Posted on 07/28/2016 2:42:18 PM PDT by ErikJohnsky
Why close a useful room? Why not OPEN it to all sexes?
This is still a sexist violation of the law - the university is saying that if women can't have it for themselves alone, then no one can have it.
Is that Edie Adams selling her smokes before Mitch Miller starts his show?
“...aside from a bathroom.”
Well, THOSE days are numbered!
On the other side, academia and the government have been using "Title IX" (No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.) like an ax, caring naught for tradition nor logic.
I regard it as a good thing that the complaining professor teaches at University of Michigan rather than the in state rival, Michigan State University! Then again the female equivalent of the old boy's network (wary about doing the name) might take umbrage there.
Apparently they are. One day, it will be mandated that there is 6 or 7 different bathrooms for each confused freak gender idea.
Or allow the men to smoke their cigars in the women’s lounge. :)
Bring back the Outhouse! We’ll see how quickly things change back to NORMAL, LOL!
Men and women always had their private lounges and clubs.....Not since, I believe, 1978.
Now that is funny!
I just saw three restrooms in Arizona recently that had posted a female on one, a male on another and a female and male on the third one. I laughed myself sick! Fixed the trannies’ wagons, I hope. This was an upscale place. I am sure some places could not afford that third restroom.
I agree. But if they make a law that means men can’t have such spaces then they darn sure should apply the law evenly. Or get rid of it.
I just don’t see anything wrong or unusual about them. Historically, there always seemed to be male clubs and female likes, like fraternities and sororities.
“Shine a light on the hypocrites. Take the battle to them. “
Amen brother!
I think that is the male professor’s point, not sure though. Men always had a tendency to talk about things without women around with other men, and the same goes for women. Why fight it?
:)
Or allow the men to smoke their cigars in the women’s lounge. :)....gubmint already said no smoking in public buildings.
We have became a mad society. Forgot our roots.
Oh, that is PERFECT!
I just don’t see anything wrong or unusual about them.....me neither. However, the Federal Laws say no organization can distinguish between male or female or queer of any sex.
if Professor Perry understood the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers as constitutional lawmakers had intended for those powers to be understood, then he would know that the post-17th Amendment ratification, vote-winning Titile IX is based on constitutionally nonexistent federal government powers imo.
More specifically, note that the only sex-related right that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect is voting rights as evidenced by the 19th Amendment, that amendment giving the feds the specific power to legislatively strengthen that right. But since the referenced women-only lounge clearly has nothing to do with voting rights, the women’s lounge is hands-off to the feds.
Also, note that the states have never delegated to the corrupt feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for INTRAstate schooling purposes.
In fact, previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified not only that powers that the states haven’t expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds are prohibited to the feds, but also that Congress is prohibited from appropriating taxes in the name of state power issues, essentially any issue that Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers, the power to regulate intrastate schools not among those powers.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
So the federal Title IX funds that Prof. Perry argues might be withheld from the university because of the women’s lounge are arguably state revenues that the corrupt feds stole from Michigan in the form of unconstitutional federal taxes.
The bottom line is that the women’s lounge seems to be based on constitutionally unchecked 10th Amendment-protected state powers.
Given the projected $5 trillion unconstitutional federal budget, note that the constitutionally powerful states would probably find trillions of dollars in extra revenues to spend if they grew some and eliminated the unconstitutional middle-man, the constitutionally-humbled federal government, as a phony source of revenue.
Remember in November !
Patriots need to support Trump by also electing a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will not only work within its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to support Trump’s vision for making America great again for everybody, but will put a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes and repeal unconstitutional federal laws like Title IX.
Note that such a Congress will also probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.