- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Title IX is no more
Posted on 4/19/24 at 1:49 pm to Taxing Authority
Posted on 4/19/24 at 1:49 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:neither will the future
History will not be kind to us.
0
Posted on 4/19/24 at 1:56 pm to LSUbest
quote:
Hasn't SCOTUS already struck shite like this down?
Actually, to the contrary.
Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion a few years back finding "sex" under Title VII included bullshite gender crap. While the opinion states it is limited solely to Title VII, the camel's nose was under the tent.
This is essentially applying that decision to Title IX.
Posted on 4/19/24 at 2:08 pm to anc
Liberal women destroying themselves is always entertaining
Posted on 4/19/24 at 2:14 pm to anc
My son is going to AR in the fall.
I'm going to encourage him to walk onto the softball team and get himself a scholarship.
Will save us a ton of money.
I'm going to encourage him to walk onto the softball team and get himself a scholarship.
Will save us a ton of money.
Posted on 4/19/24 at 2:16 pm to bbvdd
Honestly, he really should.
Posted on 4/19/24 at 2:46 pm to anc
Men will now steal women’s scholarships
Women should be outraged
This is the opposite of what women want and against the spirit of Title IX.
Women should be outraged
This is the opposite of what women want and against the spirit of Title IX.
Posted on 4/19/24 at 2:55 pm to anc
State govts can fight this. I'd bet Desantis is already has a team working on ways to block it.
Landry would to if he's the badass he thinks he is along with most of the people on this board
Landry would to if he's the badass he thinks he is along with most of the people on this board
Posted on 4/19/24 at 2:59 pm to anc
Watching the same people that pushed “feminism” for decades, pivot, and work to completely erase women, has to be one of the weirdest things in history. What a time to be alive.
Posted on 4/19/24 at 3:46 pm to LSU Grad Alabama Fan
quote:
One positive is that the school can't suspend a student that's under a sexual assault investigation. So a woman can no longer accuse a man of rape and get immediate revenge.
One has to wonder why this was done with all the tranny bullshite unfolding and not when women were doing just what you described. Seems it's to protect the trannys.
Posted on 4/19/24 at 3:49 pm to anc
quote:
students and faculty MUST compel their speech by requiring the use of preferred pronouns
Bull shite. Just ignore the tranny and don’t say shite to them. I’m not calling Bob Samantha. Ever.
Posted on 4/19/24 at 4:07 pm to PaperTiger
quote:well Fidel Trudeau passed a law requiring it so that's one possible way forward.
students and faculty MUST compel their speech by requiring the use of preferred pronouns
How in the frick is anyone going to uphold this? This shite has gotten beyond dumb
Posted on 4/19/24 at 4:10 pm to SlidellCajun
quote:when has any left wing "solution" ever done anything but the exact opposite of what it was meant to do?
This is the opposite of what women want and against the spirit of Title IX.
Posted on 4/19/24 at 4:16 pm to UncleFestersLegs
Hearing Bama has already signed several she men for their women’s basketball and volleyball programs.
Posted on 4/19/24 at 4:23 pm to anc
Time to load up all the women's teams with trannies.
Posted on 4/19/24 at 4:28 pm to Bard
quote:
Under the new rules, sex discrimination includes discrimination based on gender identity as well as sexual orientation. A school must not separate or treat people differently based on sex, except in limited circumstances, under the provisions and critics say that the change will allow locker rooms and bathrooms to be based on gender identity.
I had to read this a couple times.
So you can not treat people different when they are obviously factually different, as in male and female sex. This would be punished.
But in make believe land, if they feel they are female, even if they are not, you have to treat them as female. This makes sense where?
Posted on 4/19/24 at 4:52 pm to udtiger
quote:
Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion a few years back finding "sex" under Title VII included bullshite gender crap. While the opinion states it is limited solely to Title VII, the camel's nose was under the tent.
This is essentially applying that decision to Title IX.
Gorsuch dropped the ball on this one, IMO, by trying to thread the needle. Also there's a lot of weakness in the dissent from Kav. Some excerpts from SCOTUS BLOG
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination “because of sex.”...
Gorsuch framed the question before the court as a straightforward one: “Today,” he wrote, “we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender.” The answer to that question, he continued, “is clear.” When an employer fires an employee “for being homosexual or transgender,” that employer “fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”...
All that matters, Gorsuch stressed, is whether “changing the employee’s sex would have yielded a different choice by the employer.” As an example, Gorsuch offered the case of an employer with two employees who are both attracted to men and are, for all intents and purposes, identical, but one is male and one is female. If the employer fires the male employee only because he is attracted to men, while keeping the female employee, Gorsuch wrote, the employer has violated Title VII....
Gorsuch rejected the idea that because Congress did not address sexual orientation or transgender status specifically in Title VII, Title VII does not protect LGBT employees. Discrimination against LGBT employees, Gorsuch made clear, “necessarily entails discrimination based on sex; the first cannot happen without the second.” Moreover, Gorsuch added, there is no “such thing as a ‘canon of donut holes,’ in which Congress’s failure to speak directly to a specific case that falls within a more general statutory rule creates a tacit exception.” Rather, Gorsuch explained, if Congress establishes a broad rule without any exceptions, “courts apply the broad rule.” (my comment: change that to the 2nd Amendment and see how it goes)
IMPORTANT PART
Gorsuch addressed some of the broader concerns that the employers had raised in the three cases, about the effect of the court’s ruling on issues like bathrooms in the workplace, locker rooms and dress codes. None of those issues, Gorsuch reiterated, were before the court in these cases. Instead, he stressed, the court is ruling only that an “employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law.” Whether sex-segregated bathrooms or locker rooms or dress codes might violate Title VII “are questions for future cases,” Gorsuch wrote....
Justice Samuel Alito filed a sharp dissent that was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. While conceding that the result that the majority reached “no doubt arises from humane and generous impulses,” Alito stressed that there “is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation.” He compared the majority’s opinion to a “pirate ship,” writing that although it sails “under a textualist flag” – that is, it purports to adhere to the text of Title VII – “what it actually represents is a theory of statutory interpretation that Justice Scalia excoriated—the theory that court should ‘update’ old statutes so that they better reflect the current values of society.” “If the Court finds it appropriate to adopt this theory,” Alito complained, “it should own up to what it is doing.”...
He noted that last year the House of Representatives passed a bill that would make clear that Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination includes discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, but that the bill stalled in the Senate. Today, Alito contended, his colleagues in the majority have “essentially taken” that bill “and issued it under the guise of statutory interpretation. A more brazen abuse of our authority,” Alito suggested, “is hard to recall.” The real question before the court, Alito stressed, is “not whether discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity should be outlawed. The question is whether Congress did that in 1964. It indisputably did not,” Alito argued....
Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed his own dissenting opinion. He began by acknowledging that the arguments for “amending” Title VII “are very weighty.” He also observed that the Supreme Court “has previously stated, and I fully agree, that gay and lesbian Americans ‘cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth.’” But, he continued, the job of judges is “not to make or amend the law,” and, as it currently stands, “Title VII does not prohibit employment discrimination because of sexual orientation.” (In a footnote, Kavanaugh indicated that although his dissenting opinion refers only to discrimination based on sexual orientation, his analysis would also apply “in much the same way” to discrimination based on gender identity.)
Posted on 4/19/24 at 4:59 pm to Azkiger
quote:
One has to wonder why this was done with all the tranny bullshite unfolding and not when women were doing just what you described.
Seems it's to protect the trannys.
There's also a due process legal challenge waiting if there wasn't something in the new rules.
Posted on 4/19/24 at 5:00 pm to anc
It's official.
Men are better at being women than women are.
Men are better at being women than women are.
Posted on 4/19/24 at 5:25 pm to POTUS2024
I sure hope lsu doesn’t comply
Posted on 4/19/24 at 8:52 pm to anc
quote:
Effective August 1, 2024. Women are cheering their destruction.
Women are destroying themselves. And letting sissy guys perpetuate it.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News