NC has responded to the Feds

[DigitalDrifter]

We see now where the DOJ is headed with this. They want "MEN" only rest rooms and "WOMEN" only rest rooms compared to "WHITE" only rest rooms and "COLORED" only rest rooms from the past.
Soon it will be viewed as a civil rights violation to have gender segregated rest rooms and locker rooms.

Did you ever believe you would see something like this in your lifetime ?

 

[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 The freak law was repealed in Houston.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.

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

no. freaks and weirdos who are boys trying to use the same locker rooms as girls, or mullet waring bull dyks wanting to cop a squat in the boys locker rooms . Anus Porker tried to use her pen and her phone to force Houston to do the same thing, but voters in houston, most of which were the black folks she panders to got it repealed. in short, her constituents draw a line at stupid and she left with her legacy as the first gay mayer pissed all over by the ones who elected her.

 

[bodecea]

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?

Are you saying that there are not laws already in place over that kind of situation? Because there already are.

 

[TNHarley]

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?

Listen you stupid fuck : the CRA is about bigoted judges. YOU said it wasn't, but it is. That's what the goddamn thing says. The education amendments are NOT the CRA. I don't understand why you can't fuckin grasp that.
How is a law that says people must use their sex designated bathroom, with is literally equality, discrimination? And AGAIN, if u cant explain WHY its discrimination, WTF does the Act matter anyways?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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?

Listen you stupid fuck : the CRA is about bigoted judges. YOU said it wasn't, but it is. That's what the goddamn thing says. The education amendments are NOT the CRA. I don't understand why you can't fuckin grasp that.
How is a law that says people must use their sex designated bathroom, with is literally equality, discrimination? And AGAIN, if u cant explain WHY its discrimination, WTF does the Act matter anyways?

DOJ has notified officials in NC that the State's HB 2 as enacted is in violation of the CRA at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. and the 1972 Education Amendments, 1972 at 20 U.S.C. § 1681. If you have a problem with that you fucking shit for brains, take it up with the DOJ. There is nothing about bigoted or segregationist judges in those sections of those statutes as you have asserted.

 

[TNHarley]

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?

Listen you stupid fuck : the CRA is about bigoted judges. YOU said it wasn't, but it is. That's what the goddamn thing says. The education amendments are NOT the CRA. I don't understand why you can't fuckin grasp that.
How is a law that says people must use their sex designated bathroom, with is literally equality, discrimination? And AGAIN, if u cant explain WHY its discrimination, WTF does the Act matter anyways?

DOJ has notified officials in NC that the State's HB 2 as enacted is in violation of the CRA at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. and the 1972 Education Amendments, 1972 at 20 U.S.C. § 1681. If you have a problem with that you fucking shit for brains, take it up with the DOJ. There is nothing about bigoted or segregationist judges in those sections of those statutes as you have asserted.

Goddamnit YOU said title IX. That title is about segregationist judges. Look it up you stupid fuck.
How is an equal law discrimination for like the 32 time? If it that fuckin hard to elaborate on YOUR point, maybe you should take that as a sign and STFU.

 

[kaz]

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?

Listen you stupid fuck : the CRA is about bigoted judges. YOU said it wasn't, but it is. That's what the goddamn thing says. The education amendments are NOT the CRA. I don't understand why you can't fuckin grasp that.
How is a law that says people must use their sex designated bathroom, with is literally equality, discrimination? And AGAIN, if u cant explain WHY its discrimination, WTF does the Act matter anyways?

DOJ has notified officials in NC that the State's HB 2 as enacted is in violation of the CRA at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. and the 1972 Education Amendments, 1972 at 20 U.S.C. § 1681. If you have a problem with that you fucking shit for brains, take it up with the DOJ. There is nothing about bigoted or segregationist judges in those sections of those statutes as you have asserted.

Wow, I feel you. Businesses deciding who uses the bathrooms they're paying for? that's just whacked

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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?

Listen you stupid fuck : the CRA is about bigoted judges. YOU said it wasn't, but it is. That's what the goddamn thing says. The education amendments are NOT the CRA. I don't understand why you can't fuckin grasp that.
How is a law that says people must use their sex designated bathroom, with is literally equality, discrimination? And AGAIN, if u cant explain WHY its discrimination, WTF does the Act matter anyways?

DOJ has notified officials in NC that the State's HB 2 as enacted is in violation of the CRA at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. and the 1972 Education Amendments, 1972 at 20 U.S.C. § 1681. If you have a problem with that you fucking shit for brains, take it up with the DOJ. There is nothing about bigoted or segregationist judges in those sections of those statutes as you have asserted.

Goddamnit YOU said title IX. That title is about segregationist judges. Look it up you stupid fuck.
How is an equal law discrimination for like the 32 time? If it that fuckin hard to elaborate on YOUR point, maybe you should take that as a sign and STFU.

You must be too fucking poor to pay attention. You were running off about bigoted or segregationist judges and I wrote this part of a response to you;

I guess you do need a tutor. Read the articles that have been posted regarding the Federal funds to be withheld for non-compliance with the CRA. Then read Title IX codified in the US Code at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688.

NightFox corrected my confusion regarding my misattribution of the CRA to the Title IX Education Amendments of 1972 by posting the header of the Public Law. I'm not a timid fucking hiding shivering coward when it comes to admitting an error like many on this board. I gave you the Title and Sections of the DOJ's contention which went directly to the economic impact I stated NC was going to likely suffer. Here it is again;

I guess you do need a tutor. Read the articles that have been posted regarding the Federal funds to be withheld for non-compliance with the CRA. Then read Title IX codified in the US Code at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688.

Based on the Federal funding in 2014-2015 to the University of North Carolina alone, it could lose $1.4 BILLION from the federal funding sources to say nothing about Federal funding for the State public school system. I don't know where you got that idea about bigot judges!

You didn't bother to notice the title and sections noted from the US Code because you didn't read the damn post and went on with your rant as follows in the very nexy post in response;

bigot judges is what title IX of the CRA is.
How does making all people use their proper sex designated bathroom discrimination? Please elaborate.

More horseshit about bigoted judges, when the subject all along I had been trying to keep you on was the impact to NC's education system for a civil rights violation. I mistakenly conflated the two Title IX's both involving CIVIL RIGHTS! My mistake and I've already taken responsibility for my error. But I bet Hell will freeze over before you admit your errors and distortions. The wacko ideas about bigoted and scofflaw judges you OWN lock, stock and barrel! Fix that firing mechanism so you don't go off half-cocked again, Jethro.

 

[TNHarley]

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?

Listen you stupid fuck : the CRA is about bigoted judges. YOU said it wasn't, but it is. That's what the goddamn thing says. The education amendments are NOT the CRA. I don't understand why you can't fuckin grasp that.
How is a law that says people must use their sex designated bathroom, with is literally equality, discrimination? And AGAIN, if u cant explain WHY its discrimination, WTF does the Act matter anyways?

DOJ has notified officials in NC that the State's HB 2 as enacted is in violation of the CRA at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. and the 1972 Education Amendments, 1972 at 20 U.S.C. § 1681. If you have a problem with that you fucking shit for brains, take it up with the DOJ. There is nothing about bigoted or segregationist judges in those sections of those statutes as you have asserted.

Goddamnit YOU said title IX. That title is about segregationist judges. Look it up you stupid fuck.
How is an equal law discrimination for like the 32 time? If it that fuckin hard to elaborate on YOUR point, maybe you should take that as a sign and STFU.

You must be too fucking poor to pay attention. You were running off about bigoted or segregationist judges and I wrote this part of a response to you;

I guess you do need a tutor. Read the articles that have been posted regarding the Federal funds to be withheld for non-compliance with the CRA. Then read Title IX codified in the US Code at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688.

NightFox corrected my confusion regarding my misattribution of the CRA to the Title IX Education Amendments of 1972 by posting the header of the Public Law. I'm not a timid fucking hiding shivering coward when it comes to admitting an error like many on this board. I gave you the Title and Sections of the DOJ's contention which went directly to the economic impact I stated NC was going to likely suffer. Here it is again;

I guess you do need a tutor. Read the articles that have been posted regarding the Federal funds to be withheld for non-compliance with the CRA. Then read Title IX codified in the US Code at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688.

Based on the Federal funding in 2014-2015 to the University of North Carolina alone, it could lose $1.4 BILLION from the federal funding sources to say nothing about Federal funding for the State public school system. I don't know where you got that idea about bigot judges!

You didn't bother to notice the title and sections noted from the US Code because you didn't read the damn post and went on with your rant as follows in the very nexy post in response;

bigot judges is what title IX of the CRA is.
How does making all people use their proper sex designated bathroom discrimination? Please elaborate.

More horseshit about bigoted judges, when the subject all along I had been trying to keep you on was the impact to NC's education system for a civil rights violation. I mistakenly conflated the two Title IX's both involving CIVIL RIGHTS! My mistake and I've already taken responsibility for my error. But I bet Hell will freeze over before you admit your errors and distortions. The wacko ideas about bigoted and scofflaw judges you OWN lock, stock and barrel! Fix that firing mechanism so you don't go off half-cocked again, Jethro.

dude I will tell u whatever you want as long as you can show WHY THE FUCK IT EVEN MATTERS. Because at this point, after 30 goddamn posts about it, it is irrelevant. You keep goin on and on but can't even say why it matters. This is the last goddamn time I am going to ask you to elaborate. I swear to fuckin gawd it isn't that hard

 

[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.

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

*YAWN* More vapid bullshit to avoid just admitting your own mistake, apparently you don't bother to proof read your own posts, let me help you out, here's your original post that caused all the confusion.

It's quite clear that the NC Gov. McCrory and his band of ignorant malcontents simply want to stir up a pile of shit. They haven't a leg to stand on given that stupid legislation they passed, SB 2, clearly is in violation of Title IX of the Civil Rights Act.

That State legislation would apply to ALL schools, colleges and universities receiving any Federal funding as it stands. If NC doesn't comply with Title IX of the CRA then those dumb bastards thumbing their nose at the National Government deserve to take it in the shorts for their stupidity. Any court action that idiot governor and his would take is a sure fail. US law reigns supreme over conflicting State law says the US Constitution at Article VI, Clause 2!

Bottom line is McCrory and his gang of idiot malcontents will only be hurting the people of NC who will have to pick up the final tab for this Tom Foolery and grand standing!

and here is you making the same mistake again when you cited the U.S. Code

I guess you do need a tutor. Read the articles that have been posted regarding the Federal funds to be withheld for non-compliance with the CRA. Then read Title IX codified in the US Code at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688.

Based on the Federal funding in 2014-2015 to the University of North Carolina alone, it could lose $1.4 BILLION from the federal funding sources to say nothing about Federal funding for the State public school system. I don't know where you got that idea about bigot judges!

Those Southern GOP small guv'mint legislators know how to bring home the bacon from DC to keep their seats in the House and Senate for all their small government talk.

Now if you still don't get the point why it was YOU that caused all the confusion then you're abusing your right to be stupid.

 

[TNHarley]

 

[Seawytch]

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?

I have a daughter and the answer is yes. My daughter has actually been in the restroom with transgendered women pre and post operative and I was never concerned for her safety.

Two of her best friends were molested by their mother's intimate partners though. My daughter is in much greater danger going on sleepovers in heterosexual households than she is peeing next to a trans person.

 

[Seawytch]

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

A guy walking into a women's restroom is still greeted with "WTF". A trans woman isn't.

17 states and over 200 localities. Find me instances where a guy walking into a restroom is not greeted with a "WTF". Find me statistics that show that these laws make women and girls less safe.

Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence Organizations Debunk 'Bathroom Predator Myth'

 

[jillian]

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

and they're going to get their butts kicked.

your obsession is amusing.

 

[jillian]

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?

I have a daughter and the answer is yes. My daughter has actually been in the restroom with transgendered women pre and post operative and I was never concerned for her safety.

Two of her best friends were molested by their mother's intimate partners though. My daughter is in much greater danger going on sleepovers in heterosexual households than she is peeing next to a trans person.

sadly, that's probably true. i'd wager most cases of sexual abuse are by the mother's boyfriend or husband who is unrelated to the child.

homophobes have a vivid fantasy life.

 

[TNHarley]

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

and they're going to get their butts kicked.

your obsession is amusing.

How are they going to "get their butts kicked", exactly?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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?

I have a daughter and the answer is yes. My daughter has actually been in the restroom with transgendered women pre and post operative and I was never concerned for her safety.

Two of her best friends were molested by their mother's intimate partners though. My daughter is in much greater danger going on sleepovers in heterosexual households than she is peeing next to a trans person.

LOL nice story

 

[JoeB131]

the Homophobes vow... "We will fight them in the bakeries, we will fight them in the flower shops, we will fight them photography studios, we will fight them in the restrooms, until that day when the world gives in to our sexual insecurities..."

 

[Seawytch]

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?

I have a daughter and the answer is yes. My daughter has actually been in the restroom with transgendered women pre and post operative and I was never concerned for her safety.

Two of her best friends were molested by their mother's intimate partners though. My daughter is in much greater danger going on sleepovers in heterosexual households than she is peeing next to a trans person.

sadly, that's probably true. i'd wager most cases of sexual abuse are by the mother's boyfriend or husband who is unrelated to the child.

homophobes have a vivid fantasy life.

It is true. Our daughters are in far greater danger from known males than from trans women in bathrooms. I live in a town of fewer than 1500 people and yet two of her best friends were molested, one by a stepfather and one by mom's boyfriend.

 

[TNHarley]

the Homophobes vow... "We will fight them in the bakeries, we will fight them in the flower shops, we will fight them photography studios, we will fight them in the restrooms, until that day when the world gives in to our sexual insecurities..."

Why do stupid people always correlate homos with trannies?