Yep! I range from really pessimistic to barely mildly optimistic.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Obama Administration to Issue Decree on Transgender Access to School Restrooms
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Brian Schuh
Well-Known Member
There is no doubt the Feds in all three branches of government have exceeded their powers. The Constitution has a remedy for this. If so many states call for a Constitutional Convention, which hasn't happened since it was written, it could be amended or even scrapped for a whole new constitution. Sure Congress can propose amendments to the Constitution and has many times, there are two different kinds of conventions possible, and the one I speak of hasn't happened since the Articles of Confederation were to be rewritten. Many states are calling for a convention to limit Federal powers with a Balanced Budget Amendment. It is just a matter of time.
With that being said, Obama is within his right and duty to issue his decree.
There are hundreds of laws, and I mean laws, not decrees, that are called unconstitutional, and need to be heard by the Supreme Court. There are countless cases waiting to be heard.
Although more than enough states have called for a convention, the Feds are delaying every way they can.
At the moment, Obama is within his rights. That can't be argued. The question is if he is acting wisely.
With that being said, Obama is within his right and duty to issue his decree.
There are hundreds of laws, and I mean laws, not decrees, that are called unconstitutional, and need to be heard by the Supreme Court. There are countless cases waiting to be heard.
Although more than enough states have called for a convention, the Feds are delaying every way they can.
At the moment, Obama is within his rights. That can't be argued. The question is if he is acting wisely.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
There is no increasing power. Obama is doing nothing more than enforcing what the Supreme Court has already ruled.
No one is being taxed over the issue, but those wanting to ban transsexuals from not using the appropriate restroom and state that no one can pass anti-discriminatory laws is wasting tax payer money on laws that function in manners already deemed unlawful by the Supreme Court.
Money isn't even at a part of the issue.
That's not happening because the Supreme Court has already ruled that discrimination against transsexuals is discrimination based on gender expectations.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
He is, because the Supreme Court has already ruled that schools and businesses alike must make such accommodations. And if schools break the law, they risk loosing federal funding.
gsa
Well-Known Member
Holy **** has everyone lost their ****ing minds? SF is the only post that gets to the heart of that matter in this thread, and from someone who knows what this about in a way that few others (save Shadow Wolf) can appreciate.
Libertarians defending laws that mandate even more discriminatory public accommodations? Don't make me laugh at the "libertarian" justification for this nonsense. At least admit that you oppose the federal mandates on sex discrimination. Then we can really debate the merits of enforcing it when it comes to gender identity.
The reality is that the fundies lost the war against people like me, but with SF and Shadow Wolf they've found targets that will help them meet fundraising goals for the next couple of years. If you believe it is anything more than that, I have a monorail to sell you.
1) The increase in power is something happening over a longer time frame than just a single president.
The ability to use the income tax to take money, & then to give it back conditionally is such.
2) In what decision did the USSC make the public school lavatory requirements imposed by Obama?
3) I didn't say taxes are being imposed over this issue. Its about the fed withholding money from the state.
4) Thus, money is the issue, because withholding it is great power.
5) See #2.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
To the former, you simply are not telling the truth as one can read wheres we covered this previously. You said women should not be allowed in combat roles, and I commented negatively on that at the time, although it seems that you have conveniently "forgotten" that.
To the latter, you took a position that is opposed to the DoJ's, which shows up earlier in this thread, so don't tell us now that you "don't give a damn". Your reasoning may not be the same as someone else's, but you clearly have stated that the DoJ has overreached.
I can see why you would vote for Trump because it's rather obvious that you feel that you can change your tune whenever you want and expect people to blindly believe you. "Do you think you can comprehend that", esmith?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
But there is no signs or symptoms of increased power going on in this case. The Supreme Court has ruled, and Obama is making a statement of enforcing federal law.
That's not even a part of this issue.
I already mentioned some in post 37, a post that you quoted. And some of these were ruled before Obama took office. Obama is imposing nothing on them, but rather he is siding with their ruling, and stating what the law is.
Which can, and sometimes does, happen when schools are in blatant violation of federal law. Non-profits also have their own laws to follow, or they loose their non-profit status. It's generally understood that when you receive federal funding, especially to operate in the public sphere, there are certain rules and laws you must follow. In this case, North Carolina is in violation of federal law, and the Supreme Court has already ruled that discrimination against transsexuals is discrimination based on gender expectations, which is unlawful. The Supreme Court has even told schools before to let transsexuals use the restroom and lockerroom of their identified and presented as gender (not their words, but mine to help clarify and reduce confusion).
It appears that to many, the federal government doing anything is an unlawful overreach that is unconstitutional, even if the actions are lawful and enforcing the laws of the land.
But, I guess I should be thanking North Carolina. Because of their hatred and prejudice, it's likely that now the Supreme Court will step in and ruin it for all the Conservative states who want to discriminate. But, in this case, I don't even see it going to court because the court has already ruled on the issue multiple times.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
I looked again, & didn't see any case mentioned, so I don't know exactly what you refer to.
Which federal law?
I ask only because if the schools are violating federal law or a USSC decision, then the quoted text in the OP makes no sense.
To re-quote it.....
WASHINGTON — In the middle of a legal fight with North Carolina over transgender rights, the Obama administration is planning to issue a sweeping decree telling every public school district in the country to allow transgender students to use the bathrooms that match their gender identity.
The letter to school districts that will go out Friday describing what they should do to ensure that none of their students are discriminated against, signed by officials of the Justice Department and Department of Education, does not have the force of law. But it contains an implicit threat: Schools that do not abide by the Obama administration’s interpretation of the law could face lawsuits or a loss of federal aid.
.....End quote
This appears to be an administrative ruling.
Note the bold (my doing) portion that it lacks the force of law.
Federal law & USSC decisions have the force of law, & I'd expect the courts to enforce it, not a presidential administrative decree.
Just for the record, I favor that male, female & other all tinkle together (in separate stalls though).
Last edited:
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
During Bush Sr's presidency, back in '89, there as Price Waterhouse v Hopkins, in which the Supreme Court ruled that discrimination based on gender expectations and stereotypes is in violation of the Civil Rights Act. Though this case was in regards to a cis-woman who was judged "not feminine enough" by her employer and she had promotions delayed and withheld over this, the case has been referenced in subsequent cases involving transsexuals, with a number of federal courts invoking Price Waterhouse v Hopkins, Title VII, and Title IX to rule that discrimination against transsexuals is unlawful.
Here it is, straight from the horses mouth:
https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk/lgbt_examples_decisions.cfm
It's called the "Civil Rights Act."
Why do you think the article in the OP said it lacked the force of law?
If you mean this civil rights act......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
....it doesn't cover transgender issues.....unless you know of a USSC ruling which broadened it.
For Texas to appear to have the option to violate the decree, with foregoing fed money
as the sanction, this seems less than would happen were it a federal law violation.
Last edited:
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I have no idea why. The link I provided gives a number of rulings in which the decision was the transsexuals are protected under Tile VII of the Civil Rights Act, Title IX of the Education Amendments Act, as well as precedence of the P W v H ruling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX
Well, I'm confused by it all.
I just want to note that I was unaware of what the Virginia school had done to accommodate the transgender student in the case that the Fourth Circuit panel recently decided, G.G. v. Gloucester County School Bd. http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/152056.P.pdf
Regardless of this ruling, I cannot fathom how the school might have violated Title IX (oddly the panel doesn’t and can’t claim that it did breach this law), and, further, in more ways than one, one can read the directive in the Education Department’s letter--which was the sole authority for the majority’s decision--such that the school did not transgress it either. Nevertheless, the Education Department’s letter does not amount to an agency rule requiring a court’s deference, much less is it akin to judicial precedent.
Going beyond the mandates of the poorly worded policy issued by the Gloucester County School Board (which might in fact be understood to violate Title IX), G.G.’s school created 3 gender-neutral single-stall restrooms, which (obviously) anyone was allowed to use. This seems to me to sufficiently comply with Title IX’s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex in a school’s provision of facilities. Nothing in Title IX or any case law suggests that a school’s provision of gender-neutral restrooms and changing facilities constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex. Indeed, in US v. Virginia, in which the all-male Virginia Military Institute was ordered to admit women, the Court suggests that not having sex-segregated facilities might amount to sex discrimination.
In several different ways the accommodation made by G.G.’s school can also be understood to accord with the directive in the Education Department’s letter, which states: “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.” G.G. was not required to use facilities inconsistent with his gender identity (he, and every other student, was allowed to use the gender-neutral restrooms). And, even though providing “individual-user facilities” hardly violates Title IX’s anti-discrimination provision, G.G. was apparently not required to use “individual-user facilities” (the gender-neutral restrooms were referred to as merely “single-stalled” and evidently were not somehow limited to a single person at a time, and, in any case, G.G. was not required to use the gender-neutral restroom). In short, G.G. was not required to use any particular restroom, thus satisfying the letter’s directive--though, again, the letter’s directive does not rise to the level of an agency rule that interprets Title IX, as the Fourth Circuit panel acknowledges.
Presumably the school board has already filed for an en banc hearing. Especially considering the current situation on the Supreme Court, I would be surprised if the full Fourth Circuit doesn’t take it.
Regardless of this ruling, I cannot fathom how the school might have violated Title IX (oddly the panel doesn’t and can’t claim that it did breach this law), and, further, in more ways than one, one can read the directive in the Education Department’s letter--which was the sole authority for the majority’s decision--such that the school did not transgress it either. Nevertheless, the Education Department’s letter does not amount to an agency rule requiring a court’s deference, much less is it akin to judicial precedent.
Going beyond the mandates of the poorly worded policy issued by the Gloucester County School Board (which might in fact be understood to violate Title IX), G.G.’s school created 3 gender-neutral single-stall restrooms, which (obviously) anyone was allowed to use. This seems to me to sufficiently comply with Title IX’s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex in a school’s provision of facilities. Nothing in Title IX or any case law suggests that a school’s provision of gender-neutral restrooms and changing facilities constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex. Indeed, in US v. Virginia, in which the all-male Virginia Military Institute was ordered to admit women, the Court suggests that not having sex-segregated facilities might amount to sex discrimination.
In several different ways the accommodation made by G.G.’s school can also be understood to accord with the directive in the Education Department’s letter, which states: “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.” G.G. was not required to use facilities inconsistent with his gender identity (he, and every other student, was allowed to use the gender-neutral restrooms). And, even though providing “individual-user facilities” hardly violates Title IX’s anti-discrimination provision, G.G. was apparently not required to use “individual-user facilities” (the gender-neutral restrooms were referred to as merely “single-stalled” and evidently were not somehow limited to a single person at a time, and, in any case, G.G. was not required to use the gender-neutral restroom). In short, G.G. was not required to use any particular restroom, thus satisfying the letter’s directive--though, again, the letter’s directive does not rise to the level of an agency rule that interprets Title IX, as the Fourth Circuit panel acknowledges.
Presumably the school board has already filed for an en banc hearing. Especially considering the current situation on the Supreme Court, I would be surprised if the full Fourth Circuit doesn’t take it.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
It's pretty much because of this:
G.G., a transgender boy, seeks to use the boys’ restrooms at his high school. After G.G. began to use the boys’ restrooms with the approval of the school administration, the local school board passed a policy banning G.G. from the boys’ restroom.
And if you keep reading, the school board that passed the ban pretty much decided that "separate but equal" is OK under the law. And not only that, apparently he was using the restroom without incident until the school board turned it into an issue. He was causing no harm, yet a hoard of bigots decided to take it upon themselves to make their own idea of how things should be as law. Fortunately, that is not the system we live in, and just because something thinks it's how things should be is not reason enough for a law.
Brian Schuh
Well-Known Member
I live in Ohio. I am old enough to remember when state ID's stated the race of the person. W for white. B for black, etc. One citizen claimed he was a Martian and took it to court. The court ruled that he is allowed under law to self identify his race. So he got a drivers license saying he was a Martian. Subsequently, Ohio removed a person's race from ID's. Why don't we do the same with gender?. If he looks like a man, walks like a man, talks like a man, call him a man. If she looks like a woman, talks like a woman, walks like a woman, call her a woman. Why complicate this?
esmith
Veteran Member
Guess you have a problem in understanding differences. Like I said I don't care about where one goes to get rid of bodily waste; however I do have a problem with what I consider overreaching of this joke of an administration. There is a difference, but I guess you either don't want to, or can't understand the difference. Care to enlighten us on which one you are having a problem with. The same goes for women in combat, I have no problem with them defending their country as long as this, again, joke of an administration doesn't force the military to lower their standards for mental, physical, or emotional standards.
In other words I can accept a policy, I just don't have to accept how it was arrived at. Do you understand now? That's about as simple as I can make it.
I take it that if this had gone through Congress it would not be an issue? Ans that this isn't necessarily about the legality of the decree but that it extends beyond the authority of the President as envisioned by the founders and treating the constitution as consistent with principles of limited government and the seperation of powers?
Wouldn't you agree that the founders never intended to have political parties or therefore to have a deadlocked Congress. so could a Presidential decree be justified on the grounds of expediency as part of the evolution of the U.S. Constitution?