Trans

Obama to Issue Demand That Schools Accommodate Transgender Bathroom Access

Possible threat of legal action?

|

bathrooms
Credit: Sam Howzit / photo on flickr

It seems as though President Barack Obama is bound and determined to render even the gay- and transgender-friendliest of libertarians horrified by his administration's lack of interest in limits on executive power.

Tonight The New York Times is reporting that the president is sending out a "decree" Friday telling all public school districts across the country to accept transgender students' choices to use whichever bathroom they are comfortable with. It seems unlikely the president is literally calling it a "decree," but that seems to be an apt description of how it looks. And while the letter is not a legally binding document in any way, the Times notes: "Schools that do not abide by the Obama administration's interpretation of the law could face lawsuits or a loss of federal aid." (Note: While I was in the process of writing this post, the Times story was altered to remove references to "decrees." But I'm keeping them here to indicate how it was initially presented.)

While I support a call for public schools (and government as a whole) to be required to accept and provide appropriate accommodations for transgender citizens out of respect for individual liberty, this is not, by any means, a settled legal matter.  

There have been federal court rulings that have determined that discrimination against transgender people can be considered as a form of sex discrimination in violation of federal civil rights laws, but we are a long way from a final word here. The Department of Justice and North Carolina are suing each other over North Carolina's law forbidding transgender people using bathrooms that correspond to the opposite gender in schools and government buildings. It seems very likely that this whole fight is going to end up before the Supreme Court eventually, assuming Congress doesn't settle the matter with clarifying legislation first.

But that's not where things stand right now. As a comparison, imagine that the administration—after a couple of the early limited federal court rulings affirming that states should be required to legally recognize same-sex marriage—sent out a "decree" to all states and municipalities that they should all do the same now or risk punishment. Many people would be appalled at the lack of respect for the legal process by the administration, and it would have nothing to do with whether they supported same-sex marriage recognition.

And there's more:

As soon as a child's parent or legal guardian asserts a gender identity for the student that "differs from previous representations or records," the letter says, the child is to be treated accordingly — without any requirement for a medical diagnosis or birth certificate to be produced. It says that schools may — but are not required to — provide other restroom and locker room options to students who seek "additional privacy" for whatever reason.

Attached to the letter, the Obama administration will include a 25-page document describing "emerging practices" that are already in place in many schools around the country. Those included installing privacy curtains or allowing students to change in bathroom stalls.

In a blog post accompanying the letter, senior officials at the Justice and Education departments said they issued it in response to a growing chorus of inquiries from educators, parents and students across the country, including from the National Association of Secondary School Principals, to clarify their obligations and "best practices" for the treatment of transgender students.

I find nothing objectionable about providing such guidance, but it's extremely unseemly to start stomping around with threats. Let the court cases play out and do it the right way. Read the full story here. And note that the White House said today they would not attempt to deny federal funding to North Carolina during their legal fight over their bathroom law. How magnanimous of them.

Advertisement

NEXT: No, the student body at George Mason University's law school is not 'conservative'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. New York Times letting its mask slip and using the word decree to refer to their King is more interesting or surprising here.

    At what point is Nick just a useful idiot?

    1. It would appear they’ve already tossed the “decree” language down the memory hole.

      1. ‘Decree’ wasn’t the word they were looking for anyway. I think Obama doesn’t merely fancy himself a king and nobody else fancies him a king either. ‘Bull’, I believe, would be the mot juste.

        1. In every sense.

  2. “That’s a nice shitter you got there. Would be a shame if something where to happen to it.”

  3. Oh, and how does defunding schools that don’t comply helping transgendered students? Isn’t public education a natural human right, per the left?

  4. It’s almost like Obama wants Trump to win the battleground states.

  5. Attached to the letter, the Obama administration will include a 25-page document describing “emerging practices”

    That’s a lot of masturbation euphemisms.

  6. It seems as though President Barack Obama is bound and determined to render even the gay- and transgender-friendliest of libertarians horrified by his administration’s lack of interest in limits on executive power.

    Except Gillespie and Dalmia like it when Obama uses a decree to get something they want?

    1. Scott isn’t horrified. He says up front he expects schools to do this. He just wants a court decision to require it. He would rather see his oppression done by robed overlords.

      1. The superintendent of the Fort Worth (Texas) ISD is on board with Obama’s decree.

        If edumacation bureaucrats in the buckle of the Bible Belt feel like they can come out of the closet on this, you can bet that it’s going to become widespread.

        To me, this is just another argument for the separation of school and state.

        1. I thought Ft. Worth and Dallas were both Democrat cities. I know for a fact Dallas is, it’s possible Ft. Worth isn’t but somehow I doubt it’s as red as the surrounding areas that aren’t DFW.

  7. So basically you support the action but just want the courts to do your dirty work, right Scott? Why are transgendered owed accommodation but those who don’t want to shower with them not?

    The whole thing is insane. And worse, it is just creating another designated victim group that will give the progs another club to opress the shit out of their enemies.

    Why can’t someone object to this Scott? Why don’t you care about their rights and assume the rights of your favored group must take precedence? Is there any accommodation that the gay and whatever the fuck else it calls itself today can demand from the government that you won’t support?

    1. You are off the fucking deep end.

      Show me on the doll where Scott touched you.

      1. No I am not. Why do we owe these people accommodation in public. Schools that people are forced to pay for and whose children are forced to attend? Why do the tranny’s rights trump everyone who objects?

        Scott doesn’t explain that because he doesn’t feel it is necessary. To Scott it is self evident they are a superior class and entitled to accommodation where everyone else is not. That is all that is going on here. Scott is playing brutal identity politics.

        And so are you because libertarians love gays and trannies almost as much as they love Muslims and pot.

          1. Why? What am I saying that is wrong? Can you explain that?

            I get it. This cause is fashionable and you like many people on here will support any cause that is fashionable because you are generally gutless and it relives you of the burden of thinking. Well, that is not what I do.

            So, if you want to do some thinking rather than emoting, please do. Otherwise, emote or pose somewhere else.

            You are cool and tolerant playa. Everyone knows that.

            1. Oooo! Ooooo! I want to be cool too!

              1. You are JW. Its the Trannies. They are like gays only cooler. Your prog friends are going to really approve of your position on this.

                1. Aw man, I get the trannies? They aren’t as fun as Teh Gheys.

                  I can at least go shoe shopping with my GBF. Trannies are all about clothes.

            2. You accuse Scott of saying things he never said. You’ve been doing it for years.

              Why? Because you’re a bigot. You think all the silly faggots have to think exactly alike.

              I have no issue with your opinions on this matter. I take issue with the fact that you’re a transparent bigot.

              1. cWhat am I accusing Scott of saying that he didn’t say? He says in the article he wants accommodation in schools. He also says he wants the courts to resolve that.

                So how does that not mean he wants the courts to do his dirty work? How can he really claim to object to this when he admits upfront he wants the courts to do the exact same thing?

                Scott is a phony. He doesn’t care about anyone’s rights but his own groups. That is the truth. If you don’t like it tough shit. And I don’t say that because he is gay. There are plenty of gays who are not phonies and are not like Scott. But I unlike you am not going to pretend he is not because “oh my God he is gay and we couldn’t say anything against him”

                If anyone is a bigot it is you. You are the one seems incapable of judging Scott as human being. To you he is just a prop for you to demonstrate how tolerant and wonderful you are.

                1. If anyone is a bigot it is you.

                  Fucking.

                  Gold.

                  Really, John. Do go on.

                  1. It is JW. I think posing and breaking all of your principles on these issues is pathetic. Again, gays are not human beings to you people. They are props for you to use to get your prog friends to like you. You only scream and whine about my saying that because it hits such a nerve. The truth usually does that you virtue signaling bastard.

                    1. Already need more wax for that cross, John?

                    2. Why am I on the cross? I am not affected by this. Its annoying that so many people are posers and don’t really believe what they claim but that doesn’t harm me. I enjoy pointing it out and watching them scream and whine about it. But that is more of a vice of mine. It shouldn’t enjoy calling people like Playa and JW out as much as I do. It kind of makes me a mean person to be honest. But we all have our vices.

                    3. John
                      Why am I on the cross?

                      Could it be because you’re a trash moith who insults everybody.
                      And now a whiner?

                    4. Again, gays are not human beings to you people. They are props for you to use to get your prog friends to like you.

                      Tell me more. Please. I’m on pins and needles, purchased from a shop that persecutes Christians..

                2. I’m bookmarking this.

                  As far as crazy goes, this is in the top 10.

                  1. Mark it playa. Its true. Its not like we need a reminder of you and your ilk enjoying the Progs screwing people. You do it all the time. I guess book marking this is as good as anything.

                    Do you ever want to think playa? Does it ever get old having the same tiresome opinions and spending your whole life trying to fit in with Prog culture? I would think it would. But, I have a pair of balls and you and JW don’t. Maybe you are happy being that way. Good for you.

                    1. I told you that John wouldn’t want to be in the Castrato Club with us.

                      Stupid balls, hanging there, ruining our fun.

                    2. You were likely born a coward who wanted to fit in JW. Its hard to fight your nature.

                    3. You only hit me because I deserve it. AMIRITE?

        1. Let’s make this moot, then. Make an end run.

          Support school choice and the repeal of compulsory attendance laws. If the public schools cannot solve bathroom issues without offending large swathes of their customers, give the customers the opportunity to walk elsewhere.

          Common ground.

          1. I would love to. Why don’t we give every tranny a fucking unicorn too.

            That isn’t going to happen. So how about we live in the real world and not enable to Progs to have another weapon to fuck people with? How about that?

            1. Or, you know, you could not give a fuck about hoo’ uses hoo’s bathroom.

              It’s really fascinating to see what subject the CJW’s will latch onto like a tick and not let go of, no matter what.

              1. That is great you don’t JW. But how about you shut the fuck up and stop cheering on the Progs screwing the people who do?

                I get it. You are fucking awesome and the people who object to this evil, intolerent bigots. You have established your street creed. You don’t care. That is fucking great. Now why does your not caring mean it is okay to fuck over the people who do? Do people only have rights in so far as they agree or care about things you deem appropriate? Is that how it works?

                How about you grow a fucking pair of balls and stand up for someone’s rights even though they might offend your delicate sensibilities?

                1. The nerve of me, not giving a fuck. I’m a terrible, terrible person with my lack of screeching outrage over somebody poking the status quo with a stick. No, you CJWs aren’t anything like the SJWs.

                  Is this where you say “good day” to me?

                  1. Yeah JW, you don’t give a fuck about people you don’t like getting screwed. We already knew that. Its great to see someone with principles.

                    1. GIVE ME THE MEN’S ROOM OR GIVE ME DEATH.

                    2. Yes JW. You hate these people and are happy to see them get fucked. Your way of showing that is to say “how could they care about this” as if that should matter. Again, if you don’t approve of what someone thinks or think their objection is trivial, you are happy to see the progs fuck them. You are just that kind of guy.

                      Have we mentioned how courageous you are?

                    3. Have we mentioned how courageous you are?

                      Why…NO. [bats his eyes at John]

                    4. It takes a lot of guts to side with the SJWs and the Trannies on this issue. I real iconoclast JW.

                    5. Stop it! I’m blushing.

                    6. You should JW. ITs not like thinking is a very good role for you. I think posing and virtue signaling is about as much as anyone could expect from you.

                    7. ITs not like thinking is a very good role for you.

                      Oh, John. This is why we have you! Tee-hee!

                    8. You are not that bright JW. So you probably are better off just siding with whatever is fashionable.

                    9. Whatever you say, sugar pie.

                2. I get it.

                  Umm, no.

                  You are fucking awesome and the people who object to this evil, intolerent bigots.

                  You’re a hate-spewing bigot, regardless of anyone else’s awesomeness. That’s how objective reality works.

                  If they had any brains they wouldn’t create a stage for you.

            2. Funny. That post started with an extra sentence about how I expected you’d just snap back against the idea of common ground. I deleted it before posting because it was too fucking cynical.

              I’m doing my damnedest here to find some point we can agree on. Meet me halfway, fucker.

              1. I agree with you.. I am just telling you it won’t happen. Get rid of the accommodation laws and give school choice and come and talk to me. I am all for it.

                1. John, don’t ever stop commenting here. It would be so boring without you.

              2. I expected you’d just snap back against the idea of common ground.

                You want to use transgender bathrooms to promote school choice repeal mandatory attendance laws, To establish common ground with rightwing wackos?

                Maybe if we added Ron Paul’s wacky “Repeal the income tax and replace it with nothing?”
                If you’re having a hissy fit about angering the “customers” of public schools, would you have stood with Orval Faubus (and Ron Paul) against school integration in 1957?

                Since when are individual liberties subject to a majority approval, as claimed by you and your fellow travelers on the left?

          2. Separation of school and state is the only way to go with this.

            Parents of the special snowflakes who identify as one of the many genders that are not consistent with their natural binary biological assignment can find an educational institution that makes accommodation to xer special needs. Or, alternatively, perhaps a psychiatric institution that can treat xer dysfunction.

            Parents of normal children can find a normal school that treats students normally.

            1. Parents of normal children can find a normal school that treats students normally.

              FUCK THE CONSTITUTION. FEED TRANSGENDERS INTO WOOD CHIPPERS,

              alternatively, perhaps a psychiatric institution

              Yep. Woodchipper-level hatred and bigotry.

    2. What right, specifically, is being denied to you here John? I don’t necessarily give a shit about this subject one way or the other, but I’d love to hear how you’re being oppressed by this type of thing. You don’t want to associate with trannies in the locker room? Fair enough I suppose, but what do you hold against unisex facilities? Is that that there ‘rape culture’ you’re scared of?

      If they simply made every public bathroom Unisex would it mollify you, or are you one of those conservative ‘Christians’ that want to see ‘sinner’ behavior punished by the state?

      Lets flip this around, shall we? Why is it mandated that each gender use a seprate-but-equal bathroom in the first place? And lets be honest, John, you don’t mind that mandate. You just don’t like the newest mandate because you’re a socon at heart.

      1. Why is it mandated that each gender use a separate-but-equal bathroom in the first place

        It’s not mandated. College dorms have had unisex bathrooms for several years. Yes, some male pervert can hear a woman’s pee hitting the water behind a locked door. (gasp). And vice versa.

        I’ve seen small office buildings with unisex bathrooms. A current medical specialist.

        We may finally see the extreme socons finish destroying themselves. They are so easily manipulated, largely because they’re so hysterically ignorant, now on open display.

  8. So what does Ilya Somin have to say?

  9. “Decree” got changed to “sweeping directive”

    1. Sounds more “janitorial” than “presidential”.

  10. There have been federal court rulings that have determined that discrimination against transgender people can be considered as a form of sex discrimination in violation of federal civil rights laws, but we are a long way from a final word here.

    So Shackford supports judicial activism when it gets him what he wants. What a surprise.

    1. He fucking loves it. I would rather see it done by Obama than by the courts. At least people get to vote on the next President. Really, that is what Scott is pissed about. Obama is jumping the gun and not letting the courts shove this down people’s throat. He wants his supreme court decision so he can call anyone who objects a segregationist on the moral level of Bull Conner.

      Scott rubs his china and pretends to feel bad for the odd baker that gets sued out of business but ultimately Scott cares about gays. Everyone else is really of very little concern to him.

      1. “Rubs his china”

        Grade A Johno euphemism

        1. that supposed to be chin. But rubs his china works so much better. Scott really pisses me off on these issues.

          1. Oh c’mon John, you can say it because we all already know it – Shackford gets you all hot and bothered, doesn’t he?

            1. Sure. But just because I would fuck his brains out doesn’t mean he isn’t full of shit and completely lacking principles.

              So what if I want to fuck Scott. You have a problem with that Jerry?

              1. Stop lying, John. You don’t want to fuck Scott. You just want to put a wig on him and spoon him.

      2. It is kind of opposite of libertarian to advocate a top-down, one-size-fits-all national edict from the king, or from the robed justices on his Supreme Court, to dictate restroom policy to the entire nation.

        1. Indeed, and what’s more one-size-fits-all than Unisex?

          It’s not the goal that’s the problem it’s the execution for me, but all the frothing at the mouth over this issue is amusing. I mean, I’m all for repeal of the Civil Rights Act, but that’s because I understand that the rights in the Bill of Rights apply to everyone regardless of color or creed s long as they’re a citizen (since the law of the U.S. only applies to the U.S.). The same goes for bathrooms, I guess, but really I can’t find the energy necessary to give a shit about something so minor as who’s using the bathroom.

          Especially since I’ve used the womens restroom plenty of times when the mens room was occupied and so far I’ve never even been fined let alone arrested for it. It’s a non-issue for me, and this is coming from someone that thinks ‘transgender’ is a mental disorder. I don’t care where they pee, I’d be more concerned over drastic and unnecessary surgery and the public dollars spent on it. Otherwise it’s none of my damn business.

  11. So do libertarians support Obamacare and Kelo? The courts had the final word…

  12. Please remind me again where the FedGov has the authority to be involved in this subject, at all?

    I know, I know….I just play this little game to remind myself of what it was like when people used to play by “rules” and “laws” and “limits” and stuff.

    1. They don’t. But once the states started taking the fed’s money, the feds got the power to do a lot of things

      1. There are 31 Republican governors. Does even one of them have the guts to refuse this decree, and tell the feds to take their money and stuff it up their ass? The feds only account for around 8% of education funding, and most of that is restricted to special education.

        Take back their schools, or keep feeding the beast – even as it devours their children and shits out SJWs? Wanna bet what those principled, small-government conservatives will do? 😉

        1. I would hope so. But none of them have any balls. They are all terrified of being called intolerant.

  13. From the NYT article: “No student should ever have to go through the experience of feeling unwelcome at school or on a college campus,” John B. King Jr., the secretary of the Department of Education, says in a statement to the Times. “We must ensure that our young people know that whoever they are or wherever they come from, they have the opportunity to get a great education in an environment free from discrimination, harassment and violence.”

    An environment so free of harassment and violence that they force you to go there.

    1. What about person who doesn’t want to shower with the tranny of the opposite sex? I guess they can go fuck themselves.

      1. What about a person who doesn’t want to shower with others of the same sex? Or with homosexuals? Or with anyone else at all?

        1. Exactly. What about them? You can’t accommodate everyone. So you accommodate as many people as possible and leave it up to the individual schools and school boards and the voters? If individual schools want to do this and their parents are okay with it, I am fine with that. It is their school. But Scott is not fine with it. He thinks the courts should step in and give the preferences of the tranny’s priority over everyone else. And that is bullshit. That is just Scott saying only gays and Trannies should have rights.

          1. Government safe space bathrooms aren’t a right.

            1. No they are not. So why do you think they should be for Trannies. Why can’t the trannies be told to suck it up and use the bathroom of their sex? You don’t have answer to that. All you know is you like trannies and hate anyone who doesn’t.

              It is not about safe spaces. It is about people’s ability to have some input into how their schools run. If the trannies can convince the parents to be okay with it and the by extension the school board, good for them. If they can’t, then too bad. The world doesn’t owe them acceptance or a safe space.

              Why do you think it does?

              1. No they are not. So why do you think they should be for coloreds. Why can’t the coloreds be told to suck it up and use the bathroom of their race? You don’t have answer to that. All you know is you like coloreds and hate anyone who doesn’t.

                It is not about safe spaces. It is about people’s ability to have some input into how their schools run. If the coloreds can convince the parents to be okay with it and the by extension the school board, good for them. If they can’t, then too bad. The world doesn’t owe them acceptance or a safe space.

                Why do you think it does?

                1. Again. Not wanting to shower next to someone of the opposite sex is not the same as racism. I being straight don’t like to screw men. IS that the same as being a racist who won’t fuck black women no matter how attractive? According your dumb ass logic it is.

                  1. John apparently thinks that the ‘separate but equal’ bathroom mandate is just fine, but when you mandate unisex it’s bad. Lets not pretend that the status quo isn’t also a mandated thing from the top down.

                    John will use the argument that a district should have the right to choose right up until they choose the option he doesn’t like. Tell me John, where are all your posts regarding this issue before they mandated equal use, hmm?

                2. It makes sense because pretending to be a different sex than you actually are is exactly like skin color.

                  Man, I’m glad you posted this excellent analogy. It is very incisive. An original, fresh, and completely novel take on a complex issue. Good job.

    2. No student should ever have to go through the experience of feeling unwelcome at school or on a college campus

      Utopia, here we come!!

      Fuck off

    3. discrimination, harassment and violence.”

      Do we have a plague of straight-on-transgender bathroom violence I haven’t heard about?

      1. I miss the old days, when the unwritten rule of “Shut the fuck up, look straight ahead, do your business, then leave” governed public restrooms.

      2. It’s in the hopper right behind stranger danger and sex trafficking but I’m sure we’ll begin to see stories about this “epidemic” soon.

    1. Wait…they printed that shit in Playboy? Erotica for SJW’s?

      1. Well, they’re not printing naked women anymore, so I’ve heard.

    2. Vomit.

    3. Yes, this is a classic image of domestic violence. Every time I turn on cops, some dude in a wife-beater has a Bud Light in one hand and a ping pong paddle in the other, scented candles flickering, and his woman bent over his knee, panties gently pulled down to her knees, cooing embarrassingly and apologizing to her master as he disciplines her.

  14. No, no, this bathroom is only for Caesar to use!

  15. So is this going to play out like gay marriage? Rather than repealing laws that people supposedly oppose just have the courts overturn them and the libertarians who claimed that they never wanted to make sex-segregated bathrooms and change-rooms illegal will be shocked that it will cause them to become illegal and claim that they never intended it to happen while claiming anybody who supports them is a bigot?

    1. I’m not sure I follow what you’re saying. Are you saying that marriage should have been repealed as congressional law, or what? Is ‘straight’ marriage now illegal?

      What is your point here?

  16. Also when SCOTUS overturns CU and Heller will Shackford claim that SCOTUS has had the final word?

  17. People certainly do like to use schools for their social engineering.

    I have no answer for our transgendered peeps using which water closet, but I do have an answer for them threatening to withhold federal funds. That is to stop letting them take so much of your money that they can successfully use holding onto it as a compliance tool against you.

    1. People certainly do like to use schools for their social engineering.

      Um because the whole purpose of public schools is public engineering? Originally it was to save the kids from Popery and to ensure proper nationalism. In France for example it was to make sure the peasants supported the Republic and not the Monarchists or the Bonapartists. In Germany it was too make sure the kids were proper Prussians…

    2. The states can also fully embrace school choice so that parents can, if they so choose, send their kids to a school that has a bathroom policy they want, among other things.

      1. That will work for a while, until the public accommodation laws demand they change or lose their tax status. And sadly most places don’t have school choice.

        1. Ooooo, John, you almost undid your past year of pants-shitting over the homocaust.

          You said the P-A words. These are holy words. You may not speak them.

          I now return you to your regularly scheduled frothing.

          1. Yes I know. We can’t say those words. We have to pretend the Libertarian unicorn is going to come and repeal them and the foreseeable consequences of this are not real and somehow libertarians are not responsible for them. Everyone else is responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their position but not Libertarians, because they mean well and GAYZ!!

            I have more respect for the Progs than I do you. At least they are honest about what they are doing. You want the same things they do but are too dishonest to admit it.

            1. This is awesome. Really, it’s just solid entertainment watching you lose more and more of you mind over trivial topics. The punctuality of how you lash out at anyone with the temerity to not care about the same pointless things you care about is atomic clock level stuff. It’s more predictable than an episode of House.

              I’m wondering if we can finally push you over that last, final edge. You’re *this* close to your own Falling Down moment.

              1. Yes JW, you love to see people you don’t like get a boot shoved on their face. That is right. This is a trivial topic. You hate the people harmed by it so it is trivial.

                Thanks for confirming exactly what I am saying. And you are the one going over the edge. Being a total hypocrite and being called on it tends to do that.

                Come one now, tell us how trivial this is. Let you happiness show. People you hate are getting fucked here. Isn’t that great? My God, why should you care about that?

                1. Yes JW, you love to see people you don’t like get a boot shoved on their face.

                  Boots? Kinky…..

                  Use the shower that you’re most comfortable with, as you’re being marched in it.

                  1. Yes JW. force people to shower with Trannies. God damn you think they should and that is all that matters. They don’t get a vote in their own lives. Their opinions don’t matter, only the Tranny’s matter.

                    That is all you are saying. Yet, I am the one who is losing it. Whatever you tell yourself.

                    Again, I am sure your prog friends like you. Don’t worry.

                    1. Yes JW. force people to shower with Trannies.

                      Oh my.

                      You really need a manly hug.

                    2. Did you not read the article? They are going to do just that. Children no less. But you think that is trivial and they have no right to object. So, I guess it is just great then.

                      How courageous and libertarian of you to expect other people to suffer for your principles.

                    3. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!

                    4. BEING GROPED BY TRANNIES!!!!!!

              2. Jeez, slam on House outta nowhere.

    3. It’s called blackmail.

  18. Why is that in this case SCOTUS is the final word for Shackford and Gillespie? Incredibly disingenuous.

  19. Is this part of the cultural war winning Gillespie was talking about?

  20. So Gillespie want to “end the Culture War”. I’m not sure how letting the courts legislative bathrooms will “end” the culture wars. And what is in it for the SJWs? Let them have weed, Mexicans, ass-sex. trannies and abortion but not gunz? Why would they agree to that? Why not keep fighting? It’s not like Reason has much leverage over them unless you think repeating “Libertarian Moment!” is leverage.

  21. Gillespie also claims that Libertarians have “won the culture wars”. So how come the MSM is filled with jabs at libertarians, guns and businesspeople?

  22. Why should acknowlege the right of the ill-mannered to render others unconfortable by intruding into spaces that epitomize the right to be left alone?

    1. Why should acknowlege the right of the ill-mannered to render others unconfortable….

      If that isn’t satire, I’m going to sigh very deeply.

      1. Trannies are special. Sigh Deep sigh

        1. If you say so. Far be it from me to tell you what to think about trannies.

          1. You are the one who thinks their tastes should take precedent over everyone else’ tastes. I assume you thought they were special. If they are not, why do you think they deserve special treatment?

            1. Are you high?

              1. Are you? Do you not understand the term “zero sum game”? If you are going to say the tranny who feels uncomfortable using the bathroom of his sex gets to use the other, then you necessarily are going to say the people who are made uncomfortable by that are going to have to go get bent. Both parties can’t win. Someone’s preference has to be forced on everyone else. And you are telling me it should be the tranny who wins out. Why? Because they are special I guess.

                Are you Frank level fucking stupid or do you understand that? You are not bright but I hold out hope that you might be smarter than Frank.

                1. And just exactly where in the flaming FUCK did you get all THAT from…

                  “If that isn’t satire, I’m going to sigh very deeply.”

                  Are you Frank level fucking stupid…

                  Ah. And there it is.

                  You’re going back on ignore. You’re going to stroke out one of these nights, and I don’t want that on my conscience.

                  1. It’s going to happen anyway. All of this projection…. There’s something else going on.

                    1. What is going on is you are a fucking moron poser playa. that is what is going on. I would like to think you will some day get smarter, but lets be honest. That is not likely to happen.

                  2. Who cares Hamster?

                    1. Be honest, John, how many times in your life have you uttered the sentence ‘Who cares, Hamster”?

                    2. +1 Gerbil Fest ’97 T-shirt

  23. So again if we are on the cusp of the libertarian moment then how come there aren’t any libertarians in city Council of places like DC, Boston, Philadelphia, NYC, LA, SF, Portland, Seattle, Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, Austin, St. Louis, Las Vegas, Santa Fe, Denver etc.?

  24. OK, so Shackford thinks the US Supreme Court should resolve this question the way it resolved gay marriage – that is, by rewriting the law in favor of sexual eccentrics, and affixing the brand of infamy on anyone who has a problem with that.

    But until the Supremes issue their decree, Shackford generously doesn’t think Obama should rush things.

    It’s either illegal discrimination or it’s not. If it’s illegal discrimination, then it would be Obama’s *duty* to do whatever he can to stop it.

    So Shackford is going to criticize Obama for allowing egregious, evil discrimination, the equivalent of Jim Crow, to persist for a couple of years until the Supreme Court can rule. An in the interim, trans youth of color will continue to be oppressed by the blah blah blah.

    Screw that, and screw the idea that Congress was writing a charter of privileges for sexual eccentrics in 1964.

    1. Maybe a boy who thinks he’s a girl, or vice versa, can claim to be mentally disabled and seek reasonable accommodation for their disability, that way we’d at least be discussing a real law, not some made-up law pulled out of judges’ and administrators’ butts.

      But even with the disability laws, I don’t see how a reasonable accommodation of a deluded person means trampling on the privacy of others in order to humor that delusion.

      1. What if some kid brings a parental note that he believes his clothes are choking him, so he wants to be able to attend class naked?

        Or that he’s made of glass, so he wants other students to stay ten feet away from him so he doesn’t panic about being broken into pieces?

        1. Excellent.

    2. That is exactly what Scott wants. As I said above, Scott is all about gay rights and gay rights only. He is okay with the rest of us having rights but only if it doesn’t interfere with gay rights. It is fucking disgraceful.

      1. Why don’t you just go be a bigoted piece of shit elsewhere? If you are so tired of libertarians holding libertarian positions why do you keep coming back here? Did you fall in love with a transgender or something and decide to take it out on everyone by shitting all over the place?

        1. I don’t care what you are tired of. And its not a bigot to call Scott out for what he is. Why does he think the Tranny’s feelings and preferences should get priority over the preferences of others? Both can’t win. Its a zero sum game. So who wins, the tranny or the person who doens’t want to shower with them?

          Scott says the tranny. Why? Because those are the only people Scott cares about. That is why. And since when is it Libertarian to tell people who their kids have to shower with?

          You are not a Libertarian. How can you call yourself a libertarian when you think Trannies and gays have special rights other people don’t have? I come on here becaue my weakness is calling hypocrites like you out on it. I just can’t help but enjoy it.

          1. If you are so tired of

            I don’t care what you are tired of.

            lol

            And its not a bigot to call Scott out for what he is.

            lol

            And since when is it Libertarian to tell people who their kids have to shower with?

            lol, you are the one wanting the government to force inmates students into certain showers. I don’t think there should be government showers at all.

            How can you call yourself a libertarian when you think Trannies and gays have special rights other people don’t have?

            lol, you are the one who thinks that people have a RIGHT to government safe space bathrooms. I don’t think there should be government bathrooms at all.

            I just can’t help but enjoy it.

            You clearly don’t enjoy it you bitter fuck.

            1. The fact that you don’t think there should be government bathrooms is nice. But we have them. So the question is if we have them, who should be accommodated, trannies or people who don’t like being next to trannies of the opposite sex? You can’t accommodate both. So which one gets accommodated?

              Why do you think the answer must be the tranny? You say you don’t want safe spaces, yet you demand that the trannies get a safe space.

              I am sorry, saying you don’t like government bathrooms is not a sensible response to the issue.

              And yes, I can only laugh at how you twist yourself over what is really a very simple issue, because you can’t get over your social prejudices. I shouldn’t laugh but I do.

              1. No one has to be accommodated, people use their choice of bathroom and everyone minds their own business. You are the one who wants police at the door checking people’s chromosomes.

                1. No one does. You are right. That is why we should let the individual schools and parents decide this. What we shouldn’t do is have a court decide the trannies always win and everyone else loses.

                  Why do you find that position so objectionable? What is wrong with letting the people who run the school make their own decision according to what the parents of the children desire?

                  I don’t understand why you think a court should make everyone accommodate trannies and then also claim that no one has to be accommodated. That makes no sense.

                  1. That is why we should let the individual schools and parents decide this.

                    Sure, at private schools. If my tax dollars are involved then fuck off.

                    1. Why does the government running it make a difference? Why does the government owe trannies accommodation but not anyone who objects? Why do trannies get special treatment by the government. You can’t explain that. Don’t the people object pay taxes too? Don’t they have a right to object? Why is the government required to ignore their objections other than you hate them?

                    2. Why does the government running it make a difference?

                      Are you fucking serious?

                    3. Yes. Can you read these posts? I get it that the government can’t discriminate. But here, as I have explained like a hundred times, one side or the other necessarily has to be discriminated against. So why must it be the people who object?

                      This is not hard. Why can’t you grasp that the discrimination goes both ways?

              2. The fact that you don’t think there should be government bathrooms is nice. But we have them. So the question is if we have them, who should be accommodated, trannies or people who don’t like being next to trannies of the opposite sex?

                Isn’t this basically the same line of logic that Nick et al employed in the gay marriage debate, whereby opposing civil marriage as a legal institution was fine and dandy, but since we already had it, we had to pick a side?

                You and Apatheist have gone and flipped positions on this issue.

        2. If you are so tired of libertarians holding libertarian positions why do you keep coming back here?

          It may be worth pointing out that reorganizing public and private facilities to better accommodate people on the basis of their perceived gender and/or sex is really not a “libertarian position” anywhere except Reason.

  25. to accept transgender students’ choices to use whichever bathroom they are comfortable with.

    If a boy goes into the girl’s showers, how will schools establish whether he is one of the privileged transgender class allowed to do so?

    Will there be a registry of those given transgender privilege?

    1. The proclamation says there’s no requirement for the trans student or his parents to provide any proof that said student is undergoing any kind of medical treatment.

      From the Times article:

      ” the child is to be treated accordingly ? without any requirement for a medical diagnosis or birth certificate to be produced. “

    2. If he gets a boner in the girls shower, he’s not special.

      1. Well, gender identity and sexual orientation appear to be separate things in the brain. So heterosexual and transgender can go together – e.g. Cait Jenner.

        1. Get out of here with your actually knowing something about the subject! We don’t cotton to facts around here.

        2. Gender identity is a made up concept. There is no “gender identity” part of the brain.

          1. Really? 20 seconds on pub med yields an article about neurochemical differences in the infundibular nucleus associated with gender. Guess what they found? Men and women are dramatically different in this aspect of brain anatomy. And transgender males are like women in this aspect of their anatomy, but homosexual men are not.

            Here’s a review article about neuroimaging studies on the anatomical differences in trans brains.

            These areas of inquiry are obviously at their early stages, but it seems fairly clear that the medical evidence is pointing toward separate brain structures for gender identity and sexual orientation.

  26. I’m wondering what’s going to happen with child labor laws. Judging by the biographies I’ve read of old actresses the easiest way to do it is to “self-identify” as older. And sometimes flat out faking birth certificates. And since trannies want to alter their birth certificates…

  27. *Fd’A whistles and shakes head at Hit&Republican; shit-show*

    1. I didn’t know expanding public accommodation laws by judicial fiat is the libertarian ideal…

    2. Go fuck yourself Frank. Seriously, you are dumb as fucking post. Come on now tell us how not letting a tranny use the boys bathroom is a violation of equal protection. I need to have an excuse to pound my head into the desk tonight as you rape the term “equal protection” one more time.

      You are unfucking teachable Frank. It is bad enough to be dumb but good God why do you have to make it such a fetish.

      1. You’ll have to forgive Frank. His wife just went back to school to get her PhD, and he’s really upset about her not paying enough attention to him. Also, she doesn’t fuck him enough, so he feels rejected, and ends up lashing out at people on Hit and Run.

        1. No. He is just stupid. He is dumber than you are. And that is saying something.

          1. Too stupid to even know that he’s being insulted?

            1. Frank is too much of a doctrinaire libertarian. That’s why I never argue with him.

              1. Frank is too much of a doctrinaire libertarian. That’s why I never argue with him

                .

                Wise move.

                It’s hard to defeat an argument based in sound principle.

                1. It’s hard to defeat an argument based in sound principle.

                  Not defending John here, but you have never made such an argument in your life. You do nothing but regurgitate incredibly badly put together arguments from others and have a superficial-at-best understanding of the underlying logic and philosophy involved when you have any understanding at all. You’re not necessarily stupid, but you are incredibly ignorant. Like, for instance, when you recently argued, in complete seriousness, that Ayn Rand, from whose magnum opus you take your monicker, rejected the non-aggression principle…

            2. No Playa. Just dumb. And yes I understand you are trying to insult me. It just wasn’t a very good attempt. And my wife isn’t getting a PHD or even in school. I am not sure where you got that.

              1. -5 reading comprehension

              2. I think you misunderstood the comment.

  28. I love the “decree” language. It reminded of Grimm’s fairy tales – the king has issued a proclamation! All the subjects hasten to obey!

    “Decree” is still in the Times’ URL for the story, even though they’ve changed the title.

  29. So has any Reason writer called for the repeal of public accommodation laws? Including the ones making it illegal to reject blacks? I mean I thought Reason has a consistent objection to them unlike the socons…

  30. So is there a movement to repeal the laws requiring separate male/female bathrooms (and presumable banning them) or are we just going to eliminate them through judicial fiat? I mean obviously that is what LBJ and the Radical Republicans wanted. Worked well before…

  31. Yahoo News is still using the word “decree.”

  32. So on college campuses will this mean that women will need to have a contractual agreement with a man before he can be naked in her room, yet other people who look just like any other naked man can be around college women (no problem at all) as long as they’re in the restroom?

    You see that’s the problem, social justice belief number one is the direct opposite of social justice belief number two.

    1. Yes I always wonder how the movement towards gender neutral bathrooms will align with the demand for safe spaces and rejection of rape culture.

      1. Or those Muslims who want MOAR gender segregation…

        1. I wonder about sports.

          If people can just choose a gender, why do we have women’s sports teams?

          To a certain extent, women can play in men’s leagues if they were good enough (but they aren’t, because of physical differences, I think shooting and auto racing are the only ones where they can compete equally). But women’s leagues specifically exclude men.

          1. I think shooting and auto racing are the only ones where they can compete equally)

            Actually women are superior too men at shooting due to physical differences.

          2. This is ridiculous. Do I need to explain how women’s good fundamentals make up for their inability to dunk?

            1. Did you explain about the fundamentals?!

  33. You have to admire John. He comes here every day, with the weight of millions of oppressed hetero Christians riding on his shoulder, and boldly sticks it to everyone who refuses to recognize the Constitutional right to not feel uncomfortable in a restroom.

    One day he’ll stand in bronze in front of the restrooms at the US Capitol building, his hand stretched out in a halt sign, telling every tranny to take their prevert ways to the restroom God intended for them.

    1. refuses to recognize the Constitutional right to not feel uncomfortable in a restroom.

      Interesting phrasing. Is there a constitutional right to use whatever bathroom you want? Is it unlibertarian to want the restrooms to be more comfortable to you? Is it constitutional to force someone into a bathroom they find uncomfortable? Too many zero-sum arguments in this debate.

      1. to force someone into a bathroom they find uncomfortable?

        lol, you people are insane.

        1. Alright you got me there. How about forcing bathroom accommodations on institutions that it’s owners or customers may not like? Is there going to be choice on this matter or just only one?

          1. This article is about government bathrooms Winston, or did you fail to read the article?

            1. Rather optimistic that this issue will stop there…

              And the fact this involves the Chilluns makes this even more controversial…

              1. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!

                Progs are wrong about private businesses and socons are wrong about government discrimination. This isn’t difficult. Public accommodation laws have been a lost cause for decades and the government schools have been a lost cause for even longer but doesn’t mean we should keep criticizing both.

                1. *shouldn’t

                2. we should keep criticizing both

                  Don’t you mean “shouldn’t”?

                  1. I beat you to it winston!

                    https://youtu.be/P7kme3GC9Gs?t=6s

                3. Progs are wrong about private businesses and socons are wrong about government discrimination.

                  The problem is that presuming that sex-segregated (not gender-segregated) bathrooms, changing facilities, and showers constitute illegal discrimination is stealing a base. It only seems easy when you presume your own argument. Circular logic is like that.

    2. He’s really making a noble sacrifice. In response to a culture gone mad he’s become permanently and constantly triggered to bear the microtraumas of the world. A true jesus on the cross pbuh.

      1. All Hit & Run is a stage and we are but players in John’s Passion play of befuddled white hetero angst at a changing world.

        The show must go on.

        1. “Always look on the bright side of life….”

      2. Do you not understand that it is a zero sum game? Why do government facilities have to accommodate trannies when doing that necessarily means they are not accommodating the people who object? Why do the trannys get priority?

        Why is that so hard for you to understand? I suspect you understand it and know how ridiculous your case is. That is why it is all about “your crazy”. No. you guys are wrong here. You like gays and you like trannies and you hate anyone who could even think of objecting or not accommodating them. So you immediately side with the trannies without ever understanding the issue or realizing that you are embracing the very government coercion that you claim to hate. You just use discrimination as a rationalization. Okay, if discrimination is so bad, why do you think it is okay to discriminate against the people who object?

        I don’t know how to put it more plainly than that. So, if you are unwilling to give a reasonable answer and resort to snark, I will at least know that you know I am right and just don’t have the integrity to admit it.

        1. Do you not understand that it is a zero sum game? Why do government facilities have to accommodate coloreds when doing that necessarily means they are not accommodating the people who object? Why do the coloreds get priority?

          Why is that so hard for you to understand? I suspect you understand it and know how ridiculous your case is. That is why it is all about “your crazy”. No. you guys are wrong here. You like coloreds and you hate anyone who could even think of objecting or not accommodating them. So you immediately side with the coloreds without ever understanding the issue or realizing that you are embracing the very government coercion that you claim to hate. You just use discrimination as a rationalization. Okay, if discrimination is so bad, why do you think it is okay to discriminate against the people who object?

          I don’t know how to put it more plainly than that. So, if you are unwilling to give a reasonable answer and resort to snark, I will at least know that you know I am right and just don’t have the integrity to admit it.

          1. Would negroes have been snarkier?

            1. No it would have made the post even more embarrassingly stupid. You embarassed yourself enough by using the most trite and inapplicable analogy possible. Using Negro would have made it just sad instead of kind of pathetic and funny in its own way.

          2. Really? That is all you have? Some pathetic analogy to racism? Come on. So a women saying I don’t want to shower next to a guy who claims to be a woman is the same thing as a white person saying they won’t shower next to a black?

            Is that what you think? Because if you don’t, then your analogy is ridiculous.

            Thank you. I just won the argument. Anyone reading this understands that you have nothing left to say.

            1. So a women saying I don’t want to shower next to a guy who claims to be a woman is the same thing as a white person saying they won’t shower next to a black?

              No I’m saying that a person who wants to use the force of government to discriminate based on their irrational prejudices is the same whether that prejudice is against transgenders (not a “guy who claims to be a woman”) or black people. They can discriminate to their hearts content on their own private property or on the property of people who agree with them.

              Thank you. I just won the argument. Anyone reading this understands that you have nothing left to say.

              Come one, no one will believe that you didn’t win the argument in your own mind ages ago.

              1. First, why is it irrational? Women not wanting to shower with men has been true for centuries and in nearly all cultures. I don’t see how you can call that objection irrational or illegitimate. You just don’t like it for some reason. Why isn’t some guy thinking he is a woman and refusing to shower with men despite is anatomy and DNA not irrational? You think that is rational but then call a woman who doesn’t want to shower with him irrational. That is how stupid you have allowed this topic to make you.

                And as long as we have government bathrooms, someone has to win. Either the tranny gets accommodated or the women who objects gets accommodated. Neither is asking for government force any more or less than the other.

                You have never bothered to explain why the tranny should win. All you know is you like the tranny and hate anyone who doesn’t buy into his delusion. Yeah, you have lost the argument and lost it badly.

            2. Yeah, it’s functionally the same. There is not some objective reason one objection is more substantive than the other. They’re both subjective preferences, though in this day and in this society, one is almost certainly more popular than the other.

              1. NO they are not. There are biological reasons why people feel uncomfortable around the opposite sex. There are no biological reasons for feeling uncomfortable around the other race. And how in the hell is the Tranny not feeling comfortable with his own biological sex also irrational, if you believe that the woman feeling uncomfortable around men is irrational?

                  1. There is absolutely no scientific evidence or basis to believe in transgenderism. It is totally made up bullshit. Yet, you guys think schools should accommodate it. Why not accommodate kids who think they are wolves? How is that any different than think you are the other sex?

                    It is funny as hell to listen to a bunch of atheists embrace what amounts to a man’s soul trapped in a woman’s body. If it involves gays, you guys will believe anything.

                    1. There is absolutely no scientific evidence or basis to believe in transgenderism
                      Just a few millennia of examples of it spanning the globe. Why don’t you educate yourself there Phil Robertson.

                    2. We’ve got a few millennia of examples of people who swore they saw the end of the world coming too. Their claims turned out to be illegitimate.

                    3. It’s not about whether it it’s legitimate or not, it’s about denying something existed for as long as recorded history–in my point transgenderism and in your point religion–just because ‘science’ hasn’t gotten around to explain it.

        2. you hate anyone who could even think of objecting or not accommodating them

          You’re right about that.

          “Accommodate” does not mean the normies have to shower right next to the tranny. It means what it says: schools have to find some way to accommodate the desires of transgender students. Schools cannot just say, “too bad, you must use this bathroom.” I do think it’s wrong for the government to simply write that option out altogether, but these are government schools, and them’s the unfortunate breaks.

          1. Why shouldn’t they say too bad? Why do they owe them and only them accommodation? Why not leave it up to the school?

            All I am saying is leave it up to the community. Don’t shove one answer down the entire country’s throat.

            1. All I am saying is leave it up to the community.

              IT TAKES A VILLAGE!!!!!!!

              1. Are you high? Let me ask you for the 15th time, why do Tranny’s feelings get priority over everyone else?

                1. I guess we should poll the “community” and let them decide this whole argument for us John. And if they decide to put you or me up against the wall, oh well “the community” gets to make decisions for everyone and the bullets can be paid for by money “appropriated” from whichever of us loses.

                  1. AGain, are you high. One side has to lose. Why shouldn’t we leave it up to the people involved? Why is a court deciding one rule for everyone better or even good?

            2. Because it’s a special circumstance and the kids are forced by the government to attend school. They also have to accommodate other minorities with their special circumstances: the physically and mentally handicapped.

              1. In those cases you can accommodate them without walking all over other people. Here, the people who feel uncomfortable around trannies of the opposite sex are necessarily screwed by accommodating the tranny. If the trannies’ being uncomfortable around his own sex is to be accommodated, why isn’t the normal person’s being uncomfortable around the tranny also accomodated? Scott would have the courts ensure that only the tranny is accommodated. And that is wrong.

                And no way would the activists live with a separate facility. That would unfairly single them out. That is not how this is going to work. This entire thing is about the force of government being used to coerce people into accepting trannies. And somehow Libertarians think that is great because they don’t like government schools or something.

                1. And we’re reeling around the fountain.

                  “Accommodate” does not mean the normies have to shower right next to the tranny. It means what it says: schools have to find some way to accommodate the desires of transgender students.

                  Around and around the circle we go! But of course you know what the activists really want, even though they already push and accept and celebrate separate facilities.

                  1. And gays just want to be married. No one will ever get sued for not serving a gay wedding.

                    The activists are not exactly trustworthy. Moreover, why should the schools have to spend money that could be spent elsewhere accommodating a condition that has no basis in science or reality? Why not accommodate the wolf child too? Or the kid who claims to be a vampire? Those claims are no less legitimate than the transgendered. They are just less popular.

    3. It’s a thankless job, just standing there getting covered in pigeon shit.

      1. You know, this is a job for Ken Schultz and his roving band of merry primary school thugs.

        He’d settle this issue once and for all. WITH HIS FISTS.

  34. I, for one, certainly wouldn’t drop a nuke on a tranny that wanted to make a cake in Chick-fil-a’s men’s room. I don’t care how many Uzbeks it would save.

  35. Here’s an idea.

    Declare all public restrooms to be unisex. Regardless of which gender people are, or think they are, or want to be, those with penises will use the side with urinals and those with vaginas will use the one with only toilets.

    Base it on plumbing, not identity.

    1. Or just not have public schools? Or just let transgenders use whatever bathroom they want and everyone moves on with their lives, no new bathroom construction or TSA agents at bathroom doors necessary?

      1. Or just let transgenders use whatever bathroom they want and everyone moves on with their lives, no new bathroom construction or TSA agents at bathroom doors necessary?

        Which was pretty much the way things worked from the invention of indoor plumbing until about, what, 2 years ago when this entire contrived controversy started?

        If you look like a chick and go into the ladies’ room, sit down, take a piss, wash your hands and leave, how would anybody even know that you needed any accommodation? Or, if you prefer, how would the hate mongers know to come in and beat the shit out of you? This was never an issue. The entire current controversy vis-a-vis bathrooms hinges on whether a state can or should override the mandate of one of its municipalities for public *and private* bathroom facilities to allow access without regard to sex.

        Facilities like showers and changing rooms are more complicated than bathrooms since transgenderism can’t be concealed once the clothes are off.

    2. Just think of all the terrible things in our everyday lives we have to deal with thanks to our unlibertarian government.

      And yet this and gay marriage is what drives the more conservative Reasonoids off the deep end. Makes you wonder.

      1. Well bathrooms (especially for children!) is a thing that you have to deal with everyday and isn’t some abstract issue. And until recently the issue seemed rather non-controversial. And Reason seems rather supportive of using judicial and executive fiat to extend public accommodation while at the same calling for the end of the Culture Wars…

        1. . And Reason seems rather supportive of using judicial and executive fiat to extend public accommodation

          At this point this is more than willful ignorance. Do you even know what the fuck public accommodation even means?

          1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations

            In US law, public accommodations are generally defined as facilities, both public and private, used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities, and service centers.

            https://reason.com/blog/2016/04…..of-trans-t

            Having said that, to the extent that antidiscrimination laws already apply to protected racial and gender groups, there seems to me no good reason to exclude sexual orientation and gender identification from those categories.

        2. And Reason seems rather supportive of using judicial and executive fiat to extend public accommodation

          Did you even read the article?

          1. IThere have been federal court rulings that have determined that discrimination against transgender people can be considered as a form of sex discrimination in violation of federal civil rights laws, but we are a long way from a final word here.

            Let the court cases play out and do it the right way.

            What is that supposed to mean?

            1. It seems as though President Barack Obama is bound and determined to render even the gay- and transgender-friendliest of libertarians horrified by his administration’s lack of interest in limits on executive power.

            2. It means that it’s the court’s job to interpret written law within the context of the Constitution.

              Do you disagree with that?

              1. It means that it’s the court’s job to interpret written law within the context of the Constitution.

                Um penaltax?

                1. What?

                  That’s your answer? Because they fucked up before interpreting the law isn’t their job?

                  I didn’t ask you if you thought they were doing a good job.

                  Do you, or do you not believe that the purpose of the court is to interpret written law and ensure it falls within the the boundaries of the Constitution? Is the court a check/balance on the other two branches?

                  1. His use of the phrases “final word” and “the right way” imply that if the courts rule that “discrimination against transgender people can be considered as a form of sex discrimination in violation of federal civil rights laws” then that is that even though he has stated he doesn’t think that the CRA of 1964 was intended to do that. Is it really appropriate that laws can just be expanded because SCOTUS says so? Libertarians are pretty critical of it when SCOTUS used an “expansive” interpretation of the commerce clause to justify all sorts of things.

                    Because they fucked up before interpreting the law isn’t their job?

                    If their job is to interpret the law then how can they “fuck up”? Who decides that they have “fucked up”? At times their “interpretation” means that the law just means whatever they want it to mean.

                    1. Answer my question.

                      If their job is to interpret the law then how can they “fuck up”?

                      They can interpret it incorrectly.

                      I can interpret that a dog is a cat. Doesn’t make it true. But if they interpret a law that says a dog is a cat to be correct and constitutional, the “law” is that a dog is a cat. It’s the law, but the law isn’t correct or moral.

                      If the population thinks that decision is bad enough that we will not comply, then that’s why we have guns.

                    2. Apparently we only have them until SCOTUS says we can’t…..

                  2. Is the court a check/balance on the other two branches?

                    Bingo, Francisco. This is the outcome of Ron Paul totally perverting the role of the “rogue judges.” That’s why he refuses to accept the Ninth Amendment, which intentionally ignored any attempt to define the fundamental rights which obviously trump the 10th Amendment, clearly leaving that to the Judiciary. Jefferson and the more classical founders assumed the Enlightenment would continue expanding the recognized freedoms as it had been. That’s why Jefferson assumed each generation would create it’s own constitution, never realizing that the Enlightenment would end (until recently)

                    Then again, government could have powers which have never been delegated, as claimed by the Faux Federalists. Nah.

            3. What is that supposed to mean?

              Final word is a Supreme Court ruling, as reported.

        3. You aren’t seriously postulating about rape culture in elementary school bathrooms, man. ENB just wrote about this whole CJW = SJW thing. Today.

          1. You aren’t seriously postulating about rape culture in elementary school bathrooms, man.

            Oh but they do. This is a real ad I saw on TV many a times leading up to the HERO vote here in Houston. The mailers from “conservatives of Harris County” and other organizations were even worse. They had freedom of association on their side and still decided to go for the “sex offenders will rape your daughters” angle.

            1. Well, again, a naked man in a room with a woman who doesn’t have her consent is a rapist, unless he’s in the restroom or locker room. That is the full SJW belief.

          2. Um no? I was referring to how kids bathrooms issues are obviously is obviously going to be an issue for many people. And wondering how that this is supposed to square with the desire to oppose rape culture and support safe spaces.

            1. Oh, well, since you’re wondering, we oppose rape culture and we also oppose clutching our pearls about rape cultures that do not exist, whether the penis involved is attached to a frat boy or an eight year old in a dress. And there are no such thing as safe spaces. and we dearly wish people would stop whining to create them.

              I hold out fond hopes that there is at least something in there with which you can agree.

              1. Grand Moff Serious Man wondered why people are getting into a huff about bathrooms and I tried to explain and naturally you assumed this meant I agree with every socon fear.

                I hold out fond hopes that there is at least something in there with which you can agree.

                Well if you read other things I have posted you might find them.

                1. I tried to explain and naturally you assumed this meant I agree with every socon fear.

                  Stop projecting. I asked a civil question, you gave me vagueness and wonderment. Now that I filled you in on my positions, you’re assuming the worst so you can snap at me.

                  Let’s break it down, Winston. Blue-sky this for me. Exactly which of these did you have a problem with:

                  Opposing rape culture.

                  Opposing fake rape culture hysteria.

                  Fuck safe spaces.

                  1. Stop projecting.
                    you’re assuming the worst so you can snap at me.
                    Um you’re the guy who said that me pointing out that kid’s bathrooms is obviously going to be big deal to people means that I worry about rape culture.

                    Opposing rape culture.

                    Opposing fake rape culture hysteria.

                    Fuck safe spaces.

                    None of them

                    1. Ah. Maybe we can sort this out yet.

                      You aren’t seriously postulating about rape culture in elementary school bathrooms, man.

                      This was me asking. I know, no question mark, but the only assumption I’ve made here is that you would spot the flat delivery.

                      Um you’re the guy who said that me pointing out that kid’s bathrooms is obviously going to be big deal to people means that I worry about rape culture.

                      I haven’t said a thing about you. I’ve said what I oppose.

                      Your turn.

              2. He may agree, but the SJWs will disagree with that sentiment being always true and destroy your life for trying to be rational…

            2. Hell I wouldn’t be surprised if the movement towards gender segregated bathrooms was in part motivated by a desire to avoid rape culture. Certainly the Victorian and Edwardian social reformers were quite big on fighting against vulgar male behavior (boxing, booze, movies, etc.) for that reason. How ironic…

              1. Oh and the folks who complain about gamers, fratboys and internet bros are making similar arguments to the folks that caused the Hays Code and Comics Code. You know Movies/Comics are just vulgar violent trash that appeal to horny teens.

                1. *Horny teen boys and that rape shouldn’t be depicted*

      2. I don’t personally care about either issue. What I care about is how happy reasonoids are to see the people who do get fucked. Reasonoids care about the rights of those they like. And they hate anyone who has any kind of objection to any sort of sexual deviance. And are happy to see those people get fucked.

        1. John, cut the hysteria and bullshit.

          (Shawn Stinson, born Shawna) Would you force this person to use a woman’s bathroom with Ted Cruz’s (or anyone’s) young daughter? There are two possible answers.

          “Yes” means you would scare the living shit out of young girls to satisfy an abusive political agenda.
          “No” means you confess to being totally ignorant of the core issue (and what a tranny even is)

          Well? Yes or no?

          1. “No” means you confess to being totally ignorant of the core issue (and what a tranny even is)

            More than slightly ironic since you are apparently badly confused as to the difference between ‘transsexual’ and ‘transgender’.

            Now in your defense, things were a lot simpler back when you still had your faculties.

            1. “No” means you confess to being totally ignorant of the core issue (and what a tranny even is)

              More than slightly ironic since you are apparently badly confused as to the difference between ‘transsexual’ and ‘transgender’.

              I mentioned neither, chump, especially in the sentence you quoted!

              When you still had your faculties.

              (spits coffee all over monitor from laughing)

              Ignoring the diversion, should this person be forced to use a woman’s bathroom, scaring the shit out of Ted Cruz’s young daughters, or anyone else’s daughter, or your own wife, daughter or niece?

  36. They don’t make a tub of popcorn big enough for this thread.

  37. I think it’s finally time I install reasonable…

    1. Where’s the fun in that?

      1. Don’t think you’re not on the list, you bigot.

  38. John is the only one who makes any sense in this thread. Everybody else has lost their mind.

    1. Since you’ve posted in the thread, by the definition of your statement, as you are not John, you have lost your mind as well.

      1. I, having the option of not posting in this thread and thus retaining my sanity, have opted for losing my mind to the endless abyss — thank you all, and good night.

    2. yeah, this is weird to me as well: normally other reasonoids are making somewhat reasonable arguments to john being a little hyseric (generally in trump threads) but here, he’s the reasonable one, and everyone else is making John at his worst look good.

      I think the only honest liberarian thing here is that there is no “liberarian” answer: this whole thing boils down completely to culture, tastes, and preferences.

      Normally, when such an issue comes up, we make the reasonable case that it should be left to the individuals, or at least as low level an organization or government as possible, to make this decision, whichever leaves people with as much agency over their own lives as possible.

      Except here, it seems, where John is the only one consistently making that argument and everyone else seems to be mocking him viciously for holding the most libertarian opinion in the debate.

      I think some other people should pause and reflect a bit when they find themselves on the same side as Michael Hihn, bless his heart, our local “old man screams at clouds” poster.

  39. Too freaking buzzed to read the whole comments. Did anybody point out that there are no actual penalties for not complying?

    1. I think everyone here would agree that the president issuing a letter backed by the almighty power of the federal government has a sufficient “disparate impact” to have the effect of penalties just like the recent Title IX letter issued has led to colleges doubling down on kangaroo “courts” even though there were technically no legal penalties for not complying.

      1. Sure, I get that. But that only works on pussies. Any district admin with balls could just say “fuck you” to the feds, and NOTHING would happen.

        1. 1) For now

          2). When has any ps administrator had the balls to stand up to the doe?

    2. Actually this thread hasn’t dealt with the article at all. It’s been nothing more than Hit&Republicans;, three or four specifically, putting words in Scott’s mouth.

      1. Yes, the little I saw suggests that John was in rare form tonight. I like John, and often agree with him, but… yeah, you know?
        (I occasionally cross that line myself, but I blame alcohol)

  40. Too not-buzzed to read the comments = did anyone clarify when the fuck the Executive Branch was given regulatory authority over the thousands of public school-systems across the 50-states? Is this so much magical handwaving PR intended to fool a moronic public into believing presidents have this power?

    1. while the letter is not a legally binding document in any way, the Times notes: “Schools that do not abide by the Obama administration’s interpretation of the law could face lawsuits or a loss of federal aid.”

      Ah.

      How’s that latter part work again? “federal aid” i can understand (though think it would itself be subject to challenge suits), but how can you sue school districts for failing to meet regulations that have no power?

    2. Fucking LBJ, man. Long story short, because the feds dole out money to each state’s board of education which is then distributed to individual school districts the Feds can use shit like Title IX as a bludgeon to force local school districts to comply with these “suggestions” or lose funding. Another example was that states that adopted Common Core got extra funds (‘Race to the Top’).

      1. Ah.

        Ok. I guess its always been used in the context of these grand schemes like NCLB or Common Core, that i always assumed they were “opt-in” things specific to ‘curricula’. Rarely have they involved such weeny niggling regulations of things nothing to do with actual “Education”.

      2. Tho… even with this, I’m still a little shocked that the *president*, by himself… thinks that he can impose these sorts of regulations.

        Even NCLB or Common Core were things developed over years with lots of input from all directions.

        This sort of thing, near as i can tell, has no real precedent.

    3. It represents the latest example of the Obama administration using a combination of policies, lawsuits and public statements to change the civil rights landscape for gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender people.

      After supporting the rights of gay people to marry, allowing them to serve openly in the military and prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating against them, the administration is wading into the battle over bathrooms and siding with transgender people.

      I think i understand now.

      This has nothing to do with Transgender kids or toilets. Or where they piss. Or the law.

      This is all about Obama & co throwing a fucking culture-war gas-bomb into an election year. Because ‘why not’, and because he’s still trying to establish some menu of “legacy items” before he heads off to his Golf & Speaking-Events career.

    4. Every public school now has an interstate highway cutting through it.

      1. Every public school now has an interstate highway cutting through it.

        It’s actually called the Constitution of the United States. Equal rights? You sound like a prog.

  41. Most likely, he’s baiting Republicans to do something just as crazy. Could be a tossup, and the GOP would likely lose on B.O.D (benefit of doubt). At worst, for the Prez, a tossup. North Carolina opened the door for this. Charlotte banned something that never happens. The state mandate can only be imposed by demanding genital or birth certificate checks, a definite gestapo vision, as both left and right are being whipped into hysteria. Its’ an election year, in a currently hate-filled culture

    (hint: sexual abuse has been still illegal since the 1800s, perhaps longer)

    Should this person be forced to use a bathroom with Ted Cruz’s daughter, or with anyone’s? Only a true perv would say so. (Shawn Stinson, born Shawna)

  42. For what it’s worth, this debate has deeper implications when it comes to things like men’s homeless shelters and the like — generally speaking, homeless shelters are sex-segregated for the benefit of the men living there, particularly men in the long-term programs run by these shelters. Women are not allowed to live there so as to not fraternize with the men who are staying there, and often the men who are there have violent pasts and do not treat transgendered well. According to the shelter I’m in contact with, the current push by the government is to end this discrimination for all shelters receiving government funds and a strong push to end it for private shelters, as well — all gender-segregated shelters would have to accept anyone identifying with that particular gender. (The same would of course apply to the women and children’s shelters.) This is a disastrous policy change, much more so than bathroom policy and has flown beneath the radar. But who gives a fuck, right? It’s just homeless people, so who gives a fuck about them.

    To repeat what was said by others, this is a zero-sum game — only, one of the players has been allowed to dictate the rules to the other players unilaterally for reasons unknown. In the case of bathrooms, it really is just a matter of preference that’s at stake. In the case of homeless shelters, it’s an issue of *effectiveness*. More likely than not, no one will care until it starts affecting sports.

    1. To repeat what was said by others, this is a zero-sum game — only, one of the players has been allowed to dictate the rules to the other players unilaterally for reasons unknown.

      Careful, TIT, or they’ll think you’re just a bigot asking to set off another flame war.

    2. According to the shelter I’m in contact with, the current push by the government is to end this discrimination for all shelters receiving government funds …

      That’s been HUD policy since February if 2015, Remember all the outcries and protests at the time? There were none.

      only, one of the players has been allowed to dictate the rules to the other players unilaterally for reasons unknown.

      We call call it equal rights. That’s like saying African-Americans dictated the rules of the game … for every advance in civil liberties since the Civil War. Or that women dictated their own right to vote.

      The rules are dictating by our constitution, the guarantor of everyone’s EQUAL rights, and empowers government to defend that equality.

      In 1957, Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus activated his state militia to forcibly prevent nine black kids from attending Little Rock’s Central High School. President Eisenhower sent armed troops, ordered to use force if necessary, to defend the rights of 9 black kids. Does that mean black kids were writing the rules of the game?

      Faubus later defended his action by attacking an intrusive federal government imposing its will on the citizens of Alabama. Is that what happened? Do you stand with Eisenhower? Or with Faubus and Ron Paul?

      1. “We call call it equal rights.”

        What rights are being violated? It is an assertion with no proof.

        1. Equating the treatment of blacks under Jim crow to mentally people shows the idiocy of taking legalistic arguments too far.

          1. Equating the treatment of blacks under Jim crow to mentally people shows the idiocy of taking legalistic arguments too far.

            Not even close to what I said.
            It’s not a legalistic argument.
            Your bigotry is noted.
            And speaking of idiocy …

        2. What rights are being violated? It is an assertion with no proof.

          Sailed over your head? Ignored context and topic? I gave examples. Are you saying:
          1) African Americans “dictated the rules of the game” — for every advance in civil liberties since the Civil War?
          2) That women “dictated the rules of the game” to obtain voting rights?
          3) That 9 black kids in 1957 Little Rock “dictated the rules of the game” when Eisenhower sent armed troops ordered to use force if necessary against the state militia to defend their rights?

          Are you also clueless that trannies have been using the “wrong” bathrooms for about 50 years?

          (Shawn Stinson, born Shawna) Would you force this person to use a woman’s bathroom — scaring the crap of of Ted Cruz’s young daughters — or your own wife, daughter, niece, aunt or female cousin? Click the link.

    3. I’m sure the progs think they can socially engineer the homeless as well as they have the military to accept their concept of political correctness.

      One of the big problems with getting government involved in stuff like this is that the result is always top-down, one-size-fits-all. And, when politicians get involved in making a top-down, one-size-fits-all solution to a problem, the “solution” is going to be a negative-sum mess, regardless of whether the “solution” is mandated by legislature, a king, or a court.

      This issue points to the collective insanity of the progressive movement that dominates American politics. Institutions that are characterized by insanity are not long for this world. Whether the institution that fails is the progressive movement, or the United States as a nation, is yet to be seen.

      1. I’m sure the progs think they can socially engineer the homeless as well as they have the military to accept their concept of political correctness.

        Umm, McCrory is a conservative Republican.
        Your own concept of political correctness just screwed up again, But what can we expect from someone who glorifies feeding people into wood chippers?

        One of the big problems with getting government involved in stuff like this is that the result is always top-down, one-size-fits-all.

        The state government is indeed the top

        whether the “solution” is mandated by legislature, a king, or a court.

        Court’s defend equal rights and the Constitution, which has pissed off people like you since Reconstruction. And I’m always amused that you Trogs rhyme with Progs.

        Whether the institution that fails is the progressive movement, or the United States as a nation, is yet to be seen.

        Ever since those fuckers eliminated slavery and made us recognize equal rights. Began by that top-down fucking Thomas Jefferson. I’m sure you agree with Ron Paul, also a closet Klansman, who famously whined that “rogue judges” had defended the states against an intrusive federal government of wacky rightwingers. Oh wait ….

        “Pile of shit in Aisle Five!”

  43. How magnanimous of them.

    I like

    It reminded me of this cute exchange =


    Cpl Gabe Garza: I just waved at an Iraqi and he waved back, that was cool.
    Sgt Brad “Iceman” Colbert: Good, Garza. Be magnanimous.
    Cpl Gabe Garza: What the fuck does that mean?
    Sgt Brad “Iceman” Colbert: Lofty and king-like.

  44. Of all the shitty, repulsive things that government does, why this happens to be the hot-button issue that everyone throws a bitch-fit about is beyond me.

    1. because its so petty?

      1. Yes. Sorry I’m a little buzzed so my comprehension for the whole thing boils down to “fuck it, drink more.”

  45. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website…
    http://www.earnmore9.com

  46. I just want John to know that whatever it is he is worried about transgender people doing in bathrooms, bisexuals are already doing it all day long. You just can’t tell, because they act like cis straight people while they rape you in their minds. They are especially turned on by closet cases like you!

  47. You really have to marvel at how easy the political establishment has it in this country.

    Ryan: The proles are rising up and rejecting the candidates we chose for them. What can we throw at the bumpkins and progs to get them back at each other’s throats?

    Obama: Christ, can’t you dipshits handle anything on your own?… Just tell them that we’re going to infiltrate their pee-pee stalls with cross dressing rapists.

    Ryan: It can’t be that easy. That is the dumbest controversy I’ve ever heard of.

    Obama: Just sit back and watch. You rile up your base and I’ll hit them with a mandate later. You won’t get anywhere in this town until you let go of the notion that people are capable of independent thinking… The More You Know! (shooting star).

  48. King Obama, Lord of the Drones, issues His Imperial Edict = Comply or suffer the Wrath of His Imperial Drones!

  49. “While I support a call for public schools (and government as a whole) to be required to accept and provide appropriate accommodations for transgender citizens out of respect for individual liberty…”

    That will cost my money, slaver. Fuck positive rights and your virtue signaling.

  50. “”A school may not require transgender students to use facilities inconsistent with their gender identity or to use individual-user facilities when other students are not required to do so,” according to the letter

    So, any neutral facility accommodation is verboten right from the start. So much for reasonable accommodations.

    The logical issues with this are why is segregation based on gender identity kosher, but segregation based on sex not? If segregation based on sex is always forbidden, why should any person be barred from facilities designated for the opposite sex at any time. That the law would allow segregation on something as opaque to other people as “gender identity” but not a trait as objective as sex is bizarre and irrational.

    “The foundational premise of the transgender agenda is that the objective fact of biological sex is some of arbitrary fiction “assigned at birth” and that the subjective conception of gender identity is the genuine reality that demands recognition and respect – including the use of wrong pronouns…That premise, with its disjunction between reality and perception, is a stark illustration of what everyone used to recognize as lunacy. But the Obama administration now claims that federal statutes adopted decades embrace and compel that lunacy.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/…..r-bathroom

    1. The logical issues with this are why is segregation based on gender identity kosher, but segregation based on sex not

      That’s hardly logical. But one way has conflicts, the other does not.

      Like the assholes who insists that equal rights in the 14th amendment does not mean equal rights. It means not slaves. And the goobers eat it up. It makes no sense, but it makes their bigotry sound like something else, so they grasp it and clutch it to their hearts.

      “The foundational premise of the transgender agenda is that the objective fact of biological sex is some of arbitrary fiction “assigned at birth”

      That’s so stupid it’s funny. A penis or a vagina is not an “arbitrary fiction” And, no, there is no movement to say otherwise. Whenever I see something labeled as an “agenda” on the right, it’s always a conspiracy freak. The agenda being the conspiracy. It’s the language of an indoctrination camp.

      It’s none of your business.

  51. I, for one, certainly wouldn’t drop a nuke on a tranny that wanted to make a cake in Chick-fil-a’s men’s room. I don’t care how many Uzbeks it would save.

    straffinrun: Tough on Uzbeks.

    Vote straffinrun 2016

  52. Does Sidwell Friends have transgender bathrooms?

    1. Does Sidwell Friends have transgender bathrooms?

      Everyone has had them for about 50 years now. A few years ago, explicitly unisex bathrooms began appearing in college dorms.

      The crazy left wingers in Charleston, North Carolina tried to ban something that never happens. So the crazy rightwingers at their state level passed a law requiring everyone to carry their birth certificate at ll times or submit to public inspection of their genitals.

      This will have women checking male penises and men checking female vaginas, to make sure trannies aren’t using the “wrong” bathrooms, secretly. The Right of Privacy was invented by Supreme Court Progs who dared to mandate that a woman KEEPS her unalienable rights even when she’s pregnant (gasp) … because the sole purpose of sex is procreation in lower animals, which includes human females, Likewise, transgenders have no right of privacy, even if that means exploring 100% of genitals to discover the 3% who are transgende that would otherwise be unknown.

      Some socons demand a ban on clothing, to “uncover” any transgenders among us.
      It’s called playing to the base, inciting hysteria in an election year.

      So we must force, FORCE, this woman to use the woman’s bathroom .. even if scares the living crap out of Ted Cruz’s young daughters. Because …. well … God Bless ‘Murrica!

      Any other questions?

  53. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  54. Scott, you ignorant slut: of course it’s disturbing. The government is using this issue to attack the very core of enjoying our Constitutional status of private citizen versus a government subject. Using laws based on a biological binary to enforce a philosophy of divorcing gender from that binary is the ultimate in doublethink driven by the desperate (those who are transgendered), the duplicitous (the current administration), and the dumb (anyone who falls for this pile of crap). The courts cannot impose an interpretation so clearly not in the original intent of the authors of a law. If there’s to be a change it has to come from the legislature where, at least in theory, the will of the people is expressed by their representatives.

    Parents can no more decide if their child is transgender than they can decide if they’re autistic or have contracted PANDAS. In the UK they’re asking kids in the preoperational stage of development (when they have no sense of constancy) to choose they’re gender — ridiculous. It’s a matter for clinicians to determine. If there are to be accommodations it should be through ADA compliance and returning GID/GD to syndromes so covered ought to be the thrust on the legal/government front.

    1. And you’re in Idaho?

  55. Started working at home! It is by far the best job I have ever had. I just recently purchased a Brand new BMW since getting a check for $25470 this 8-week past. I began this 6 months ago and I am now bringing home at least $120 per hour.

    I work through this link. Go here——————— http://www.earnmore9.com

  56. RE: Obama to Issue Demand That Schools Accommodate Transgender Bathroom Access

    We must not let the states decide this issue.
    It must come from Dear Leader in our nation’s capital.
    He knows what is best for the little people.

  57. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.

    This is what I do—————– http://www.earnmore9.com

  58. I’m making over $8k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

    This is what I do.———————— http://www.earntimes.tk/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.