was up to the owner of the bathroom who used it. Democrats in Charlotte changed that and said it's up to people to decide if they are transgender or not and if they are what bathroom they want to use, the owner of the bathroom has no say. The NC assembly said bull, it's up to the owner of the bathroom.

Yes, it's legitimately up to the owner of the bathroom, not politicians

Not quite the NC law also imposed a "bathroom standard" on public facilities ("public agencies shall require every multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility to be designated for and only used by persons based on their biological sex") which appears to be the focal point of the federal objections, why was there any need for the NC government to do this? Wouldn't it make far more sense for each agency to handle the "issue" in whatever way made the most sense for their individual facilities ?

If they had just said to the localities that you cannot pass laws which violate the rights of property owners that would be one thing but it appears that they went a bridge too far on this one and now they've got the dickheads in Washington involved and the political correctness shock troop assholes all riled up over nothing.

 

[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.

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).

Your first point is taken. However, your rationalization of TN's "assumption" is justified because you can channel him? The Education Amendments were never about bigoted judges, and no matter how much lipstick you put on that hog's ass that porker ain't never gonna fly!!

No one said it was. Title IX of the CRA is!
This circle of stupidity just keeps getting bigger!

Now you're not even making sense!

 

[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.

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).

Your first point is taken. However, your rationalization of TN's "assumption" is justified because you can channel him? The Education Amendments were never about bigoted judges, and no matter how much lipstick you put on that hog's ass that porker ain't never gonna fly!!

No one said it was. Title IX of the CRA is!
This circle of stupidity just keeps getting bigger!

Now you're not even making sense!

NOBODY said "bigoted judges" were in the education amendment. I said it was in the CRA

 

[TNHarley]

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?

Another non-response. You fucking demand me to respond, but your dumb ass doesn't do anything but obfuscate and prop up a straw man or two. IF you can't answer that question then God Bless you at that hour of need!

you cant even show me how that fuckin Act is somehow relative to this situation. You fail bro. Big time
How is asking how the act you are claiming is relative, a strawman?

Definition- straw man
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

Instead of responding to the previous post that you quote, you avoid it and go to some other object within your own Universe with is merely tangential to the post which is the basis of reply. GOT IT?

lol
still cant say how that act is relevant I see