koshergrl
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2011
- 81,136
- 14,068
- 2,190
It interferes with their right to expose their genitals to unsuspecting women and children, dammit. How dare you try to deny them sexual gratification!FOR GAWD SAKES YOU DUMBFUCKSince 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!I am guessing you just cant explain how that Act is even relevantThat 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.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).![]()
HOW is a law making sexes use their proper sex designated bathrooms discriminatory?