No one is banning anyone from a PUBLIC rest room. As long as you use the correct one. You are confusing yourself.
The Official Thread Dedicated to "Biden Destroying Us"
- Thread starter Tim Steelersfan
- Start date
Flog is a ze, thus zeself is the preferred pronoun.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 14,448
- Reaction score
- 5,519
- Points
- 113
The correct one based on birth gender, or correct one based on genitalia? The NC law dictates that women with sex reassignment surgery to men still need to use the women’s room.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,596
- Reaction score
- 29,969
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
I guess you shouldn't go to NC.
How do you know your a women?
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 14,923
- Reaction score
- 13,226
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Lebanon, OH (Near Kings Island)
You didn't get out much or go to fun clubs in college did you? The college dance clubs were full of people cross dressing if you were in the more alt rock/techno rock scene which my friends were and dragged me along, I strongly preferred the classic rock/ pop music bars. They may not all have been Transgendered, some may have just been transvestites' but it is hard to tell the difference and that is the problem. I would rather have the dude in a dress standing next to me at a urinal than being in the women's room where he may or may not have an ulterior agenda. This doesn't make me any less against perverts like Sandusky.
We all, save one, appreciate your response. Being almost 100% certain of my gender, it's not my place to say what women want.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 14,923
- Reaction score
- 13,226
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Lebanon, OH (Near Kings Island)
WE just aren't certain of your species. Sorry too easy, had to do it.
Last edited:
No. Once again you miss the point. You'd miss the point if Ogre slammed it into your head with his Warhammer. I'm not saying "men" are any more or less a threat than trans men. I'm saying putting men (men or trans) into womens locker rooms is inherently dangerous.
You pretend that they are women.
Got the surgery and have a new dick, use the mens.
Got the surgery and have a fake vagina, use the women's.
Got a dick and think you're a woman? Stay out of the female locker rooms.
Thank you for evading my point....again.
Slow down and re-read what I wrote.
"Provide any examples of men dressed as women using women's restrooms in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s.
You believe this was always a thing. Prove that it was."
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,078
- Reaction score
- 11,812
- Points
- 113
Google "obsequious ********"
Floggy's favorite peaceful demographic. Nothing "more" bad could possibly come from this right?
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,078
- Reaction score
- 11,812
- Points
- 113
No Dipshit. We are saying, unequivocally, that all pedophiles are ******* evil. That one was a seemingly normal guy does not, ever, excuse his crimes against kids.
The reason for being anti-trans is that they are clearly mentally ill, with an unfortunate sexual deviation, that makes most folks fearful of the potential for crimes against children. They get access in these bathrooms, and that is not okay.
This used to be obvious in society, and now, folks like you are attempting false equivalencies to normalize the deviance of a very small group of diseased humans.
Shame on you.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,596
- Reaction score
- 29,969
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
Are you a biologist?
This **** is infuriating. Discouraged? More like prohibited.
The Department of Justice appears to have discouraged the U.S. Marshals Service from arresting protesters illegally demonstrating at the homes of the Supreme Court justices, according to internal materials obtained by a United States senator.
During a hearing Tuesday, Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., revealed training slides reportedly from a “whistleblower in DOJ who was concerned about the attorney general’s misleading testimony before the Judiciary Committee.” Those slides were used to prepare U.S. Marshals personnel for their protective details outside of justices’ homes, according to the senator.
Britt said the DOJ explicitly discouraged U.S. Marshals from enforcing the law against the protesters without coordination with the relevant U.S. attorney’s office, warning that it would be “counterproductive” for the marshals to make arrests on cases that the DOJ “will not charge and prosecute.”
“Not a single person has been prosecuted for illegally harassing Supreme Court justices outside of their homes,” Britt said after the hearing. “The reason is crystal clear: The Department of Justice has willfully chosen not to enforce federal law.”
The slides stand in contradiction to Attorney General Merrick Garland’s previous assertion to lawmakers that the decision to arrest the protesters lies with the U.S. Marshals. Garland also admitted that it is a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1507 to protest outside a judge’s home with the intent of influencing that judge.
“Decisions have to be made on the ground about what is the best way to protect those lives,” he said on March 1.
The slides also coincide with The Daily Signal’s previous conversations with U.S. Marshals outside the homes of the justices. In January, The Daily Signal spoke with several U.S. Marshals who said that the activists are not breaking the law since they were not on the justices’ property, merely the sidewalk.
The authorities also repeatedly mentioned the First Amendment and free speech and said that the activists had the right to demonstrate as long as they were within the law.
Garland has not enforced 18 US Code 1507, though both Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin and former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan requested that he do so.
“U.S. Marshals have the authority to arrest anyone under that statute or any other federal statute,” Garland said earlier this month. “The attorney general does not make the decision to arrest. The marshals on the scene—they do make the decision of whether to arrest.”
Britt questioned Garland about the slides on Tuesday, where the attorney general told her that he had not been aware of the slides and noted that the marshals were still permitted to make arrests, adding that their “first and principle job is to protect the lives and property of the members of the court.”
“Protest is not synonymous with unlawful activity,” the slides read, noting that the First Amendment protects public protests.
The slides also instruct the marshals to avoid, “unless absolutely necessary, criminal enforcement actions involving the protest or protestors, particularly on public space.”
“Making arrests and initiating prosecutions is not the goal of the USMS presence at SCOTUS residences,” the slides say.
“Enforcement actions that involve both federal and state/local crimes, particularly those that involve public space, should be conducted by state and local authorities, if possible,” they read.
The slides specifically address 18 USC 1507: “the face of 1507 directly implicates activities that also involve the 1st A right to free speech, to assemble, and to petition government. The ‘intent of influencing any judge’ language thus logically goes to criminal threats and intimidation, not 1st A protected protest activities.”
The slides suggest that “any threat or intimidation that may violate 1507 likely also involves other” federal, state, or local criminal statutes.
“Regardless,” the slides say, “any arrests of protestors are a last resort to prevent physical harm to the Justices and/or their families.”
Though Garland told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the marshals had “full authority” to decide on arrests, the slides order the marshals to coordinate their enforcement with the relevant U.S. attorney’s office.
[Slides are inside the link above]
Loading…
www.dailysignal.com
The Department of Justice appears to have discouraged the U.S. Marshals Service from arresting protesters illegally demonstrating at the homes of the Supreme Court justices, according to internal materials obtained by a United States senator.
During a hearing Tuesday, Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., revealed training slides reportedly from a “whistleblower in DOJ who was concerned about the attorney general’s misleading testimony before the Judiciary Committee.” Those slides were used to prepare U.S. Marshals personnel for their protective details outside of justices’ homes, according to the senator.
Britt said the DOJ explicitly discouraged U.S. Marshals from enforcing the law against the protesters without coordination with the relevant U.S. attorney’s office, warning that it would be “counterproductive” for the marshals to make arrests on cases that the DOJ “will not charge and prosecute.”
“Not a single person has been prosecuted for illegally harassing Supreme Court justices outside of their homes,” Britt said after the hearing. “The reason is crystal clear: The Department of Justice has willfully chosen not to enforce federal law.”
The slides stand in contradiction to Attorney General Merrick Garland’s previous assertion to lawmakers that the decision to arrest the protesters lies with the U.S. Marshals. Garland also admitted that it is a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1507 to protest outside a judge’s home with the intent of influencing that judge.
“Decisions have to be made on the ground about what is the best way to protect those lives,” he said on March 1.
The slides also coincide with The Daily Signal’s previous conversations with U.S. Marshals outside the homes of the justices. In January, The Daily Signal spoke with several U.S. Marshals who said that the activists are not breaking the law since they were not on the justices’ property, merely the sidewalk.
The authorities also repeatedly mentioned the First Amendment and free speech and said that the activists had the right to demonstrate as long as they were within the law.
Garland has not enforced 18 US Code 1507, though both Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin and former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan requested that he do so.
“U.S. Marshals have the authority to arrest anyone under that statute or any other federal statute,” Garland said earlier this month. “The attorney general does not make the decision to arrest. The marshals on the scene—they do make the decision of whether to arrest.”
Britt questioned Garland about the slides on Tuesday, where the attorney general told her that he had not been aware of the slides and noted that the marshals were still permitted to make arrests, adding that their “first and principle job is to protect the lives and property of the members of the court.”
“Protest is not synonymous with unlawful activity,” the slides read, noting that the First Amendment protects public protests.
The slides also instruct the marshals to avoid, “unless absolutely necessary, criminal enforcement actions involving the protest or protestors, particularly on public space.”
“Making arrests and initiating prosecutions is not the goal of the USMS presence at SCOTUS residences,” the slides say.
“Enforcement actions that involve both federal and state/local crimes, particularly those that involve public space, should be conducted by state and local authorities, if possible,” they read.
The slides specifically address 18 USC 1507: “the face of 1507 directly implicates activities that also involve the 1st A right to free speech, to assemble, and to petition government. The ‘intent of influencing any judge’ language thus logically goes to criminal threats and intimidation, not 1st A protected protest activities.”
The slides suggest that “any threat or intimidation that may violate 1507 likely also involves other” federal, state, or local criminal statutes.
“Regardless,” the slides say, “any arrests of protestors are a last resort to prevent physical harm to the Justices and/or their families.”
Though Garland told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the marshals had “full authority” to decide on arrests, the slides order the marshals to coordinate their enforcement with the relevant U.S. attorney’s office.
[Slides are inside the link above]
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 14,448
- Reaction score
- 5,519
- Points
- 113
So let the record show that you think the one state that tried to legislate the enforcement of gender specific restrooms screwed it up.
I’m really interested how you would enforce your post-op criteria policy? Do tell.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 14,448
- Reaction score
- 5,519
- Points
- 113
I provided proof that trannies have been around for centuries, let alone decades. Your specific premise is ridiculous, as if there exists documentation of such things. And I’ll remind you that you just went on record as supporting post-op men, dressed as women (or men), using women’s restrooms. So it’s not really about mental illness for you, it’s about dick.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 553
- Reaction score
- 873
- Points
- 93
No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once.
Any man who thinks he’s a woman is mentally ill. There are only two genders.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,596
- Reaction score
- 29,969
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
Just another example of the political division that will eventually destroy this country. Curious, I know there were over 1,000 arrests in the worst action in American history, but did they all enter the Capitol? Can't find any information on that.
Similar threads
