NC has responded to the Feds

[EriktheRed]

The world is falling apart and it's estimated that about 1,000 citizens will be murdered in Chicago this year alone, we are supporting about ten million people who are illegally in the Country and they are releasing illegals from custody after they commit felonies and meanwhile the United States Department of Justice is busy suing North Carolina to allow men in the ladies room. Is the left going insane or what?

How about the state that passed this law in the first place and is suing back?

 

[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

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.

What government does to itself doesn't make much difference to me and is dwarfed by what they were doing to businesses

 

[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).

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!!

What fucking "rationalization"? TN's assumption WAS justified because YOU referred to the Title IX of "the CRA" INCORRECTLY (neither Title IX of the 64 CRA nor Title IX of the 68 CRA has anything to do with the subject of this thread). If you had done your homework you'd have known that it has nothing to do with the CRA (of either '64 or '68) and everything to do with the law I pointed out to you and instead of being a rational individual and just admitting "oh I mis-spoke when I referred to the CRA what I really meant to say was this......" you're going through this whole inane exercise of trying to blame other people for your own mistake and deflect.

 

[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!!

What fucking "rationalization"? TN's assumption WAS justified because YOU referred to the Title IX of "the CRA" INCORRECTLY (neither Title IX of the 64 CRA nor Title IX of the 68 CRA has anything to do with the subject of this thread). If you had done your homework you'd have known that it has nothing to do with the CRA (of either '64 or '68) and everything to do with the law I pointed out to you and instead of being a rational individual and just admitting "oh I mis-spoke when I referred to the CRA what I really meant to say was this......" you're going through this whole inane exercise of trying to blame other people for your own mistake and deflect.

well said, sir!

 

[NightFox]

What government does to itself doesn't make much difference to me and is dwarfed by what they were doing to businesses

Me neither, personally I couldn't care less what NC does since I don't live there, just pointing out the stupidity of government when it comes to sticking it's own foot in it's mouth AND the stupidity of the citizenry when it comes to needing government to tell it how to operate down to the smallest and most vapid detail.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

10th Amendment.

 

[kaz]

What government does to itself doesn't make much difference to me and is dwarfed by what they were doing to businesses

Me neither, personally I couldn't care less what NC does since I don't live there, just pointing out the stupidity of government when it comes to sticking it's own foot in it's mouth AND the stupidity of the citizenry when it comes to needing government to tell it how to operate down to the smallest and most vapid detail.

I do live in North Carolina, and I agree with the State overriding cities forcing business owners how to use their own bathrooms

 

[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).

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!!

What fucking "rationalization"? TN's assumption WAS justified because YOU referred to the Title IX of "the CRA" INCORRECTLY (neither Title IX of the 64 CRA nor Title IX of the 68 CRA has anything to do with the subject of this thread). If you had done your homework you'd have known that it has nothing to do with the CRA (of either '64 or '68) and everything to do with the law I pointed out to you and instead of being a rational individual and just admitting "oh I mis-spoke when I referred to the CRA what I really meant to say was this......" you're going through this whole inane exercise of trying to blame other people for your own mistake and deflect.

well said, sir!

Thanks.... but I suspect this won't be the end of this particular deflection dog and puppet show.

WARNING : Redefinition of the meaning of the acronym "CRA" imminent ...... "Prepare ship for ludicrous speed! Fasten all seat belts, seal all entrances and exits, close all shops in the mall! Cancel the three ring circus! Secure all animals in the zoo" -- Colonel Sandurz, Spaceballs

 

[Crixus]

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

Good on them. The freak law was repealed in Houston. Hopefully they beat it there to.

 

[NightFox]

What government does to itself doesn't make much difference to me and is dwarfed by what they were doing to businesses

Me neither, personally I couldn't care less what NC does since I don't live there, just pointing out the stupidity of government when it comes to sticking it's own foot in it's mouth AND the stupidity of the citizenry when it comes to needing government to tell it how to operate down to the smallest and most vapid detail.

I do live in North Carolina, and I agree with the State overriding cities forcing business owners how to use their own bathrooms

You have my sympathies then..... it's going to get ugly out there as the PC shock troops and their legions of useful idiots swoop in for the kill; keep your head down and your windows boarded up until the insanity passes.

 

[Jack4jill]

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

Good on them. The freak law was repealed in Houston. Hopefully they beat it there to.

Freak law? What they said about gay marriage, and interracial marriage, and women wanting to vote, or work outside the home.

 

[kaz]

What government does to itself doesn't make much difference to me and is dwarfed by what they were doing to businesses

Me neither, personally I couldn't care less what NC does since I don't live there, just pointing out the stupidity of government when it comes to sticking it's own foot in it's mouth AND the stupidity of the citizenry when it comes to needing government to tell it how to operate down to the smallest and most vapid detail.

I do live in North Carolina, and I agree with the State overriding cities forcing business owners how to use their own bathrooms

You have my sympathies then..... it's going to get ugly out there as the PC shock troops and their legions of useful idiots swoop in for the kill; keep your head down and your windows boarded up until the insanity passes.

It already is. And the liberal media in North Carolina lie constantly about what the bill actually says

 

[francoHFW]

Another incredibly insulting and divisive wedge "solution" to a nonexistent problem. Don't worry about the GOP wrecking the nonrich and the country and their idiotic foreign policy etc etc etc....

so you are saying people ARE using the proper sex designated bathrooms?

Yes, and there haven'y been any problems, just brainwashed hater dupes.

 

[francoHFW]

Another incredibly insulting and divisive wedge "solution" to a nonexistent problem. Don't worry about the GOP wrecking the nonrich and the country and their idiotic foreign policy etc etc etc....

so you are saying people ARE using the proper sex designated bathrooms?

Always have, with no problem like you've been brainwashed to believe.

 

[foggedinn]

Christians rejoice. You are persecuted for righteousness sake.

 

[Ravi]

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..?

He's kgrill's hero.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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

I could easily! But I'm not going to until you respond to my response (post #86) below to your first post. You've been dodging this trying to get from under it all this time. Enough of your God Damn straw man posts, fool; You'll never figure it out so...

Read Title IX of the CRA and you'll understand, along with the threat to NC by the DOJ regarding funding. The onus is on you as the originator of the OP to understand the basic points in the matter. I'm not your tutor.

Then read this letter from the DOJ, Civil Rights Division to the University of NC;

Similarly, Title IX and its implementing regulations prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs and activities operated by recipients of federal financial assistance. 20 U.S.C. 1681; 34 CPR. 106.31.; 28 C.F.R. Part 54. As a condition of accepting funds from the Department, UNC signed assurances specifically acknowledging that it will comply with Title IX. Title prohibitions of discrimination cover "any person," including students and employees, as well as third parties, such as parents and other visitors to campus. The U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights has issued Title IX guidance clarifying that all students, including transgender students, are protected from sex-based discrimination under Title IX and that Title IX's prohibition on sex discrimination extends to discrimination based on gender identity.2 ~~ http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article75647942.ece/BINARY/Read: DOJ letter to UNC ~~

Now where the Hell do those bigoted judges fit in to this at all... (answer)...they don't and never did regardless of the handful of straw man bullshit with which you may return to rejoin.

Are you capable of staying on point now?

 

[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!!

What fucking "rationalization"? TN's assumption WAS justified because YOU referred to the Title IX of "the CRA" INCORRECTLY (neither Title IX of the 64 CRA nor Title IX of the 68 CRA has anything to do with the subject of this thread). If you had done your homework you'd have known that it has nothing to do with the CRA (of either '64 or '68) and everything to do with the law I pointed out to you and instead of being a rational individual and just admitting "oh I mis-spoke when I referred to the CRA what I really meant to say was this......" you're going through this whole inane exercise of trying to blame other people for your own mistake and deflect.

I also referenced where it was codified, fool! I mistakenly referenced the CRA ONLY; 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688 was referenced and cited!!!!

 

[tinydancer]

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

Too funny. Too too funny!

Hey bod I know a lot of trans you know my story on isabella but you have a daughter. as do I.

you comfy with some dude pretending to be a trans going in with your kid?

 

[tinydancer]

I probably know or have known more trans the rest of you will ever know. Seek help. Look up Larry's Hideaway.



I don't get the deal that is going on here now. All of a sudden we have trans here, trans there, trans everywhere.

WTF?