Stopping Edu. Funds for Disabled Students over Bathroom Laws

[Neutraligon]

nonexistent problem solved 20 years from now when they finally get it all done. what do we do in the meantime? kids have to pee EVERY day.

states like the south already have mobile bathrooms and showers in place for emergencies they replace these every few years and sell off the older ones as surplus. i'm sure the schools can use the surplus restrooms and showers, and come into compliance with federal law almost overnight. it will all be single occupancy so everyone in the school is on equal ground, no special carved out exceptions for the transgender kids. everyone gets to use single occupancy restrooms, and no one is discriminated against. It also sends a message no you do not get to use the bathroom with my daughter or wife, no you do not get to use a restroom marked women. however you do get your equality under the law.

And again, those are intended for emergencies. I very much doubt they can legally be used as a permanent solution for buildings like schools and government buildings. That and, where would these be placed? Many schools are limited in size and space. So where would these portable toilets and showers go? Why is it people always complain about ftm going to the restroom with their daughter or wife. why aren't they worried about ftm going to the restroom with their son.

states like the south already have mobile bathrooms and showers in place for emergencies they replace these every few years and sell off the older ones as surplus. i'm sure the schools can use the surplus restrooms and showers, and come into compliance with federal law almost overnight. it will all be single occupancy so everyone in the school is on equal ground, no special carved out exceptions for the transgender kids. everyone gets to use single occupancy restrooms, and no one is discriminated against. It also sends a message no you do not get to use the bathroom with my daughter or wife, no you do not get to use a restroom marked women. however you do get your equality under the law.

yeah that's a great solution to a non-existent problem.

I doubt it is a legal solution to that particular problem. And I wonder about space issues.

[Ifreann]

I love how this is framed. On the one hand, the federal government has no business interfering in local matters. On the other hand, the federal government is taking funds away from disabled students. Does the party of fiscal responsibility want the Obama administration to just hand over cash to the states, no strings attached, no questions asked?

---

Crotch Police. Brought to you by the Party of Small Government.

completely unnecessary just encode single occupancy bathrooms into the building codes for facilities expecting public access, problem solved and done with.

It's an awful lot of effort to got to in order to accommodate bigots. And nothing of the sort was done when racial discrimination was ended, or when homosexuality was legalised. I doubt it's necessary.

[Neutraligon]

I love how this is framed. On the one hand, the federal government has no business interfering in local matters. On the other hand, the federal government is taking funds away from disabled students. Does the party of fiscal responsibility want the Obama administration to just hand over cash to the states, no strings attached, no questions asked?

---

completely unnecessary just encode single occupancy bathrooms into the building codes for facilities expecting public access, problem solved and done with.

It's an awful lot of effort to got to in order to accommodate bigots. And nothing of the sort was done when racial discrimination was ended, or when homosexuality was legalised. I doubt it's necessary.

I already mentioned a whole list of issues with doing that.

[SJW Trigglypuffs]

Some states don't want to. Take it to the public polls, I bet you even more states won't want to.

then they don't need the taxpayers money.

they've lost the gay-hatred thing so now they just transfer the same tired lies to the trans population. they can all go right to hell.

So, what happens in 20 years? If states aren't complying to laws protecting beastiality, they can all go straight to hell?

[Neutraligon]

then they don't need the taxpayers money.

they've lost the gay-hatred thing so now they just transfer the same tired lies to the trans population. they can all go right to hell.

So, what happens in 20 years? If states aren't complying to laws protecting beastiality, they can all go straight to hell?

What does beastiality have to do with this? Why are you using a slippery slope argument?

[Val Halla]

I love how this is framed. On the one hand, the federal government has no business interfering in local matters. On the other hand, the federal government is taking funds away from disabled students. Does the party of fiscal responsibility want the Obama administration to just hand over cash to the states, no strings attached, no questions asked?

---

completely unnecessary just encode single occupancy bathrooms into the building codes for facilities expecting public access, problem solved and done with.

It's an awful lot of effort to got to in order to accommodate bigots. And nothing of the sort was done when racial discrimination was ended, or when homosexuality was legalised. I doubt it's necessary.

Apparently some people are angry that Obama is doing his job.

[Ashmoria]

then they don't need the taxpayers money.

they've lost the gay-hatred thing so now they just transfer the same tired lies to the trans population. they can all go right to hell.

So, what happens in 20 years? If states aren't complying to laws protecting beastiality, they can all go straight to hell?

I don't know.....im thinking that sex acts still wont be OK in public schools 20 years from now.

[Neutraligon]

So, what happens in 20 years? If states aren't complying to laws protecting beastiality, they can all go straight to hell?

I don't know.....im thinking that sex acts still wont be OK in public schools 20 years from now.

Wait, were they talking about having sex in public schools? I was so lost on how beastiality had anything to do with the discussion.

[Ashmoria]

I don't know.....im thinking that sex acts still wont be OK in public schools 20 years from now.

Wait, were they talking about having sex in public schools? I was so lost on how beastiality had anything to do with the discussion.

its the only thing I could figure. I really think that its OK to ban public sex. its so unsanitary!

[Val Halla]

I don't know.....im thinking that sex acts still wont be OK in public schools 20 years from now.

Wait, were they talking about having sex in public schools? I was so lost on how beastiality had anything to do with the discussion.

Not entirely sure they have an actual argument

[Galloism]

then they don't need the taxpayers money.

they've lost the gay-hatred thing so now they just transfer the same tired lies to the trans population. they can all go right to hell.

So, what happens in 20 years? If states aren't complying to laws protecting beastiality, they can all go straight to hell?

I mean, think about it this way. Let's suppose I'm an eccentric billionaire, and I'll pay you $100 per day to wear a fruit basket on your head. You do so for many years, and I pay you $100 every day.

One day, you decide you're no longer going to wear a fruit basket on your head. You don't want to anymore. Fruit baskets are evil.

I stop paying your $100 per day.

What's your source of complaint?

[Neutraligon]

So, what happens in 20 years? If states aren't complying to laws protecting beastiality, they can all go straight to hell?

I mean, think about it this way. Let's suppose I'm an eccentric billionaire, and I'll pay you $100 per day to wear a fruit basket on your head. You do so for many years, and I pay you $100 every day.

One day, you decide you're no longer going to wear a fruit basket on your head. You don't want to anymore. Fruit baskets are evil.

I stop paying your $100 per day.

What's your source of complaint?

Still trying to figure out how we went from trans people to something about sexuality. I mean at least when that slippery slope thing was used for homosexuality they were related in being about who/what someone is attracted to. With this I just don't get the connection, at all.

[MFrost]

retrofitting bathrooms in old buildings happens all the time it is up to the owner of the building, if they are comfy with complying with federal and leaving their building asis, then by all means more power to them. However if they feel strongly thru there own beliefs and moral standards that compliance in the building asis is just not going to work then they have a few options. Sell the building, and buy a building that meets their criteria. Retrofit the building so it meets their criteria. A bathroom stall is a bathroom stall they come in all shapes and sizes, the only real requirement is the number of ADA compliant stalls a business needs to have. Most small businesses have one bathroom any way. for restaurants or small businesses with 2 bathrooms they just change the door knob to a locking one and one person per bathroom at a time. in reality most already do this anyway so it is really just about removing the gender signs and replacing them with signs that say Restroom A and Restroom B, feel free to use either one. Have fun and be careful.

For the larger offices restroom usually have 2 urinals and 3 stalls for men and probably 5 stalls for women. The plumbing is pretty much in place already so it is just about adding walls and a door for each stall and replacing the 2 urinals with 2 stalls. Cost probably less than 10K. if we are talking a multi floor building with 30/40 offices, I'm sure the price per office drops and retrofitting the whole building could occur for about 200K. 200k on a multi-million dollar building raking in 5-to 12k a month per small office is not going to complain about the cost. In some cases they may be in the process of picking new tile and counter tops anyway. so they would be replacing the toilets, sinks and whatever anyway. I'm sure the contractor adding a few walls is not going to be walking back to their car going muwahahaha single occupancy cha ching. the structure is already there as is the plumbing. Now if they are retrofitting and replacing lead pipes with copper then yeah it's going to cost a mini fortune. The mini fortune however is in pipe replacement not in adding a few sheets of drywall.

You are like a step away from requesting a ban on single occupancy restrooms, just because it complies with the requirement while simultaneously stating no you will not share the restroom with my daughter or wife. no you do not get to walk into a restroom marked women in my business or facility. You get your equality and it is truly equal for all and not some special exception carved out just for you. Wherein I have to comply to your whims and fantasies, regardless of my personal comfort level with your actions. not this time baby, go back to the drawing board and try again.

For the most part those retrofits maintain about the same shape. They kinda have to since the plumbing for the building is already set. Moving from a multi-stall to a single use restroom would require completely redoing the walls, plumbing, electrical etc. That means completely demolishing the existing restroom structure. None of that is cheap. What exactly are you basing your estimates on? As I mentioned they would likely be grandfathered in if there was a change in regulations, so the rest of that part is useless. Most of those that use 1 or two restrooms are already gender neutral and not what these laws cover, you are again bringing up irrelevant things to the discussion, why do you keep doing that? After all you are planning on getting rid of the general holding room (that is what you need for single-person restrooms. If you did have the holding room, well then you have a unisex multi-person restroom...Simply Adding stalls does not a single-person restroom make.

No I am not for a ban, I just think your idea is a really really stupid one as far as regulations go for larger business, government facilities, and schools. It would be nice if you would not strawman my argument. I have mentioned that your idea will not solve the problem, since buildings will be grandfathered in. I have mentioned that it will create it's own set of problems; you have not responded to this fact. I have not stated that I am unwilling to share a bathroom with your daughter or wife, why would I have an issue with that? Please tell me exactly where I said that. You really are making absolutely no sense.

grandfathered in is up to the business owner, and that decision does not belong to you. If they are willing to spend the money then what is going to stop them? they are doing it specifically to negate the headaches this law represents. On one side their clients are demanding privacy and on the other the gov is mandating this privacy be removed. how do you satisfy both parties and walk away without any form of litigation or fines. They are in compliance with the law while still providing the privacy their clients are demanding. i do not really understand why it upset you so that a business may choose this option to solve the problem of satisfying demands from conflicting groups.

In an old building the existing plumbing is more or less guiding the retrofit. there is no need to be tearing the whole place apart. the stall walls are replaced with a frame and drywall , the front is replaced with a locking door. sinks are just a common area out in the open, you do not need an enclosed room to wrap around the single occupancy rooms. .

my estimates i used to work for a company that remodeled bathrooms and kitchens and also did floor coverings. toward the end we were doing commercial buildings and hotels using marble and granite counter tops.

Are you also saying a new business or building being built or designed cannot facilitate single occupancy?

[Ifreann]

I love how this is framed. On the one hand, the federal government has no business interfering in local matters. On the other hand, the federal government is taking funds away from disabled students. Does the party of fiscal responsibility want the Obama administration to just hand over cash to the states, no strings attached, no questions asked?

---

It's an awful lot of effort to got to in order to accommodate bigots. And nothing of the sort was done when racial discrimination was ended, or when homosexuality was legalised. I doubt it's necessary.

Apparently some people are angry that Obama is doing his job.

People have been angry that Obama was doing his job since before he started doing the job.

[Kar-Esseria]

What the fuck even is this crusade against bathrooms bullshit?

There is nothing wrong with bathrooms, leave them alone, this isn't even a real issue! Christ, some of us like our separate bathrooms. I don't even like sharing public bathrooms with other men, what the fuck makes you think I want to share it with women too? Fuck off with that. It's only going to create longer lines for the restroom and undoubtedly lead to an increase in sexual assaults. We don't need de-"segregated" bathrooms.

You want a bathroom that doesn't "discriminate"? Use the family bathroom. Don't have a family bathroom? Then fucking get one. This isn't "discrimination" or "segregation". This is not fucking Sweden. We don't enact idiotic far-left policies like this. Leave the fucking bathrooms alone. Let people piss and shit how they want. The only complaint about bathrooms we should have is how the stalls look like they were designed by and for peeping toms. Fix that shit, because that actually is a real issue.

Oh, and holding disabled kids hostage like that is fucking disgusting. This is why people dislike Obama.

[Val Halla]

What the fuck even is this crusade against bathrooms bullshit?

There is nothing wrong with bathrooms, leave them alone, this isn't even a real issue! Christ, some of us like our separate bathrooms. I don't even like sharing public bathrooms with other men, what the fuck makes you think I want to share it with women too? Fuck off with that. It's only going to create longer lines for the restroom and undoubtedly lead to an increase in sexual assaults. We don't need de-"segregated" bathrooms.

You want a bathroom that doesn't "discriminate"? Use the family bathroom. Don't have a family bathroom? Then fucking get one. This isn't "discrimination" or "segregation". This is not fucking Sweden. We don't enact idiotic far-left policies like this. Leave the fucking bathrooms alone. Let people piss and shit how they want. The only complaint about bathrooms we should have is how the stalls look like they were designed by and for peeping toms. Fix that shit, because that actually is a real issue.

Oh, and holding disabled kids hostage like that is fucking disgusting. This is why people dislike Obama.

I don't know if you've ever actually been around a bathroom area before, tends to work like this. There's male, female, and isabled toilets. By merging male and female, well, obviousl they would use whatever. I don't see how this affects the disabled bathroom

[Ashmoria]

What the fuck even is this crusade against bathrooms bullshit?

There is nothing wrong with bathrooms, leave them alone, this isn't even a real issue! Christ, some of us like our separate bathrooms. I don't even like sharing public bathrooms with other men, what the fuck makes you think I want to share it with women too? Fuck off with that. It's only going to create longer lines for the restroom and undoubtedly lead to an increase in sexual assaults. We don't need de-"segregated" bathrooms.

You want a bathroom that doesn't "discriminate"? Use the family bathroom. Don't have a family bathroom? Then fucking get one. This isn't "discrimination" or "segregation". This is not fucking Sweden. We don't enact idiotic far-left policies like this. Leave the fucking bathrooms alone. Let people piss and shit how they want. The only complaint about bathrooms we should have is how the stalls look like they were designed by and for peeping toms. Fix that shit, because that actually is a real issue.

Oh, and holding disabled kids hostage like that is fucking disgusting. This is why people dislike Obama.

no one is desegregating bathrooms.

[Neutraligon]

For the most part those retrofits maintain about the same shape. They kinda have to since the plumbing for the building is already set. Moving from a multi-stall to a single use restroom would require completely redoing the walls, plumbing, electrical etc. That means completely demolishing the existing restroom structure. None of that is cheap. What exactly are you basing your estimates on? As I mentioned they would likely be grandfathered in if there was a change in regulations, so the rest of that part is useless. Most of those that use 1 or two restrooms are already gender neutral and not what these laws cover, you are again bringing up irrelevant things to the discussion, why do you keep doing that? After all you are planning on getting rid of the general holding room (that is what you need for single-person restrooms. If you did have the holding room, well then you have a unisex multi-person restroom...Simply Adding stalls does not a single-person restroom make.

No I am not for a ban, I just think your idea is a really really stupid one as far as regulations go for larger business, government facilities, and schools. It would be nice if you would not strawman my argument. I have mentioned that your idea will not solve the problem, since buildings will be grandfathered in. I have mentioned that it will create it's own set of problems; you have not responded to this fact. I have not stated that I am unwilling to share a bathroom with your daughter or wife, why would I have an issue with that? Please tell me exactly where I said that. You really are making absolutely no sense.

grandfathered in is up to the business owner, and that decision does not belong to you. If they are willing to spend the money then what is going to stop them? they are doing it specifically to negate the headaches this law represents. On one side their clients are demanding privacy and on the other the gov is mandating this privacy be removed. how do you satisfy both parties and walk away without any form of litigation or fines. They are in compliance with the law while still providing the privacy their clients are demanding. i do not really understand why it upset you so that a business may choose this option to solve the problem of satisfying demands from conflicting groups.

In an old building the existing plumbing is more or less guiding the retrofit. there is no need to be tearing the whole place apart. the stall walls are replaced with a frame and drywall , the front is replaced with a locking door. sinks are just a common area out in the open, you do not need an enclosed room to wrap around the single occupancy rooms. .

my estimates i used to work for a company that remodeled bathrooms and kitchens and also did floor coverings. toward the end we were doing commercial buildings and hotels using marble and granite counter tops.

Are you also saying a new business or building being built or designed cannot facilitate single occupancy?

Grandfathered in also applies to government buildings, meaning that the problem you were supposedly solving with your single-occupancy rooms is not being solved at all. I agree that if a business wishes to make all there rooms single stall that is up to them. regardless of if this law exists or not. If they wish to waste their money on a really stupid remodel, more power to them. It doesn't upset my that a business chooses to do this, the problem is that you suggested that the regulations change, and the regulation you suggested is not only stupid, it also creates problems in and of itself.

I see, so you are suggesting making it so that each toilet has it's own room while the sinks are just left in the open. How is this any different from what exists right now in the woman's room??? There are stalls in the women's room, which is pretty much exactly like the drywall rooms you are suggesting. How is what you are suggesting any different to what we currently have, only the sinks are out in the open instead of behind a closed door. Talk about useless regulation change. Those trans-people going to the restroom, your daughter and wife would be seeing an equal amount of time with them in what you suggest.

[Greed and Death]

I appreciate the President's sentiment however it will likely be an empty threat as too many states and school districts are declining to go along.

[Esternial]

Oh, and holding disabled kids hostage like that is fucking disgusting. This is why people dislike Obama.

That's not what Obama is doing. It's the states that are throwing disabled kids under the bus so they can push their own little defiant agenda.

If they were to co-operate there would be no problem. The one making the infraction is responsible for whatever bad happens under their roof, not the one being forced to issue the penalty.

[The House of Petain]

I actually think it's a fairly clever move by the Obama administration.

[Esternial]

I actually think it's a fairly clever move by the Obama administration.

Seems pretty standard, no?

[Neutraligon]

I actually think it's a fairly clever move by the Obama administration.

Seems pretty standard, no?

I mean, if someone is not fulfilling the requirements of the bargain they had to receive money, seems pretty normal that they should stop receiving the money.

[Ethel mermania]

Once again, he’s acting like an Emperor and not a President.

Ooooh pleeease.

You can have your two cents back. Don't want 'em.

He is overstepping his authority. The adjudication of what happens to north Carolina belongs in the federal courte, not via executive action.

[Neutraligon]

Ooooh pleeease.

You can have your two cents back. Don't want 'em.

He is overstepping his authority. The adjudication of what happens to north Carolina belongs in the federal courte, not via executive action.

Except that these are funds supplied by the federal, and in particular a part of the executive branch. Also, if the state is not fulfilling it's end of the agreement on when it receives federal funds, why should it continue to receive federal funds?

AN example. The federal government supplies a certain amount of money to states because while they maintain a certain drinking age. Should one of the states decide hell with that we want a lower drinking age, why should they continue to receive those funds?