They had better check the “johns” at the SCOTUS building!!!
When I was a child growing up in The South, during the Segregation Era, Most places had three restrooms and some even four, for whites and ‘coloreds’. I thought it was stupid, even as a child
I could see it was terribly expensive to build these extra facilities.
Now, it looks like history is repeating itself....................
This bathroom crap is about one thing: forcing everyone to accept the leftist dogma about “gender” being a continuum, and not binary.
One slit trench accepts all. Geeeez, one standard enclosed bathroom with a sink and mirror will meet any requirement.
Why does this have to be a BFD?
If You have a groin pistol that you were born with you're a Male.
If you were born with a pistol holster for that groin pistol, you're Female.
GOT IT!!!!
Anthony Kennedy preparing to throw the culture under the bus one more time, eh?
This shouldn’t be anywhere near SCOTUS. It is a civility, morals and common decency issue.
”… to the Obama administration’s reinterpretation of Title IX law [emphasis added] ..."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Patriots are reminded that they need to get into the following habit. Every time we hear of a federal law, Title IX in this example, we need to find if the states had expressly constitutionally granted corrupt Congress the specific power to make the law in the first place.
And given that Title IX established sex-related protections it’s easy to find that Title IX is unconstitutional, imo, for the following simple reason.
Since the only sex-related protection that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect deals only with voting rights, evidenced by the 19th Amendment, and politically correct transgender bathroom rights are clealy outside the scope of voting rights, Title IX is unconstitutional imo.
Unfortunately, the misguided, institutionally-indoctrinated Supreme Court has been wrongly “amending” new politically correct rights to the Constitution from the bench with a tortured interpretion of the 9th Amendment, the so-called “right” to have an abortion a good example. But such “rights” are based on stolen state powers.
After all, activist justices are ignoring that there is nothing stopping the states from amending the Constitution with new express rights at their pleasure.
Consider that the congressional record shows that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, had clarified that when the states ratified the 14th Amendment, they obligate themselves to respect only those rights that they amend the Constitution to expressly protect.
But when the post-FDR era Court wrongy establishes new rights from the bench, it ignores the following. A previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that interpretations of the Constitution are not to be based on interpolations.
Here are supporting excerpts from the congressional record and Supreme Court case opinion.
“Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” —John Bingham, Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)
“3. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition.” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.
Again, the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect having an abortion as a right, or establish sex-related protections outside the scope of voting rights. So federal laws protecting such politically correct rights are unconstitutional imo, such “rights” wrongly based on stolen state powers.
Sadly, all that the G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board case is doing is giving state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices another opportunity to “amend” new, politically correct rights to the Constitution from the bench, just as they did with abortion and gay “marriage."
No guys in the ladies’ room!