NC has responded to the Feds

[daws101]

I STILL don't know how making people piss in their proper sex designated bathrooms is discrimination..

In actuality, the discrimination is in allowing SOME men into the women's restroom, but not others.

True, if this is the case, it would be an arbitrary exclussion

Nope.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

At the end of the day, NC will lose because of the stupid inclusion of using the gender on your bitch certificate in public bathrooms. IF they had limited the bill to privately owned restrooms and merely maintained that private businesses can do what they want in regards to toilet policy, they would have won.

Nope if those private businesses deal with the public they would not have won.
For that to work a business would have to be invitation only or a club of sometime.
Even then it wouldn't be a sure thing.

And this is why you stupid liberals are as big of assholes as the asshole conservatives. At no point will either one of you say "okay let's do what's fair for the most people" This issue is fucking stupid. If you go into a store and don't like their bathroom policy, no matter which way it is, go shop somewhere fucking else, no one owes you a bathroom of your choosing simply because they are in business.

And there's the rub.

Fair is subjective.
What the majority "thinks" is rarely fair to anyone but itself.

So you'd rather let the minority rule? LOL insane

They already do.
Next inane question.?

No they don't. Well okay maybe in practice they do, but in theory we are a Republic represented by the majority.

 

[TNHarley]

I STILL don't know how making people piss in their proper sex designated bathrooms is discrimination..

In actuality, the discrimination is in allowing SOME men into the women's restroom, but not others.

how does it do that?

 

[Pop23]

I STILL don't know how making people piss in their proper sex designated bathrooms is discrimination..

In actuality, the discrimination is in allowing SOME men into the women's restroom, but not others.

how does it do that?

The trans male is simalarily situated to the non trans male.

What the DOJ did by filing a civil rights law suit was declare that the State was discriminating by denying access to the Woman's restroom to individuals that are apparently "simalarily situated", the trans male.

Now, once the trans male is allowed access, and since the trans male is much closer to being simalarily situated to the non trans male, to deny access to the non trans male is discrimination based on an arbitrary rule. Thus illegal.

 

[TNHarley]

I STILL don't know how making people piss in their proper sex designated bathrooms is discrimination..

In actuality, the discrimination is in allowing SOME men into the women's restroom, but not others.

how does it do that?

The trans male is simalarily situated to the non trans male.

What the DOJ did by filing a civil rights law suit was declare that the State was discriminating by denying access to the Woman's restroom to individuals that are apparently "simalarily situated", the trans male.

Now, once the trans male is allowed access, and since the trans male is much closer to being simalarily situated to the non trans male, to deny access to the non trans male is discrimination based on an arbitrary rule. Thus illegal.

 

[Pop23]

I STILL don't know how making people piss in their proper sex designated bathrooms is discrimination..

In actuality, the discrimination is in allowing SOME men into the women's restroom, but not others.

how does it do that?

The trans male is simalarily situated to the non trans male.

What the DOJ did by filing a civil rights law suit was declare that the State was discriminating by denying access to the Woman's restroom to individuals that are apparently "simalarily situated", the trans male.

Now, once the trans male is allowed access, and since the trans male is much closer to being simalarily situated to the non trans male, to deny access to the non trans male is discrimination based on an arbitrary rule. Thus illegal.

That's how civil rights work.

And it can't stop at restrooms, it MUST also apply to showers/locker rooms

I know, right

 

[Pop23]

I STILL don't know how making people piss in their proper sex designated bathrooms is discrimination..

In actuality, the discrimination is in allowing SOME men into the women's restroom, but not others.

how does it do that?

The trans male is simalarily situated to the non trans male.

What the DOJ did by filing a civil rights law suit was declare that the State was discriminating by denying access to the Woman's restroom to individuals that are apparently "simalarily situated", the trans male.

Now, once the trans male is allowed access, and since the trans male is much closer to being simalarily situated to the non trans male, to deny access to the non trans male is discrimination based on an arbitrary rule. Thus illegal.

It's actually funny how this flips the argument that gay activists used to get same sex marriage bans overturned.

There argument was that gays were being excluded from marriage because it was an arbitrary rule.

They said that some hetro coupled couldn't or wouldn't have children, so a same sex couple was simalarily situated to the baron hetro couples

So if this is true, and the courts find that the trans male can be in the woman's restroom, then the male can claim he is "simalarly situated" to the trans male, and his exclussion is completely arbitrary

If non trans males are excluded by law, what the law would be saying is that a male with a dick is not simalar to another male with a dick.

If that's the case, then a same sex couple could not meet the simalarily situated criteria and states could, once again, ban Same Sex Marriage

Strange, but I've always said, progressives eat their own.

 

[daws101]

Nope if those private businesses deal with the public they would not have won.
For that to work a business would have to be invitation only or a club of sometime.
Even then it wouldn't be a sure thing.

And this is why you stupid liberals are as big of assholes as the asshole conservatives. At no point will either one of you say "okay let's do what's fair for the most people" This issue is fucking stupid. If you go into a store and don't like their bathroom policy, no matter which way it is, go shop somewhere fucking else, no one owes you a bathroom of your choosing simply because they are in business.

And there's the rub.

Fair is subjective.
What the majority "thinks" is rarely fair to anyone but itself.

So you'd rather let the minority rule? LOL insane

They already do.
Next inane question.?

No they don't. Well okay maybe in practice they do, but in theory we are a Republic represented by the majority.

Theory is only good if it works in practice.
Next?

 

[daws101]

I STILL don't know how making people piss in their proper sex designated bathrooms is discrimination..

In actuality, the discrimination is in allowing SOME men into the women's restroom, but not others.

how does it do that?

The trans male is simalarily situated to the non trans male.

What the DOJ did by filing a civil rights law suit was declare that the State was discriminating by denying access to the Woman's restroom to individuals that are apparently "simalarily situated", the trans male.

Now, once the trans male is allowed access, and since the trans male is much closer to being simalarily situated to the non trans male, to deny access to the non trans male is discrimination based on an arbitrary rule. Thus illegal.

Nope

 

[daws101]

I STILL don't know how making people piss in their proper sex designated bathrooms is discrimination..

In actuality, the discrimination is in allowing SOME men into the women's restroom, but not others.

how does it do that?

The trans male is simalarily situated to the non trans male.

What the DOJ did by filing a civil rights law suit was declare that the State was discriminating by denying access to the Woman's restroom to individuals that are apparently "simalarily situated", the trans male.

Now, once the trans male is allowed access, and since the trans male is much closer to being simalarily situated to the non trans male, to deny access to the non trans male is discrimination based on an arbitrary rule. Thus illegal.

It's actually funny how this flips the argument that gay activists used to get same sex marriage bans overturned.

There argument was that gays were being excluded from marriage because it was an arbitrary rule.

They said that some hetro coupled couldn't or wouldn't have children, so a same sex couple was simalarily situated to the baron hetro couples

So if this is true, and the courts find that the trans male can be in the woman's restroom, then the male can claim he is "simalarly situated" to the trans male, and his exclussion is completely arbitrary

If non trans males are excluded by law, what the law would be saying is that a male with a dick is not simalar to another male with a dick.

If that's the case, then a same sex couple could not meet the simalarily situated criteria and states could, once again, ban Same Sex Marriage

Strange, but I've always said, progressives eat their own.

Also false based on a false premise.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I STILL don't know how making people piss in their proper sex designated bathrooms is discrimination..

In actuality, the discrimination is in allowing SOME men into the women's restroom, but not others.

how does it do that?

Because a male is a male is a male, what they "identify" as , is irrelevant.

Here, let me prove it to you.

Could a 6'5" 270 lb black male get a nip and tuck, claim they identify as a woman and join the UCONN women's basketball team? Why , or why not?

 

[daws101]

I STILL don't know how making people piss in their proper sex designated bathrooms is discrimination..

In actuality, the discrimination is in allowing SOME men into the women's restroom, but not others.

how does it do that?

Because a male is a male is a male, what they "identify" as , is irrelevant.

Here, let me prove it to you.

Could a 6'5" 270 lb black male get a nip and tuck, claim they identify as a woman and join the UCONN women's basketball team? Why , or why not?[QUOTE ]


Bahahahaha!

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I STILL don't know how making people piss in their proper sex designated bathrooms is discrimination..

In actuality, the discrimination is in allowing SOME men into the women's restroom, but not others.

how does it do that?

Because a male is a male is a male, what they "identify" as , is irrelevant.

Here, let me prove it to you.

Could a 6'5" 270 lb black male get a nip and tuck, claim they identify as a woman and join the UCONN women's basketball team? Why , or why not?[/QUOTE ]
Also false the tempest in a tea pot is over gender identification not sex.
The "anti trans" among other things is to blur that line and that's what pop is attempting.
By misrepresentation and pseudo intellectual bullshit.

It's not false .

The entire argument of these people is "I identify as a female now" (of course some go the other way as well, but for ease of conversation we'll stick with one)

And the letter the DoJ sent NC says that these people should be able to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with.

Which is ridiculous , because in no other area in life are people allowed to say "I was born a male but now I identify as a female" and partake of things associated with a specific gender.

Take my example, for example. Would that player be allowed to join the women's team? Of course you know the answer is no, so you pretend it is irrelevant damn well knowing that it is very relevant.

 

[TNHarley]

I STILL don't know how making people piss in their proper sex designated bathrooms is discrimination..

In actuality, the discrimination is in allowing SOME men into the women's restroom, but not others.

how does it do that?

Because a male is a male is a male, what they "identify" as , is irrelevant.

Here, let me prove it to you.

Could a 6'5" 270 lb black male get a nip and tuck, claim they identify as a woman and join the UCONN women's basketball team? Why , or why not?

im so confused. lol
The way it took the bill was the male bathroom is for males, the female is for females. They even defined the terms to mean biology.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I STILL don't know how making people piss in their proper sex designated bathrooms is discrimination..

In actuality, the discrimination is in allowing SOME men into the women's restroom, but not others.

how does it do that?

Because a male is a male is a male, what they "identify" as , is irrelevant.

Here, let me prove it to you.

Could a 6'5" 270 lb black male get a nip and tuck, claim they identify as a woman and join the UCONN women's basketball team? Why , or why not?

im so confused. lol
The way it took the bill was the male bathroom is for males, the female is for females. They even defined the terms to mean biology.

you are correct, the NC bill says use the bathroom of the gender listed on your birth certificate. I was talking about the letter the DoJ sent NC .

 

[daws101]

I STILL don't know how making people piss in their proper sex designated bathrooms is discrimination..

In actuality, the discrimination is in allowing SOME men into the women's restroom, but not others.

how does it do that?

Because a male is a male is a male, what they "identify" as , is irrelevant.

Here, let me prove it to you.

Could a 6'5" 270 lb black male get a nip and tuck, claim they identify as a woman and join the UCONN women's basketball team? Why , or why not?[/QUOTE ]
Also false the tempest in a tea pot is over gender identification not sex.
The "anti trans" among other things is to blur that line and that's what pop is attempting.
By misrepresentation and pseudo intellectual bullshit.

It's not false .

The entire argument of these people is "I identify as a female now" (of course some go the other way as well, but for ease of conversation we'll stick with one)

And the letter the DoJ sent NC says that these people should be able to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with.

Which is ridiculous , because in no other area in life are people allowed to say "I was born a male but now I identify as a female" and partake of things associated with a specific gender.

Take my example, for example. Would that player be allowed to join the women's team? Of course you know the answer is no, so you pretend it is irrelevant damn well knowing that it is very relevant.

Actually that would depend on the team's attitude on the subject.
It's the same lame argument that people in pro baseball and golf use.
Your example fails the smell test.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

In actuality, the discrimination is in allowing SOME men into the women's restroom, but not others.

how does it do that?

Because a male is a male is a male, what they "identify" as , is irrelevant.

Here, let me prove it to you.

Could a 6'5" 270 lb black male get a nip and tuck, claim they identify as a woman and join the UCONN women's basketball team? Why , or why not?[/QUOTE ]
Also false the tempest in a tea pot is over gender identification not sex.
The "anti trans" among other things is to blur that line and that's what pop is attempting.
By misrepresentation and pseudo intellectual bullshit.

It's not false .

The entire argument of these people is "I identify as a female now" (of course some go the other way as well, but for ease of conversation we'll stick with one)

And the letter the DoJ sent NC says that these people should be able to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with.

Which is ridiculous , because in no other area in life are people allowed to say "I was born a male but now I identify as a female" and partake of things associated with a specific gender.

Take my example, for example. Would that player be allowed to join the women's team? Of course you know the answer is no, so you pretend it is irrelevant damn well knowing that it is very relevant.

Actually that would depend on the team's attitude on the subject.
It's the same lame argument that people in pro baseball and golf use.
Your example fails the smell test.

No it wouldn't depend on the team's attitude. Jesus Christ, every thread I see you in you post the dumbest shit ever.

Educate yourself man.

Here's the NCAA rule

– A transgender male student athlete who has a medical exception for testosterone hormone therapy may compete on a men’s team, but is no longer eligible to compete on a women’s team without changing the team status to a mixed team.


– A transgender female student athlete who has taken medication to suppress testosterone for a year may compete on a women’s team.


– Under the new policy, transgender student athletes who are not undergoing hormone therapy remain eligible to play on teams based on the gender of their birth sex and may socially transition by dressing and using the appropriate pronouns that match their gender identity.

NCAA’s New Rules Ensure Trans Athletes Won’t Play For The Wrong Team / Queerty


Don't even bother commenting on topics you refuse to educate yourself on.

 

[Pop23]

I STILL don't know how making people piss in their proper sex designated bathrooms is discrimination..

In actuality, the discrimination is in allowing SOME men into the women's restroom, but not others.

how does it do that?

Because a male is a male is a male, what they "identify" as , is irrelevant.

Here, let me prove it to you.

Could a 6'5" 270 lb black male get a nip and tuck, claim they identify as a woman and join the UCONN women's basketball team? Why , or why not?

im so confused. lol
The way it took the bill was the male bathroom is for males, the female is for females. They even defined the terms to mean biology.

Correct, it's done in a non arbitrary, therefor completely legal way.

If the DOJ forces a change, to meet the non arbitrary criteria, they can't just allow trans males in woman's restrooms, they must allow all men in.

 

[Seawytch]

Fair and unbalanced brought up government money, hack, not me. We know how you feel about PA laws. You think business owners should be able to put up these signs if they want to...

Of course businesses should be able to put up that sign and implement that policy in on their own property if they choose. However, Jim Crow laws were passed because they didn't want to do it

I think if you want to get rid of PA laws, businesses should have to inform the consumer up front who they won't serve.

Fair trade, yeah?

Yes, it is. In fact that's my position. It's like privacy policies. One of the few government programs that ever worked. Government didn't force a particular privacy policy, they only required businesses to have one and post it for consumers. Government only held them to their own policy.

I think that's the perfect solution for discrimination. Businesses should have a policy, and be held to the standard of their own policy. That way customers, employees, vendors, everyone can make an informed decision if they want to deal with that business or not

Fantastic! Now git er done. Oh that's right..,you don't actually DO anything about PA laws beyond decrying the unfairness of them on Internet message boards.

Such a rebel!

How do YOU know what anyone is doing about anything? You say the same stupid shit everytime PA laws are mentioned.

Because he's told us he doesn't actually DO anything about it. He considers whining about it on a message board as "doing" something.

Mostly because you know we are right.

Right about what, getting rid of PA laws? I don't know Queen Elizabeth, what do "we" think of them? I think that as long as I am required to serve a Christian in all 50 states, he should be required to serve me or that I should not have to serve him.

Here's a fun fact for you federal PA laws don't grant your perversion the same protection against discrimination as people have for the color of your skin. So why exactly do you defend a law that allows discrimination against your perversion? LOL

Yet. Title II does not include sexual orientation or gender identity yet. Which one do you think is more likely, getting rid of all of them or adding those? (answer in link)

It's funny how like once a month you become just an ugly bitch of a person. Then after a few days you go back to normal. What do you suppose causes that?

Facts make one "bitchy"? Or was it stealing your Queen line that has you feeling vengeful?

 

[Ravi]

I STILL don't know how making people piss in their proper sex designated bathrooms is discrimination..

In actuality, the discrimination is in allowing SOME men into the women's restroom, but not others.

how does it do that?

Because a male is a male is a male, what they "identify" as , is irrelevant.

Here, let me prove it to you.

Could a 6'5" 270 lb black male get a nip and tuck, claim they identify as a woman and join the UCONN women's basketball team? Why , or why not?

im so confused. lol
The way it took the bill was the male bathroom is for males, the female is for females. They even defined the terms to mean biology.

Correct, it's done in a non arbitrary, therefor completely legal way.

If the DOJ forces a change, to meet the non arbitrary criteria, they can't just allow trans males in woman's restrooms, they must allow all men in.

Great! We will have unisex restrooms. It works in Europe. Then we can put all this hysteria behind us.