Posted on 05/11/2016 9:04:22 AM PDT by Kaslin
What if a state department of motor vehicles or a public school insisted that only biological females could use the restroom set aside for females and that biological males had to use the restroom set aside for males?
Would that be a rational policy? Would it be just?
The U.S. Justice Department is now arguing in federal court that such a policy wrongfully discriminates against people whose "gender identity" does not "align" with their biological sex.
The department filed suit on Monday against the State of North Carolina.
At issue is the law North Carolina enacted this year that states: "Public agencies shall require every multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility to be designated for and only used by persons based on their biological sex."
The law says: "A multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility may include, but is not limited to, a restroom, locker room, changing room, or shower room."
It defines "biological sex" as the "physical condition of being male or female, which is stated on a person's birth certificate."
In its legal complaint against North Carolina, the Justice Department contested the state's definition of a person's sex and offered an alternative definition.
"An individual's 'sex' consists of multiple factors, which may not always be in alignment," the department said in the complaint.
The complaint then cited various biological factors that might help determine a person's sex, but it capped the list with "gender identity, which is an individual's internal sense of being male or female."
"For individuals who have aspects of their sex that are not in alignment, the person's gender identity is the primary factor in terms of establishing that person's sex," the Justice Department told the court.
Therefore, according to the Justice Department's logic, a person who is biologically male but claims a female "gender identity" must be treated as a female by state governments and schools that receive federal funding.
And that means, according to the Justice Department's logic, that state agencies and schools must allow a person who is biologically male, but who claims a female "gender identity," to use the female facilities.
What about the rights of persons who are biologically female, who identify as female, and who do not want to use the same facilities as biological males?
They do not factor into the Justice Department's argument.
Ultimately, this argument is not only about what is and is not true, but what government may and may not do.
This nation was founded on the correct belief -- even if it did not always live up to it -- that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights and that the basic purpose of government is to protect those rights. The United States justified its independence with an appeal to the Laws of Nature and Nature's God.
But now, progressively, our nation is being ripped loose from its mooring in natural law.
Forty-three years ago, seven members of the Supreme Court declared a "right" to kill an unborn child. Since then, tens of millions of babies have been aborted.
A year ago, five members of the Supreme Court declared a "right" for two people of the same sex to marry. Were there such a right, which there is not, it would mean children do not have a right to a mother -- or a father.
Currently, an eight-member Supreme Court is weighing whether the government can force Christians to act against their faith and cooperate in the distribution of abortifacient drugs that take innocent lives. Thus, could the freedom of conscience be curtailed in the pursuit of further diminishing the right to life.
If the case the Justice Department filed in North Carolina this week makes it to the Supreme Court, the underlying question before the court may be, as it is in the Justice Department's complaint: What is a man and what is a woman?
The laws of nature and nature's God answered that question a long time ago. But President Obama's Justice Department has a different opinion.
Perhaps he hasn’t read:
Matthew 19:4 King James Version (KJV)
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
An instant classic !
Just more of the weirdness and perversion Odumbo and co. hath wrought on America (and indeed the world).
He is headed for the Lake of Fire except he repent and it appears he’s only picking up steam along the way.
Sure they are.
I predicted 2 years ago that 6 months before he leaves office, Obama will begin his SCORCHED EARTH program. I still stand by it.
I can only roll my eye over such stupidity
He just may. I pray there are still men and women in gov’t who value National Security.
If a person insists he is an ostrich or a buffalo of giraffe, that doesn’t make it so.
In the same vein, if a man insists he is a woman, that also doesn’t make it so.
Somebody should tell Bruce Jenner that’s the way it is.
Do the other sexes breed?
Kitties lick each other all the time.
How about defining what a woman’s right to privacy means??
You say there are more than two sexes, but what do their chromosomes say? If their chromosomes say male, then, the rest just means their chromosomes f**ked up.
I was so tired of reading this poster’s cr*p, I finally clicked on his name, to find out if he/she’s homosexual. Turns out he’s banned. YAY!!
Did viking kitties do their light show?
Actually, if a Tranny has had the surgery, then those with pickles should go to the pickle room, and those with tacos should go to the taco room.
Maybe that’s the way it should be - nothing to do with gender, got a pickle, you have to use the pickle room. No pickle, then you use the taco room.
??
In public - your plumbing defines you.
Great post.
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.