Skip links

Obama Administration Threatens Every Public School in Nation Over Bathroom Policies

by 18 Comments

image_print

SHARE:

On the same night that the DOJ announced it would not withhold federal funds to NC while the lawsuits over HB2 play out, news leaked that the Obama administration’s Departments of Justice and Education will issue a letter today (Friday) detailing bathroom policies for every public school district in the country.

The New York Times was provided a copy of the letter, and they published excerpts, which include:

“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…..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.”

Also, according to the Times, the letter itself does not have the force of law, but it does include “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.”

 

 

SHARE:

image_print

Reader Interactions

Discussion

  1. Another example of government over reach. Need Republican leaders to speak up, & denounce the President’s action. More importantly, they need to “DO SOMETHING” to stop this directive that allows unfettered access to bath room facilities, locker rooms, changing rooms, etc., based on gender identity.

  2. Nearly every family in America personally knows someone in the LBGT community, son, daughter, brother, sister, parent, cousin, grandchild, grandparent, co worker, neighbor, fellow church member or co worker.
    Right wing hate mongering and the dehumanizing of this community will no longer work politically for evangelicals or conservatives.
    The GOP is seen as the Grumpy Old People.

  4. It was that awful Federal “overreach” that desegregated schools in the 1950s…..

  5. Government over reach??

    The Civil War was fought over the issue of State’s Rights. Conservative, authoritarian slave states believed people of color were personal property. The US Constitution guarantees freedom, liberty, and citizenship rights to all citizens, including LBGT citizens. Not until the Civil Rights Act did people of color in former slave states get full rights of citizenship over the objections of state’s rights advocates saying states had a legal right to discriminate by suppression of education, voting rights for people of color and they imposed restrictive bathroom rules. The States rights argument of “government over reach” has been settled for 50 to 150 years. Personal freedom, liberty and civil rights are not decided by popular vote.

  11. Black pastors slam racist bigots (like Lonnie and George) for their false comparison between pervert privilege movement and civil rights movement:

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/13/black-pastors-slam-obama-admins-equivalence-of-gender-identity-ideology-with-black-civil-rights/

    “We call all black Americans to stand up and fight for the sanctity of Martin Luther King’s accomplishments for our race,” he said. “There is simply no relation between the struggles that Black Americans have faced and the desire of a tiny minority group to violate the dignity and privacy of women and girls.”

    “Transgendered persons are not asking for equal rights—they are asking for special rights that violate the privacy of women and simple common sense,” Owens added. “CAAP calls on all those who oppose this unwarranted expansion of the Civil Rights Act to contact their representatives in Congress today and let them know how you feel about this bill.”

    The CAAP Women’s Ministry has launched a petition for women of any race or faith to urge Congress to “protect the dignity and privacy of women and girls and ensure that they (and only they) should be permitted in women’s locker rooms, showers, and bathrooms.”

  13. Lonnie,
    What do you think of black ministers saying that you and Obama are idiots for comparing their civil rights to someone with mental problems.If you Gimmedats lose 15% of the black vote you won’t be able to elect a dog catcher.Black people aren’t that much different when it comes to sexual degenerates.

  14. Larry
    What is it don’t you get? Transgender, LBGT, Muslims, socialist, Hindu, Jews, Atheist, Christians, people of color, whites, Democrats and Republicans all have the same rights as citizens in American, including the right to pee, this is a basic Constitutional freedom. Take your Authoritarianism to some fascist country practicing a Theocracy former government, where 80% of the population lives in fear and poverty. Those with wealth must have body guards, security fences and restaurants must have armed guards. Guatemala has just the government you’re looking for, very right wing, Authoritarian, Theocratic and low taxes.

  15. Just what I said. You didn’t even read the post right above yours ,you idiot.

  16. Ostupid just said “ignorance is not a virtue.”First thing that idiot has ever said that was true.Nobody ever has been more ignorant than this clown.Just like Lonnie,YOU CAN’T FIX STUPID.

  17. Speaking of Constitutional rights, have you ever actually read the Constitution? This site offers a detailed overview of every part of it:

    http://constitution.findlaw.com/

    See if you can find anything anywhere in it about bathrooms, sexuality, or any of the pervert privileges you leftard criminal thugs are illegally trying to impose on us. You can’t because it’s not there and you know it.

  18. American Thinker lays the smack down on Loretta Lynch and her gaystapo goose-steppers’ lies about Title VII:

    Sensing something amiss (citing an EEOC opinion as primary foundation for federal law signals desperation), I looked into whether Title VII protects against discrimination on the basis of gender identity. After spending about thirty minutes researching at my local law library, I found the following cases, all of which hold that Title VII does not protect against discrimination on the basis of gender identity alone:

    Johnston v. Univ. of Pittsburgh of Com. Sys. of Higher Educ. (Western District of Pennsylvania – 2015): “[N]early every federal court that has considered the question in the Title VII context has found that transgender individuals are not a protected class under Title VII.”

    Lopez v. River Oaks Imaging & Diagnostic Grp., Inc. (Southern District of Texas – 2008): “Courts consistently find that transgendered persons are not a protected class under Title VII per se.”

    Etsitty v. Utah Transit Auth. (10th Circuit – 2007): “[This Court] concludes discrimination against a transsexual based on the person’s status as a transsexual is not discrimination because of sex under Title VII.”

    Sweet v. Mulberry Lutheran Home (Southern District of Indiana – 2003): “Discrimination on the basis of sex means discrimination on the basis of the plaintiff’s biological sex, not sexual orientation or sexual identity, including an intention to change sex.”

    Oiler v. Winn-Dixie La., Inc. (Eastern District of Louisiana – 2002): “After a review of the legislative history of Title VII and the authorities interpreting the statute, the Court agrees… that Title VII prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex, i.e., biological sex. While Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex includes sexual stereotypes, the phrase “sex” has not been interpreted to include sexual identity or gender identity disorders.”

    Ulane v. E. Airlines, Inc. (7th Circuit – 1984): “While we recognize distinctions among homosexuals, transvestites, and transsexuals, we believe that the same reasons for holding that the first two groups do not enjoy Title VII coverage apply with equal force to deny protection for transsexuals.”

    Sommers v. Budget Mktg., Inc. (8th Circuit – 1982): “Although this circuit has not previously considered the issue raised on this appeal, we are in agreement with the district court that for the purposes of Title VII the plain meaning must be ascribed to the term “sex” in absence of clear congressional intent to do otherwise. Furthermore, the legislative history does not show any intention to include transsexualism in Title VII”.

    Powell v. Read’s, Inc. (District of Maryland – 1977): “A reading of [Title VII] to cover plaintiff’s [gender identity discrimination] grievance would be impermissibly contrived and inconsistent with the plain meaning of the words.”

    Grossman v. Board of Education (District of New Jersey – 1975): “In the absence of any legislative history indicating a congressional intent to include transsexuals within the language of Title VII, the Court is reluctant to ascribe any import to the term “sex” other than its plain meaning. Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that the facts as alleged fail to state a claim of unlawful job discrimination based on sex.” (This decision was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.)

    Again, this was after spending only thirty minutes searching.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/05/justice_department_ignores_crucial_precedents_on_the_north_carolina_bathroom_bill_.html

    Checkmate.

Leave a Comment

Civitas encourages you to leave your comments and feedback related to the articles posted here. Civitas reserves the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to remove any comments, including but not limited to comments that include abusive, vulgar, threatening or harassing language, or personal attacks of any kind. Off-topic comments or gratuitous links that could be viewed as spam are also subject to removal at our sole discretion. Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Civitas Institute
Civitas Logo
Simple Share ButtonsSHARE:
Simple Share Buttons
Civitas Institute
Civitas Logo
Simple Share ButtonsSHARE:
Simple Share Buttons