Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, August 05, 2022

Twenty-two Republican attorneys general, including from states with explicitly far-right GOP leadership like Texas, are suing over a rule announced by the USDA earlier this year that prohibits schools from receiving federal meal funding if they have meal programs that discriminate against LGBTQ children.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"pro-life" my @ss.

#1 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2022-08-04 11:06 AM | Reply

Twenty-two Republican attorneys general, including from states with explicitly far-right GOP leadership like Texas

Let's not launder this as something only supported by an extremist wing of the party. By my count there are only 27 Republican AGs, meaning 81% of them signed onto a lawsuit seeking to make it legal to take meals from ----- kids.

Extremism is now mainstream within the Republican Party.

#2 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-04 12:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

I know any post on this thread that's nothing but an affirmation that the GOP is homophobic is going to get attacked.

but here goes....." meal programs that discriminate against LGBTQ children."

What is that? What does this meal program look like? How does a public school discriminate against a LGBTQ kid at lunchtime?

I can see issues with restrooms, locker rooms, sports, etc, but lunch?

#3 | Posted by eberly at 2022-08-04 12:29 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

How does a public school discriminate against a LGBTQ kid at lunchtime?

#3 | POSTED BY EBERLY A

They say ------ don't get to eat here, like what they used to say to Blacks.

#4 | Posted by Zed at 2022-08-04 12:35 PM | Reply

"How does a public school discriminate against a LGBTQ kid at lunchtime?"

Better questions:
Why are Republicans suing over it?

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-04 12:36 PM | Reply

"How does a public school discriminate against a LGBTQ kid at lunchtime?"

"Better questions: Why are Republicans suing over it?"

I think both are important questions.

#6 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2022-08-04 12:43 PM | Reply

Looks like it's the Feds that are threatening to starve kids.

#7 | Posted by Tor at 2022-08-04 12:44 PM | Reply

How does a public school discriminate against a LGBTQ kid at lunchtime?

Kids wearing rainbow clothing? Boy looking or acting too effeminate? Girl acting or looking too butch?

No soup for them!

Why are Republicans suing over it?

Cruelty is the point.

Republicans are ghouls.

#8 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-08-04 12:47 PM | Reply

Schools can say gay people or transgender people are not allowed to receive school lunches.

Federal government interprets Title IX that that is illegal.

Republican AGs are suing to allow it

#9 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-04 12:47 PM | Reply

What's next, separate drinking fountains like we had in the 1950's?

#10 | Posted by Corky at 2022-08-04 12:48 PM | Reply

Take back my last post this is so stupid about burned out my brain just reading aricle.

#11 | Posted by Tor at 2022-08-04 12:50 PM | Reply

Republicans know everything about you with a single glance

If they don't like what you look like, or have in your shopping cart, its reason enough to deny you your freedoms

It's "conservative values" after all, judging books by their covers and rushing to judgement is how it's done. Anything else just takes too much effort for them

#12 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2022-08-04 12:54 PM | Reply

What's special about the lunchroom? If a school wants to discriminate against a kid, is the lunchroom the only place to do it?

What about the classroom, gym, lockeroom, lab, auditorium, library, etc...any other place in the school?

they use the term "Meal program". What does that have to do with their clothing, or how they look?

#13 | Posted by eberly at 2022-08-04 12:54 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

What does that have to do with their clothing, or how they look?

#13 | POSTED BY EBERLY

You're looking for the rational angle.

Stop.

#14 | Posted by Zed at 2022-08-04 12:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

FTA:

... the underlying reason that the attorneys general are bringing the lawsuit is to advance their mission of subjugating and punishing LGBTQ children and adults for existing. Indiana's Republican Attorney General Todd Rokita, one of the leaders of the lawsuit, said in a loaded statement announcing the lawsuit that "the Biden administration is dead-set on imposing an extreme left-wing agenda" and added that the anti-discrimination rule is a form of left-wing authoritarianism

Republicans are fighting for their right to be hateful pieces of shht.

#15 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-08-04 12:58 PM | Reply

States routinely sue the fed govt over fed funding issues from what I can gather.

highway funds, schools, etc..all sorts of federal dollars that have additional conditions being put in place that states don't think they should have to comply with in order to receive the funds.

This doesn't look like that. It's all red states, correct? all republicans and it's over LGBTQ students.

So this is different.

#16 | Posted by eberly at 2022-08-04 12:58 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#13 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Decisions will be based on gossip and rumors and simple, shallow popularity.

Just like in the old days.

#17 | Posted by Zed at 2022-08-04 12:59 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"What's special about the lunchroom?"

It's the only time all the students are in one place, and it's also the only time they aren't supposed to be receiving instruction.

It's the social backbone of the school.

Discrimination against gays there will serve as a lesson for all to see.

Does that help, or do you have more playing dumb lined up for us?

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-04 12:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"the anti-discrimination rule is a form of left-wing authoritarianism"

Eberly, thoughts?
You break bread with these Republicans, right?

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-04 01:01 PM | Reply

What's special about the lunchroom?

The USDA administers a school lunch program. They promulgate rules and regs concerning that program, including a recent one that orientation discrimination in the program is not allowed. The USDA does not have authority or jurisdiction to say "nobody can discriminate against anyone in any part of a school building." They confined their rule to what the program is about. Lunch.

It's really not that hard to figure this out if you just click the link and ------- read it.

#20 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-04 01:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I read the article, I still don't understand what form of discrimination in the lunch room the rule is designed to prevent or what form of discrimination the lawsuit is hoping to enable.

#21 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2022-08-04 01:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I read the article, I still don't understand what form of discrimination in the lunch room the rule is designed to prevent or what form of discrimination the lawsuit is hoping to enable.

#21 | POSTED BY HAGBARD_CELINE

Form of discrimination designed to be prevented:
A school can discriminate against LGBTQ students, requiring them to say not receive lunches OR take their lunches in a separate (but equal) area from the rest of the student body. I would imagine it would also extend to harassment

Why are Republicans suing over it?
Because they view LGBTQ issues a great wedge issue. Because the WANT to isolate LGBTQ people. Because Dems are FOR it.

It really is that simple

#22 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-04 01:23 PM | Reply

21

Hag, you'll have to excuse lil joe....he has an issue with me on every topic, every day.

He'll try to walk back his attack since you stepped up because it's all about me.....not any school lunch program.

He's not wrong on the topic, though.

My question was simply about how you discriminate at lunchtime.

make them sit at a different table?
change their clothes?
stop lisping?

#23 | Posted by eberly at 2022-08-04 01:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

They already had a nondiscrimination policy, they just revised it to include orientation in accordance with a SCOTUS ruling that Title IX covers orientation.

There doesn't need to be a specific situation already happening for them to implement a rule about it. The fact that this is so unlikely to occur underscores how ludicrous Republican AGs are for suing over their right to do it.

#24 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-04 01:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

It would be discrimination to force LGBTQ students to take their meals in a separate area. I hope one can understand that this is something that say, DeSantis might advocate for-TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN!!!

I hope one understands how that would be harmful

#25 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-04 01:25 PM | Reply

-A school can discriminate against LGBTQ students, requiring them to say not receive lunches OR take their lunches in a separate (but equal) area from the rest of the student body.

Thank you....okay...so....are there public schools who engage in this practice now?

Does the law not protect LGBTQ students already from this type of discrimination? Forget the USDA.....the courts allow this now?

#26 | Posted by eberly at 2022-08-04 01:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

-I hope one understands how that would be harmful

absolutely.

My question is Florida allowing this type of discrimination to occur currently?

#27 | Posted by eberly at 2022-08-04 01:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Seriously?

LGBTQ???

WTF is wrong with you cave dwellers.

It's LGBTQIA+

You're so old.

#28 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-08-04 01:29 PM | Reply

My question was simply about how you discriminate at lunchtime.

Deny children access to lunch provided by the school's cafeteria.

#29 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-08-04 01:32 PM | Reply

So one side is speculating about potential discrimination that has yet to materialize and the other is making a state' rights argument in objection to a rule that already corresponds to the federal protections already in place?

#30 | Posted by Hagbard_celine at 2022-08-04 01:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

My question was simply about how you discriminate at lunchtime.
make them sit at a different table?
change their clothes?
stop lisping?

The same way you discriminate against a black kid at lunch time. You refuse to give him a lunch. You call him a n""r when you hand him his lunch. You do anything discriminatory whatsoever in the process of administering the lunch program.

But this isn't really about that. It's about requiring recipients of federal dollars to investigate complaints of discrimination in the operation of their programs, which was already required for several other protected classes and now extends to orientation, something that apparently triggers Republicans.

More info can be found here:
www.usda.gov

#31 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-04 01:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-So one side is speculating about potential discrimination that has yet to materialize and the other is making a state' rights argument in objection to a rule that already corresponds to the federal protections already in place?

I think that's going to be debated.....meaning that doesn't Federal Law already address this? Why the need for the USDA to impose this when 1. Federal law already protects them and 2. Is it a prevalent practice that needs the USDA to step in and impose this requirement?

When DeSantis pushed the don't say gay thing and the professor tenure thing........weren't those labeled as an over reach to solve problems that didn't exist?

Did the USDA need to do this?

I'm asking questions......that's all folks. Not asserting the USDA is doing anything wrong.

#32 | Posted by eberly at 2022-08-04 01:42 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

-It's about requiring recipients of federal dollars to investigate complaints of discrimination in the operation of their programs, which was already required for several other protected classes and now extends to orientation,

So, gay kids are going to get federal protections in the lunch room, but not in the gymnasium because the protected classes don't currently include sexual orientation?

#33 | Posted by eberly at 2022-08-04 01:43 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#33 Department of Ed can cover the gymnasium. USDA doesn't have authority over that part of the school, unless theyre running the lunch program there. There is nothing wrong with an agency that runs a discrete program from issuing a rule that relates specifically to that program, even if other broader rules might also apply.

#34 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-04 01:50 PM | Reply

"Asking questions"

Yup, anything and everything to distract from the fact the GOP is suing for the right to be evil and trite towards children they don't like

#35 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2022-08-04 01:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Is it a prevalent practice that needs the USDA to step in and impose this requirement?

Not a hurdle that needs to be cleared. I'm proud of a USDA that won't tolerate federal funding going to a program where the cashier says "here's your lunch, f-ggot" to a gay kid, even if it happens once. It should happen zero times. And obviously this doesn't even prevent it; it merely says recipients of funding need to investigate the complaint if it happens.

#36 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-04 02:03 PM | Reply

-#33 Department of Ed can cover the gymnasium

and the lunchroom.

#37 | Posted by eberly at 2022-08-04 02:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

37 Maybe. But maybe their rules only extend to where their dollars are used. So if USDA dollars are used for the lunch program then USDA should implement its own rules.

And even if that werent the case, there's nothing wrong with overlapping, consistent rules. Your state can say "no driving 100mph" and your town can also say "no driving 100mph," and it would be awfully stupid to expect a state trooper to come enforce the rule when your town policeman is sitting right there.

#38 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-04 02:10 PM | Reply

But i've already wasted way too much time on your circular, retarded game of questions. Have fun proudly displaying how ------- ignorant you are. Maybe someone else will take on the grueling task of rubbing your nose in it. I'm done. Bye!

#39 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-04 02:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Did the USDA need to do this?

Yes.

Do you have an actual objection?

#40 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-08-04 02:18 PM | Reply

38

retarded analogy.

and why so hostile?

You are the one playing the circular games, not me.

You just wouldn't come out and say this..."LGBTQ kids already have Federal protections. The USDA isn't providing any additional protections to these kids."

It was obvious (perhaps not to you) that it's only about the funding and the USDA wasn't righting a wrong Federal law wasn't already addressing.

There is a larger game at play here, clearly. It's not just about gay kids at lunch time.

Oh, it is to simpletons like Clown and the drunken savage and the energizer bunny. But nobody cares.

#41 | Posted by eberly at 2022-08-04 02:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

-A school can discriminate against LGBTQ students, requiring them to say not receive lunches OR take their lunches in a separate (but equal) area from the rest of the student body. I would imagine it would also extend to harassment

You're telling me that Federal law doesn't protect those students at lunchtime?

#42 | Posted by eberly at 2022-08-04 02:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

You just wouldn't come out and say this..."LGBTQ kids already have Federal protections

Because I don't know whether they do or not. It isn't my area. But USDA and its programs used to be, and i am supportive of their efforts in this field regardless of what other agencies may do or say. And it is highly questionable whether another agency could enforce its own rules when it's USDA dollars at issue. Rules are tied to dollars, generally, and it's the USDA's money here so its completely normal for them to have their own rules.

#43 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-04 02:30 PM | Reply

There is a larger game at play here, clearly.

Since it's so clear to you that this isn't about protecting LGBT students, why don't you tell the rest of us what it's actually about.

Come on genius. You're the one who sees it so clearly.

#44 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-08-04 02:31 PM | Reply

You're telling me that Federal law doesn't protect those students at lunchtime?

Are you telling us twenty two Republican AGs are suing the federal government for no reason?

If it doesn't exist, what's the worry?

Perhaps you can explain this quote:

FTA: "the Biden administration is dead-set on imposing an extreme left-wing agenda" and added that the anti-discrimination rule is a form of left-wing authoritarianism"

Why is "anti discrimination a form of left wing authoritarianism" instead of something all Americans should be striving for?

#45 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-08-04 02:37 PM | Reply

There is a larger game at play here, clearly.

Sort of, but it isn't some secret conspiracy. Biden issued an EO directing all executive agencies to revise their programs and rules to ensure nondiscrimination based on orientation following a SCOTUS ruling saying that falls under Title IX.
www.whitehouse.gov

It's not just about gay kids at lunch time.

In this particular case, it literally is.

#46 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-04 02:40 PM | Reply

"It was obvious (perhaps not to you) that it's only about the funding and the USDA wasn't righting a wrong Federal law wasn't already addressing. There is a larger game at play here, clearly. It's not just about gay kids at lunch time."

Feels to me, based on some of the points Joe made, that the entire point is to use the threat of funding loss to encourage states to treat all kids with respect, to the degree limited by their mandate. That's what we did to induce states to adopt a 21+ drinking age.

Pretty gross for these AGs to sue to stop that. I mean what would be the point? Do they have some plans they're working on?

#47 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2022-08-04 02:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

-Because I don't know whether they do or not. It isn't my area.

LOL

#48 | Posted by eberly at 2022-08-04 03:10 PM | Reply

"that the entire point is to use the threat of funding loss to encourage states to treat all kids with respect, to the degree limited by their mandate"

How they intend on enforcing this is a mystery.

But it's all about the funding. Federal law already protects them but the USDA has decided to add an additional, "you better believe it buster when we tell you......" by adding the threat of cutting the lunch money.

Which no state would want to happen. They all want their lunch money.

#49 | Posted by eberly at 2022-08-04 03:13 PM | Reply

-Are you telling us twenty two Republican AGs are suing the federal government for no reason?

no

-Since it's so clear to you that this isn't about protecting LGBT students,

that's a lie...but who cares?

-Rules are tied to dollars, generally, and it's the USDA's money here so its completely normal for them to have their own rules.

That's true. I pointed out earlier that states routinely sue the federal govt over rules and mandates they feel aren't being applied correctly or are outright unconstitutional.

#50 | Posted by eberly at 2022-08-04 03:17 PM | Reply

-Since it's so clear to you that this isn't about protecting LGBT students,

that's a lie...but who cares?

What do you mean?

Here's what you wrote: "There is a larger game at play here, clearly." #41

I'm asking you to clarify what the "larger game" is.

Thanks.

#51 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-08-04 04:12 PM | Reply

My question was simply about how you discriminate at lunchtime.
make them sit at a different table?
change their clothes?
stop lisping?
#23 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Good answers.
I'm not sure why you're asking since you already thought of how to do it.

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-04 06:28 PM | Reply

They all want their lunch money.
#49 | POSTED BY EBERLY

It's more than that.
They want to be able to use the lunch money in ways that discriminate against LGBTQ.
Or else they wouldn't be suing.

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-04 06:29 PM | Reply

My question was simply about how you discriminate at lunchtime.

This does seem to be a rather absurd attempt at virtue signaling by yet another useless, politicized federal agency.

I guess it would apply to situations where the Snoofys and Clownshacks are denied service on Kielbasa day because they're repeatedly caught playing with their food instead of eating it.

Not anymore!

Boom!

Certified letter from the Legal Office of the dude that dresses up in drag with the admiral costume!

#54 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-08-04 07:06 PM | Reply

I can't help but ask, what exactly are these Red-state AG's objecting too? The USDA says that states who receive federal funds to subsidize school lunch programs for needy children attending public schools, that if they discriminate against any child because of their sexual orientation, that the state could lose their funding. These AG's are objecting, saying that the USDA does NOT have the authority to enforce anti-discrimination rules. Now, does this mean that they actually plan to NOT feed school children who are gay? And if they aren't planning on doing that, why do they care that the USDA has made this a criteria before they can get the funding? I'll bet the USDA also has a rule concerning discrimination against children based on their race or religion. Why aren't these AG's objecting to those rules? Do they honestly believe that it's OK to discriminate against children for one reason but not another?

OCU

#55 | Posted by OCUser at 2022-08-04 07:24 PM | Reply

#55 | POSTED BY OCUSER

The reporting on both sides is horrible.

But from what I could ascertain is the AG's feel the new Biden policy on anti-discrimination policy set forth guidelines that removes States ability to set their own regulations, and also opens the door on to future encroachment. The Biden policy if not adhered to then allows the administration to withhold school lunch funding.

Understand "discrimination" is a loose word. Using this "anti-discrimination" in the future might mean allowing children to receive pubertal blockers without parental knowledge. In doublespeak this is known as "gender affirming care", and Rachel Levine has come out in support of the Feds need to support these kids.

All the fluff marketing words by both sides not withstanding it boils down whether its a States right or not.

#56 | Posted by oneironaut at 2022-08-04 07:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

what exactly are these Red-state AG's objecting too?

FTA: "the Biden administration is dead-set on imposing an extreme left-wing agenda" and added that the anti-discrimination rule is a form of left-wing authoritarianism"

They're objecting to "anti discrimination", which is "a form of left wing authoritarianism."

Rightwingers, especially DeSantis, want the freedom to discriminate against homosexuals and treat them like second class citizens.

Florida now has several laws to treat LGBT teachers and students as second class citizens.

Several states have, or have proposed, anti Transgender policies for students.

Republicans are hateful people. Conservatives fear and hate change. Their world is changing and it makes them furious.

#57 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-08-04 08:02 PM | Reply

"the AG's feel the new Biden policy on anti-discrimination policy set forth guidelines that removes States ability to set their own regulations"

Nope.
They can set their own regulations.
If they want Federal money, they can follow Federal regulations.

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-04 08:11 PM | Reply

Using this "anti-discrimination" in the future might mean allowing children to receive pubertal blockers without parental knowledge.

Right, when librulz take over and replace capitalism with socialism.

Parental permission will no longer be required.

No wonder you're a "liberal."

#59 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-08-04 08:18 PM | Reply

This does seem to be a rather absurd attempt at virtue signaling by yet another useless, politicized federal agency.

Lmao. A federal agency says "if you want our money you can't use it to be a complete piece of ----," and to you that means they're "politicized."

Because being a piece of ---- is now a political movement, and you ascribe to it.

Congrats.

#60 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-04 10:17 PM | Reply

and you ascribe to it

You mean "subscribe to it", Counselor.

But "irregardless", this is a completely ideological and stupid ------- rule being promulgated by the USDA, who is apparently offering itself up as America's answer to a question nobody asked. Even if little Johnny has been fully and completely groomed by his English teacher and blue-haired soccer mom into thinking he's actually a girl, nobody's going to not feed him in the ------- cafeteria because of his delusions.

This is a non-issue.

As so adroitly pointed out in #56 above, this is more about ------------- the Feds and helping them understand their place within our Republic than it is a culture war skirmish. You don't get to go around constantly creating new and exciting classes of "victims" out of thin air and then use the inchoate specter of "discrimination" against them to promulgate regulations and stick your ------- nose where it doesn't belong.

The USDA used to be a fairly good agency that did some good things, but it's ---- like this that may well contribute to it being abolished---like so many other federal agencies need to be.

Good luck to the AGs.

#61 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-08-04 10:36 PM | Reply

The linked article is a lying pile of garbage. It's no wonder the resident lefties uncritically eat it up like a bunch of well conditioned Pavlovian dogs. The school lunch funding is the stick to try to coerce schools into to adopting their radical and misogynist policies regarding restrooms, locker rooms and girls sports. "No lunch funding if you aren't willing to subjugate girls. "

Democrats are SCUM.

#62 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-08-04 11:16 PM | Reply

The linked article is a lying pile of garbage.

It really is. It's horrible.

It's a rant from some stupid cooze at an advocacy publication. Yet it's allowed.

Try posting a VDH article.

#63 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-08-04 11:19 PM | Reply

Right, when librulz take over and replace capitalism with socialism.

Federal oppression of State rights, has been the impetus for most of the Federal funding for everything. There really is no reason for the Federal government to get involved with kids education at the local level.

NCLB, ESSA .. I mean the list is long of Federal oppression of States ability to teach they way they would like.


They can set their own regulations.
If they want Federal money, they can follow Federal regulations.
#58 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

LOL Do you research things or just speak out of your ass? You've never heard of Federal Overreach?

Perfectly reasonable to goto the courts to resolve the issue.

#64 | Posted by oneironaut at 2022-08-05 12:12 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Their argument " that the USDA doesn't have the authority to make such anti-discrimination rules " is similar to what a Tennessee judge found of federal protections for LGBTQ people in school and the workplace last month.

Well, if it hasn't been clear enough, this is an intentional purge.

Clinton's 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' was supposed to "help", but it cemented our vulnerability to exploitation even further. I've lost all of my non-straight friends. Suicide to escape the persecution by jumping off a roof - mind you, I was a teenager and we all went through our personal trials, but there was an atmosphere of enabling by the general population and media. AIDS made us the plague beasts that Christianity painted us. Two friends were burned alive in their apartment. Two others were cut open in front of each other. Rape. Displacement. Disgust. We're hated. I couldn't rent an apartment or get a job for a long while. This isn't a morality play, it's the end for a lot of kids.

#65 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2022-08-05 12:45 AM | Reply

But the lunch lady still slapped your pizza tray down in front of you on Fridays.

Because she didn't know (or give a ----) about your angst.

Right?

#66 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-08-05 01:02 AM | Reply

I remember chewing a sandwich into the shape of an "L". The lunch lady got really angry and accused me of bringing a white supremacist "gun" symbol into the school. All I was actually doing was trying to eat around the crust of my PB&J. She wasn't hearing it though. So, when she tried to snatch my sandwich I slapped her hand away. BIG mistake. She whipped off her hair net, wrapped it around me head and dragged me to the principal's office. I got a week of detention. When I got home I smacked my mom for not cutting the crusts off my sandwich. Those were different times, to be sure.

#67 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-08-05 01:17 AM | Reply

This is a non-issue.

To you. Because your life revolves around being a piece of ----.

#68 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-05 03:02 AM | Reply

The school lunch funding is the stick to try to coerce schools into to adopting their radical and misogynist policies regarding restrooms, locker rooms and girls sports.

God what a ------- ------. And he accuses others of misunderstanding the issue. I can't believe people this braindead exist.

#69 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-05 03:03 AM | Reply

"The school lunch funding is the stick to try to coerce schools into to adopting their radical and misogynist policies regarding restrooms, locker rooms and girls sports."

I'm sure your guns will protect you.

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-05 09:48 AM | Reply

#69 Are you actually suggesting that trans and gay children are being denied lunches because they are trans or gay?

#71 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-08-05 09:57 AM | Reply

#71 Shouldn't states have that right?
GOP State AGs think they should.

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-05 09:59 AM | Reply

#71 Read the thread ------, not answering that stupid question for the 20th time

#73 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-05 10:22 AM | Reply

People seem to seriously not get that there are hundreds if not thousands of micro and macro federal programs, and they all have voluminous sets of rules about who is eligible, how you can use the money, what you can and cant do, and usually some generic nondiscrimination provisions. Literally the only thing that happened here is the Biden administration decided to expand a long-existing nondiscrimination provision in the school lunch program to include sexual orientation as an additional protected class after a SCOTUS ruling did the same thing with respect to employment discrimination claims.

Republican AGs throwing a fit and wasting taxpayer resources to fight that is sick and pathetic, and the reflexive defense of that by people like Jeff is too.

#74 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-05 10:26 AM | Reply

-Are you actually suggesting that trans and gay children are being denied lunches because they are trans or gay?

I've waited for examples that provides further justification for the USDA taking this action. Nobody has produced any although I'm sure it happens.

You can read the thread all you want....there are no examples. just suggestions on how it can happen.

But if you needed a better example of why small govt conservatives are the way they are.....this is a good example.

The USDA is placing an additional enforcement disincentive in place to enforce something that's already covered by Federal Law.

It's redundant unless someone can verify that it's not....that someone how gay and trans kids are not protected by federal law when they set foot in a school cafeteria. They were covered in the class room, or the auditorium, but not in the cafeteria.

I know....it's absurd. In florida, the governor is being chastised for redundantly applying hurdles and complications for teachers to qualify for tenure. There is already a process in place for that....but the governor is layering more.

Fair criticism IMO.....it's simply not needed.

I'm not defending states who are suing over this although there has to be more to this.

#75 | Posted by eberly at 2022-08-05 10:30 AM | Reply

although there has to be more to this.

#75 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Why?

#76 | Posted by Zed at 2022-08-05 10:33 AM | Reply

The attorneys general argue the USDA's Guidance is unlawful because it:

was issued without providing the State and other stakeholders the opportunity for input as required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),

was premised on a misreading and misapplication of the Supreme Court's holding in Bostock v. Clayton County, and

imposes new and unlawful regulatory measures on state agencies and operators receiving federal financial assistance from the USDA, which will inevitably result in regulatory chaos that threatens essential nutritional services to some of the most vulnerable citizens.

copy of the complaint...

texasattorneygeneral.gov(Complaint%20As%20Filed).pdf

#77 | Posted by eberly at 2022-08-05 10:34 AM | Reply

The USDA is placing an additional enforcement disincentive in place to enforce something that's already covered by Federal Law.

What federal law? Cite it since you're so certain it exists.

Should USDA also scrap the nondiscrimination provision against blacks since there's no example of someone saying "here's your lunch n____r?" Just make it tolerable under the program until it happens enough to start the gears of government moving again and create a new rule?

That's not how any of this works. You're stupid as ----. Stay in your lane. You know NOTHING.

#78 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-05 10:35 AM | Reply

www.tn.gov

#79 | Posted by eberly at 2022-08-05 10:37 AM | Reply

#77 | POSTED BY EBERLY

I simply see bigots appealing to the sensibilities of other bigots.

You're making it too complex.

#80 | Posted by Zed at 2022-08-05 10:40 AM | Reply

Waiting for someone to deny school lunches to children of "mixed blood".

That can theoretically be anyone, of course. But they're talking primarily about Blacks, Mexicans, and Jews.

#81 | Posted by Zed at 2022-08-05 10:43 AM | Reply

-You're making it too complex.

I'm not making it anything.

#82 | Posted by eberly at 2022-08-05 10:47 AM | Reply

-That's not how any of this works. You're stupid as ----. Stay in your lane. You know NOTHING.

I asked you 1 question yesterday....and your answer was "I don't know ----".

#83 | Posted by eberly at 2022-08-05 10:47 AM | Reply

What federal law Eberly?

You're the pro. Cite it.

#84 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-05 10:49 AM | Reply

lil joe,

You already know the kid is protected by federal law when they are in the cafeteria.

You either don't realize that protection exists or you're pretending not to know just because you're crying in your Zima over me.

Where does The Equality Act fall short protecting this kid when he's in the lunch room, lil joe.

#85 | Posted by eberly at 2022-08-05 10:54 AM | Reply

lil joe, if you expect anybody to believe you ever set foot in a law school much less graduated from one....then you better start acting like you are smarter than clownshack or speaksoftly with regards to the law.

#86 | Posted by eberly at 2022-08-05 10:56 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Where does The Equality Act fall short

The Equality Act hasn't passed yet ------.

You said this is "already covered by federal law." What law? What's the citation?

#87 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-05 10:56 AM | Reply

I have a tee time.....I'll let you and zed have your own little----------- while calling me a facist and a racist.

I hope it makes you happy, lil joe.

#88 | Posted by eberly at 2022-08-05 10:57 AM | Reply

if you expect anybody to believe you ever set foot in a law school

I'll post an image of my state bar profile showing me in good standing if you agree to never post here again. RCade has to be in on the deal and block your IP address. Deal?

#89 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-05 10:58 AM | Reply

Run away little bitch. You have nothing.

#90 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-05 10:59 AM | Reply

WTF is wrong with these "pro-life" ass****s?!

#91 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2022-08-05 10:59 AM | Reply

"WTF is wrong with these "pro-life" ass****s?"

WE let them get away with it, because half of us are secretly sympathetic with their goals. Or at least religious enough to wonder what the consequences for being wrong are.

#92 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2022-08-05 11:45 AM | Reply

I'm not defending states who are suing over this although there has to be more to this.
#75 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Why does there have to be more to this?
Since when isn't Virtue Signaling to bigoted, hateful Republicans enough?
It was enough to overturn Roe.

#93 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-05 11:47 AM | Reply

I asked you 1 question yesterday....and your answer was "I don't know ----".
#83 | POSTED BY EBERLY

I asked you a question yesterday and you fkkking ran away.

So what's your point?

Here:

Here's what you wrote: "There is a larger game at play here, clearly." #41
I'm asking you to clarify what the "larger game" is.
Thanks.
#51 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

You going to run away again?

#94 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-08-05 11:49 AM | Reply

I've waited for examples that provides further justification for the USDA taking this action. Nobody has produced any although I'm sure it happens.
#75 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Do you not know how to use google? It's not hard to find this stuff.
Grant Park Christian Academy, a religious institution that participates in the federal lunch program, openly admits in a lawsuit that they discriminate against trans children in all aspects of the school's operation, including admissions. By denying admission they are denying low income trans students the opportunity to participate in the lunch program.

#95 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2022-08-05 12:02 PM | Reply

#73. I read the thread, ------. I also read the article and they go back and forth between terminology of LGBT "lunch discrimination" and "discrimination".

When I originally came across this story it was schools that didn't enforce the administrations LGBT policies won't get the lunch funds. Par for the course with progressive authoritarianism.

#96 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-08-05 12:49 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

When I originally came across this story it was schools that didn't enforce the administrations LGBT policies won't get the lunch funds. Par for the course with progressive authoritarianism.

#96 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Federal funds shouldn't be distributed without conditions? is THAT what you are arguing?

#97 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-05 01:00 PM | Reply

BTW it seems to me that pretty much every grant from the federal government would have anti-discrimination language. It seems almost boiler plate.

#98 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-05 01:02 PM | Reply

"Federal funds shouldn't be distributed without conditions? is THAT what you are arguing?"

They want to have their Federal cake and eat their Federal cake too.

#99 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-05 01:03 PM | Reply

It does look to me like it is the USDA threatening to take the lunch money away, not the Republicans.

#100 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-05 02:01 PM | Reply

It seems almost boiler plate.

It is.

And Republicans hunt for irrelevant culture war issues to use in performative, recreational litigation, and ------- like Jeff eat it up.

#101 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-05 02:12 PM | Reply

I know things have changed since I was in school, but how many kids in elementary school are even out? Does some adult get to decide which kids are gay?

#102 | Posted by RJSquirrel at 2022-08-05 03:09 PM | Reply

"rule announced by the USDA earlier this year that prohibits schools from receiving federal meal funding if they have meal programs that discriminate against LGBTQ children"

That sure sounds like an non-existent problem in no need of a solution, a.k.a. or an irrelevant culture war issue to use in performative, recreation LEGISLATION if you ask me. Still looking for any evidence, or even a SINGLE anecdotal story of a "discriminatory meal program" targeting LGBTQ kids. What would that even like?

#103 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-05 03:12 PM | Reply

It does look to me like it is the USDA threatening to take the lunch money away, not the Republicans.
#100 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7

Whose lunch money is it to give, and to take away?

#104 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-05 03:20 PM | Reply

Ok, I'm late to arrive and hadn't read the qwhole thread. #30 nailed it. Answered all my questions in one sentence.

#105 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-05 03:20 PM | Reply

Still looking for any evidence, or even a SINGLE anecdotal story of a "discriminatory meal program" targeting LGBTQ kids.

I haven't seen a story about black or disabled kids being discriminated against in the school lunch program either. Scrap the rule altogether based on ignorance? Or leave it in place because it obviously encourages doing the right thing?

#106 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-05 03:33 PM | Reply

#98. What I'm saying is whether or not a school allows "Heather Swanson" to play girl's sports has nothing to do with lunch funding.

#107 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-08-05 03:39 PM | Reply

It's a new rule and its designed as a stick for schools that won't let Jessica Yaniv into the girl's locker room.

#108 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-08-05 03:40 PM | Reply

It has nothing to do with locker rooms you obsessive freak.

#109 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-05 04:00 PM | Reply

And Republicans hunt for irrelevant culture war issues to use in performative, recreational litigation, and ------- like Jeff eat it up.
#101

Sums it up entirely.

#110 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2022-08-05 04:02 PM | Reply

Jeff veering into 'locker rooms' and 'progressive authoritarianism' is exactly why 22 Republican AG took the time to do this.

#111 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2022-08-05 04:04 PM | Reply

www.tampabay.com

Florida made headlines when education commissioner Manny Diaz Jr. told school districts to ignore the Biden Administration's nondiscrimination guidelines in relation to federally funded cafeteria meals.

Jeff will be along any second now to say that DeSantis should fire Diaz for not enforcing the law.

#112 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-05 04:24 PM | Reply

It's a new rule and its designed as a stick for schools that won't let Jessica Yaniv into the girl's locker room.

#108 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Jessica Yaniv is Canadian you ------- moron

#113 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-05 04:30 PM | Reply

Just a clarification

Law != guidelines

#114 | Posted by oneironaut at 2022-08-05 04:37 PM | Reply

Eberly... I am definitely behind you on this one. It seems to be a lot of assumptions based on ignorance. They COULD deny a kid lunch so that must be what it is for. Though, to be fair, just there doesn't "have to be" more to it just because the picture we are being painted doesn't make sense. Sometimes stupid things just happen, especially in partisan turf fights. But I agree with you that WE SHOULD LOOK to see if there is more to it. So Joe and Snoofy seeing what they want to see and not trying to look any deeper does look nave to me.

I am not aware of any instances of LGBTQ students getting discriminated against specifically as related to lunch, so when the Joe and Snoofy characterize this as trying to prevent that, I also am very skeptical.

My GUESS is that this USDA rule is trying to force anti-discrimination rules across the school ("tying the funds to things 'outside the lunchroom'"). If that is actually the case then I feel that conservatives have a decent argument against it. I am in favor of expanding anti-discrimination requirements, but not sure I can say that it is justified to potentially take away kids' access to free lunch (which for some kids is their only meal of the day) in order to push that. If LGBTQ kids were ACTUALLY being targeted and denied free lunch (or just lunch in general) then I would agree to this rule without hesitation. But if it is actually taking away free lunch from a whole school in order to force trans kids to be allowed on sports teams, then I think there are better routes and ways to accomplish that goal that would not potentially result in kids going hungry.

#115 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2022-08-05 04:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Jessica Yaniv is Canadian you ------- moron

He's a member of Cherry Pickers Without borders.

#116 | Posted by REDIAL at 2022-08-05 04:40 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

-Are you actually suggesting that trans and gay children are being denied lunches because they are trans or gay?
I've waited for examples that provides further justification for the USDA taking this action. Nobody has produced any although I'm sure it happens.
You can read the thread all you want....there are no examples. just suggestions on how it can happen.
But if you needed a better example of why small govt conservatives are the way they are.....this is a good example.
The USDA is placing an additional enforcement disincentive in place to enforce something that's already covered by Federal Law.
It's redundant unless someone can verify that it's not....that someone how gay and trans kids are not protected by federal law when they set foot in a school cafeteria. They were covered in the class room, or the auditorium, but not in the cafeteria.
I know....it's absurd. In florida, the governor is being chastised for redundantly applying hurdles and complications for teachers to qualify for tenure. There is already a process in place for that....but the governor is layering more.
Fair criticism IMO.....it's simply not needed.
I'm not defending states who are suing over this although there has to be more to this.
#75 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2022-08-05 10:30 AM

Like marriage, adoption and equal opportunity the religious bigots continue to drag this nation through hell and high water before they relinquish free school lunch to gay children or ever accept gay parents. I remember when people were fired and sent back to their home state because they didn't disclose they were homosexual. Gay people are always at risk in religious populations, because their God wouldn't want to feed gay children, nor force taxpaying citizens to do so either. It's always been a tale of two cafeterias.

#117 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2022-08-05 04:40 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

All the school has to do is add the term LGBTQ to the anti-discrimination poster and voila no free meals denied.

iow republicans are scum

#118 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-05 04:45 PM | Reply

not sure I can say that it is justified to potentially take away kids' access to free lunch

Meanwhile, in reality, here's what the rule actually does, which was already required for every other recognized form of discrimination:

state and local agencies, program operators and sponsors that receive funds from FNS must investigate allegations of discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation. Those organizations must also update their non-discrimination policies and signage to include prohibitions against discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
www.fns.usda.gov
That's it. Investigate claims of wrongdoing and change a sign.

I am not aware of any instances of LGBTQ students getting discriminated against specifically as related to lunch

Lmao. Why do like three guys in this thread think that if they arent aware of something that means it never has or will occur? I'll ask you exactly what i asked them - if you aren't aware of blacks being discriminated against in a school lunch program should we scrap the antidiscrimination rule as to them too? Should every boilerplate federal nondiscrimination rule hinge on whether you're personally aware of an instance the rule is intended to guard against? What a stupid standard to hold this to. Grow a brain.

#119 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-05 04:49 PM | Reply

Let's compare the LGBTQ anti-discrimination lawsuit with the argument over the Fl Don't Say Gay law.

The conservative response to criticisms over the DSG law was if there was no grooming going on, i.e. K-3 students shouldn't be exposed to sexual material, why the criticism? The response essentially was if it wasn't going on, why the criticism about the law? That was the essence of their argument despite it was clear that the DSG went way beyond K-3

So, now we have conservatives saying the anti-LGBTQ discrimination policy is outrageous because there are no examples of LGBTQ students in the cafeteria. So, using their logic, why are the AGs fighting the policy? Just don't discriminate and voila! all is fine?

Wait, republicans-hypocrites! can't be!

#120 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-05 04:52 PM | Reply

When I originally came across this story it was schools that didn't enforce the administrations LGBT policies won't get the lunch funds. Par for the course with progressive authoritarianism.
#96 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Authoritarianism? I don't think you know the meaning of that word.
How is the government requiring non-discrimination in the program authoritarianism? Seems to me that authoritarianist in this scenario are the schools that are participating that are saying things like trans kids can't go here.

#121 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2022-08-05 05:03 PM | Reply

Still looking for any evidence, or even a SINGLE anecdotal story of a "discriminatory meal program" targeting LGBTQ kids. What would that even like?

#103 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7

You must not be looking very hard because I posted a clear example of this just a few posts above your comment.

#122 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2022-08-05 05:04 PM | Reply

Grant Park Christian Academy, a religious institution that participates in the federal lunch program, openly admits in a lawsuit that they discriminate against trans children in all aspects of the school's operation, including admissions. By denying admission they are denying low income trans students the opportunity to participate in the lunch program."
#95 POSTED BY JOHNNY_HOTSAUCE

That's what it's about. Republicans trying to keep tax dollars going to religious schools and charter schools who already openly discriminate against trans kids.

#123 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2022-08-05 05:25 PM | Reply

-Eberly... I am definitely behind you on this one.

I'm not attacking the USDA. I'm just asking for clarification.

This is what gets people so upset here like lil joe.

I'm going to address lil joe and his meltdown up thread when I have more time.

#124 | Posted by eberly at 2022-08-05 06:47 PM | Reply

Lmao. Why do like three guys in this thread think that if they aren't aware of something that means it never has or will occur?

For me, it is because my irony meter is pinging. The classic Liberal complaint is that Conservatives write laws that attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist, or isn't widespread enough to be significant. (three examples would be voter ID laws, partial birth abortion, K-3 classroom instruction concerning sexual orientation, etc. This is a very clear example of the same thing, shoe on other foot.

I think there are too many laws on the books, period. 90% of the new laws (coming from either side) are redundant, virtue signaling campaign advertisements. The main purpose they serve for the candidate to say "Look at me, look what I did", or to create outrage from simplistic inflammatory interpretations of a bill, like saying "45 members (of the other party) voted AGAINST (something like saving baby seals, imprisoning child rapists or helping Gold star Families) or voted FOR (something like torturing wild horses, tripling the national debt or dumping poison in water supplies). Nobody ever bothers to read the actual 400 page pork loaded bill and find out WHY the "other" party voted for or against it. Clue: It is usually NOT the reason given in the headline.

#125 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-05 07:00 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Are LGBTQ children discriminated in schools?

Are LGBTQ children harassed in schools and the schools do not take effective action to protect the harrassment?

#126 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-05 07:02 PM | Reply

Correction

Are LGBTQ children discriminated in schools?

Are LGBTQ children harassed in schools and do the school not take effective action to protect the harrassed?

#127 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-05 07:04 PM | Reply

" K-3 classroom instruction concerning sexual orientation"

You're mischaracterizing what's in the "Don't Say Gay" bill.
It applies to K-12, not just K-3.

#128 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-05 07:06 PM | Reply

You must not be looking very hard because I posted a clear example of this just a few posts above your comment.

#122 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2022-08-05 05:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Grant Park Christian Academy, a religious institution that participates in the federal lunch program, openly admits in a lawsuit that they discriminate against trans children in all aspects of the school's operation, including admissions. By denying admission they are denying low income trans students the opportunity to participate in the lunch program."
#95 POSTED BY JOHNNY_HOTSAUCE

Thank you Johnny, Your link definately adds a different perspective. I was unaware that non-public schools were eligible for the free lunch program.

#129 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-05 07:09 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Brown v Board of Education decided that discrimination by race was illegal

Title IX outlawed discrimination by gender

Bostock vs Clayton County found that it was illegal to discriminate by sexual orientation or gender identity

The USDA is enacting policy to implement the law of the land.

Some consider it unnecessary.

Some consider it virtue signalling

You decide

#130 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-05 07:11 PM | Reply

Republicans trying to keep tax dollars going to religious schools and charter schools who already openly discriminate against trans kids.
#123 | POSTED BY HAGBARD_CELINE

This is certainly another facet of this situation.

Seems to me a school receiving money from any government should be open admission for all.

So unfortunately Biden will have to cut funding for this lunch program to low income kids.

#131 | Posted by oneironaut at 2022-08-05 07:11 PM | Reply

It's fascinating to me how Conservatives can't see this as a Civil Rights issue. Only a States Rights issue.

#132 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-05 07:13 PM | Reply

"...partial birth abortion..."

No such thing exists

#133 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-05 07:16 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

It's fascinating to me how Conservatives can't see this as a Civil Rights issue. Only a States Rights issue.

#132 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Not fascinating to me, its the same fight going on for 70 years since Brown v BoE

#134 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-05 07:16 PM | Reply

But this isn't the problem with the States. The states issue is the following :

Tennessee state law asserts that "[a] student's gender for purposes of participation in a public middle school or high school interscholastic athletic activity or event must be determined by the student's sex at the time of the student's birth." The state law also provides a right of action against schools that permit "a member of the opposite sex to enter [a] multi-occupancy restroom or changing facility while other persons [are] present."

So the USDA is usurping the ability of Tennessee to assign Gender for the purposes of ... .

So you can see in one case the Biden Administration has good cause, in another its usurping State laws.

#135 | Posted by oneironaut at 2022-08-05 07:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1


It's fascinating to me how Conservatives can't see this as a Civil Rights issue. Only a States Rights issue.
#132 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Its not surprising you can only believe is a civil rights issue.

#136 | Posted by oneironaut at 2022-08-05 07:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I think there are too many laws on the books"

You ever notice how it's pretty much only the Party of Law and Order who says this? You can see the bait-and-switch happening in real time, when they speak. "Well I think there too many laws, so simple statistics says this one probably ought to go too."

I think how many laws are on the books has nothing to do with this.

I think it's exactly as TruthHurts spelled out. Republicans hate Brown v. Board of Ed, they hate Title IX, and they hate Bostock. All three of those are attacks on their traditional American values.

Republicans do an excellent job of showing us that "Conservative" ideology can easily be summed up as "Resistance to change." As seen with Brown, Title IX, and Bostock.

Republicans see a chance to claw back some ground, or at worst slow the advance, so they take it.

#137 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-05 07:23 PM | Reply

#119. That part you copied makes no mention of the cafeteria. It just says "discrimination".

#138 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-08-05 07:28 PM | Reply

Its not surprising you can only believe is a civil rights issue.
#136 | POSTED BY ONEIRONAUT

My, where'd you get that?

It is illegal at the Federal level to discriminate on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity.

The states rights to discriminate on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity must succumb to Federal law.

Though, if you'd care to advance an impassioned argument why the existence of said civil rights should be a state's right to extend or deny, I'm sure it would be a good way to troll the libs.

#139 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-05 07:29 PM | Reply

That part you copied makes no mention of the cafeteria. It just says "discrimination".

I love when people are so far out of their lane that they start arguing that a rule specifically tied to school lunches is secret conspiracy designed to get trannies into locker rooms.

You are so ------ up. Get off the internet.

#140 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-05 08:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

No, its more about the investigating the lunch lady for mis-pronouning offenses.

#141 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-05 08:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Why is it so predictable that right wingers are up in arms about anti discrimination laws, but defended DeSantes passing laws discriminating against LGBT teachers and students in Florida?

Zero proof any teachers anywhere were discussing homosexuality with children. Republicans demand we protect the children by outlawing rainbows in classrooms.

Ample proof LGBT children are being discriminated against. Republicans cry about left wing authoritarianism.

Conservatism is a mental illness.

#142 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-08-05 08:57 PM | Reply

deplorables. every republican.

#143 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2022-08-05 09:04 PM | Reply

"I love when people are so far out of their lane that they start arguing that a rule specifically tied to school lunches is secret conspiracy designed to get trannies into locker rooms.

You are so ------ up. Get off the internet.

#140 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2022-08-05 08:00 PM |"

Are you ready to sack up and admit you are wrong?

#144 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-08-05 09:15 PM | Reply

Democrats are going to let gay indoctrination and illegal aliens sink their ship.

#145 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-08-05 09:16 PM | Reply

So the USDA is usurping the ability of Tennessee to assign Gender for the purposes of ... .

You believe the state should be allowed to assign gender?

So you can see in one case the Biden Administration has good cause, in another its usurping State laws.
#135 | POSTED BY ONENUT

Your post has nothing to do with the topic of the thread and is nothing more than a pathetic attempt at fearmongering.

Read again:

"the USDA earlier this year announced it plans to prohibit schools from receiving federal meal funding if they have meal programs that discriminate against LGBTQ children."

It has nothing to do with your fantasy to sneak into the girls locker room and sniff their panties.

#146 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-08-05 09:16 PM | Reply

Democrats are going to let gay indoctrination and illegal aliens sink their ship.
#145 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

Oh look.

The most mentally deficient moron on the DR decided to show up.

He throws up on his wife every time he sees her naked.

Just like Jesus wanted.

#147 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-08-05 09:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This is how this USDA memorandum opens:

WASHINGTON, May 5, 2022 " The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) announced today that it will interpret the prohibition on discrimination based on sex found in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and in the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly the Food Stamp Program (7 USC 2011 et seq.), to include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Under the leadership of the Biden-Harris Administration, USDA and FNS are issuing this interpretation to help ensure its programs are open, accessible and help promote food and nutrition security, regardless of demographics.

This action is in line with President Biden's Executive Order on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation,

The part in bold is a link to Biden's EO that forms the basis or groundwork for this memorandum.

So, let's click the link to the Biden EO and see what we uncover, shall we?

*click*

Look what I found:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. Every person should be treated with respect and dignity and should be able to live without fear, no matter who they are or whom they love. Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports.

Gee, that is exactly what I've been saying throughout this thread. I'll accept some retractions and apologies now.

Oh, and here is the link to the EO (Link to the USDA memorandum is in #119).

www.whitehouse.gov

#148 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-08-05 09:21 PM | Reply

#148 | POSTED BY BELLYACHE

Hey dumbfkkk.

You should read the first paragraph you posted.

It says "food program" at least 4 times.

#149 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-08-05 09:23 PM | Reply

Those 2 issues are a driving wedge that will have tremendous influence in future elections.

Btw...I'm not reading anyone's posts.

Throw your insults but I won't know.

I don't care.

#150 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-08-05 09:27 PM | Reply

Please, Clownshack the lying piece of ---- is worried the President of the US Joe Biden will pass American laws that will allow Canadian trans students to the use the bathrooms of their choice, in Canada.

#151 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-05 09:27 PM | Reply

Every person should be treated with respect and dignity and should be able to live without fear, no matter who they are or whom they love. Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports.

This scares the shht out of people like BellyAche.

Because he can only project the horrible shht he'd be doing if he had access to the girls locker room. Raping them. Onto transgender children.

Also. How dare anyone tell him to respect others.

Conservatives are garbage human beings.

#152 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-08-05 09:28 PM | Reply

www.hrc.org

The data show that 43% of transgender youth have been bullied on school property. 29% of transgender youth, 21% of gay and lesbian youth and 22% of bisexual youth have attempted suicide.

Republicans are scum

#153 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-05 09:29 PM | Reply

"Title IX outlawed discrimination by gender" - Truthhurts

No, it doesn't.

"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."

www2.ed.gov

Titile IX does not protect the "right" of a transperson or a person claiming to be trans to use the locker room of their choosing. Locker rooms in schools are almost exclusively segregated by SEX.

#154 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-08-05 09:30 PM | Reply

Conservatives are garbage human beings.
#152 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Jeffj is special type of garbage, kind of like if a ---- took a -----that would be jeff

#155 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-05 09:30 PM | Reply

#150 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

Hey Bill.

If ------ is repealed, how will your wife ever fkkk you again?

#156 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-08-05 09:30 PM | Reply

#151 Jessica Yaniv was a deliberately extreme example - I know exactly who she is (she's the Canadian who tried to sue waxing salons because they refused to wax her -------). Just like Heather Swanson (who I cited in my sports example), who is a fictional character from South Park.

#157 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-08-05 09:32 PM | Reply

#155 You just got your ------- ass handed to you by the language in the memorandum which is tied to the EO. Ditch the shovel and take the L.

#158 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-08-05 09:33 PM | Reply

"Title IX outlawed discrimination by gender" - Truthhurts
No, it doesn't.
"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."
www2.ed.gov
Titile IX does not protect the "right" of a transperson or a person claiming to be trans to use the locker room of their choosing. Locker rooms in schools are almost exclusively segregated by SEX.

#154 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You know what jeffj, the lying piece of ----, you are correct, I made an error by equating sex and gender under Title IX

Of course we continue on to Bostock vs Clayton County found that it WAS illegal to discriminate by sexual orientation or gender identity

so, iow you are wrong, no surprise

NOW, are you going to condemn DeSantis for not firing Education commissioner Manny Diaz Jr. for not following the law?

#159 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-05 09:36 PM | Reply

"Hey dumbfkkk.

You should read the first paragraph you posted.

It says "food program" at least 4 times.

#149 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2022-08-05 09:23 PM |"

Ok. I get that you are very dim. So, I will type this VERY slowly.

Biden issues an EO prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender and sexual orientation. Right in the second sentence in Section 1 the EO says "restrooms, locker rooms and sports."

The EO is the jab. The memorandum is the upper cut.

The memorandum ties school lunch funding to discrimination, more specifically, lack of. In the memorandum it states that it's drawing from the EO. The EO explicitly mentions "restrooms, locker rooms and sports."

So, should a school district decide that the next Lia Thomas can't use the girls locker room and can't compete as a girl that school district will lose its federal lunch money. Exactly as I have been saying all thread.

#160 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-08-05 09:38 PM | Reply

Hey jeff, did some trans person touch your privates in a bathroom or something? Cause your sick fantasies certainly tell a story

#161 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-05 09:38 PM | Reply

Jeffj is special type of garbage, kind of like if a ---- took a -----that would be jeff
#155 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

I don't know why you entertain that POS, all he has are lies and bullshht.

He accused all teachers of being pedophiles and all transgender people as rapists and men trying to do better at sports.

He doesn't realize his posts are a projection of himself.

#162 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-08-05 09:39 PM | Reply

#159 This thread isn't about DeSantis.

#163 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-08-05 09:39 PM | Reply

Biden issues an EO prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender and sexual orientation. Right in the second sentence in Section 1 the EO says "restrooms, locker rooms and sports."
The EO is the jab. The memorandum is the upper cut.
The memorandum ties school lunch funding to discrimination, more specifically, lack of. In the memorandum it states that it's drawing from the EO. The EO explicitly mentions "restrooms, locker rooms and sports."
So, should a school district decide that the next Lia Thomas can't use the girls locker room and can't compete as a girl that school district will lose its federal lunch money. Exactly as I have been saying all thread.

#160 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER A

The EO arises from Bostock vs Clayton County, in which the Supreme Court recognized that it is impossible to discriminate against a person based on their sexual orientation or gender identity without discriminating against that person based on sex.

so, iow you are wrong, like usual. You always seem to take the bigoted hateful discriminatory position. very sad

#164 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-05 09:42 PM | Reply

Biden issues an EO prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender and sexual orientation.

Good.

Any reasoning you have as to why that's a bad thing is as ridiculous as a racist trying to convince me prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race is a bad thing.

You might as well tell me black athletes have an unfair advantage at sports compared to white athletes.

You might as well tell me separate is equal.

Go die off you hate filled bigot.

#165 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-08-05 09:42 PM | Reply

"Of course we continue on to Bostock vs Clayton County"

Right in the first paragraph:

"In each of these cases, an employer allegedly fired a long-time employee simply for being homosexual or transgender. "

www.law.cornell.edu

Nothing to do with schools and certainly nothing to do with Title IX.

#166 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-08-05 09:43 PM | Reply

#159 This thread isn't about DeSantis.

#163 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

www.tampabay.com

Florida made headlines when education commissioner Manny Diaz Jr. told school districts to ignore the Biden Administration's nondiscrimination guidelines in relation to federally funded cafeteria meals.

Your level of ignorance is almost as great as your stupidity and arrogance

#167 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-05 09:44 PM | Reply

The straw men have gotten beyond incessant. As have the deflections and non sequiturs.

This is what I've said all thread: This memorandum is designed to punish schools that won't go along with Biden admin edicts pertaining to trans and those who claim to be trans regarding usage of locker room and restrooms and competing in girl's sports.

All thread I was bashed for stating that's what this memorandum does. I prove that to be the case and Douchehurts and Clownshack go in a hundred different directions to avoid acknowledging I was right.

Go ahead and have the last word - this whole discussion has become circular.

#168 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-08-05 09:47 PM | Reply

This thread isn't about DeSantis.
#163 | POSTED BY BELLYACHE

This thread is about you championing discrimination.

At least Eberly pretends he's playing devil's advocate.

#169 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-08-05 09:49 PM | Reply

Jeff, seriously, you should examine your conscience as to why you are such a hateful bigot

#170 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-05 09:49 PM | Reply

All thread I was bashed for stating that's what this memorandum does.

It actually doesn't do what you're desperate to prove it does.

You're speculating.

Here's what the article says, read it again:

"the USDA earlier this year announced it plans to prohibit schools from receiving federal meal funding if they have meal programs that discriminate against LGBTQ children."

If the Department of Education decides to do something similar, that's on them.

#171 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-08-05 09:53 PM | Reply

-JeffJ is a special type of garbage,

You should out the SOB.

#172 | Posted by eberly at 2022-08-05 09:59 PM | Reply

Or he can out himself
Like he did

#173 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-05 10:05 PM | Reply

Jeff is here arguing about locker rooms when at least one school admitted to discriminating against trans students in every aspect of their operation.

It's amazing to me how some people can be so hateful that they make up their own reality so they can blindly ignore what is occurring right in front of their eyes.

#174 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2022-08-05 10:32 PM | Reply

"Of course we continue on to Bostock vs Clayton County"
Right in the first paragraph:
"In each of these cases, an employer allegedly fired a long-time employee simply for being homosexual or transgender. "
www.law.cornell.edu
Nothing to do with schools and certainly nothing to do with Title IX.
#166 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

I'm not sure I see your point.
Should it be okay to fire employees for being homosexual or transgender?

#175 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-05 11:18 PM | Reply

Are you ready to sack up and admit you are wrong?
#144 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

About what? Please show your work.

#176 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-05 11:38 PM | Reply

"About what? Please show your work.

#176 | POSTED BY JOE"

Hello, Joe.

Please refer back to the following posts:

#148 - This is where the work is shown. This is a bit of a follow up:

#160

Seriously - your reaction to #148 is what I am most curious about.

#177 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-08-06 02:09 AM | Reply

Please forgive the snark with #148 - I am not looking for combat - just your thoughts based on how I laid it out.

#178 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-08-06 02:10 AM | Reply

You really think you found something there. You're pretending a recital that generally describes some of the circumstances giving rise to the order has some sort of binding effect as to rules implemented in response to the order. This is so far off the mark I don't even know where to start. It's not how law works, it's not how EOs work, it's not how administrative rules work. Every little rule that follows an EO doesn't magically drag in every recital with the force of law.

The USDA rule at issue is limited to what it actually says. Which isn't much, and definitely isn't what you're talking about.

#179 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-06 05:53 AM | Reply

The memorandum doesn't give any definition to discrimination. The EO gives examples. I appreciate your reasoned response. Think about this though - all of these threatened lawsuits over much ado about very little?

I remember the Obama years and a few "Dear colleague" letters and the outcome of those letters (turning college campuses into kangaroo courts for adjudicating sexual assault allegations, for openers). If anything this administration has been even more brazen in pursuing woke leftist policies by executive decree.

#180 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-08-06 09:53 AM | Reply

-At least Eberly pretends he's playing devil's advocate.

funny.

I'll live with the rules. I'm not complaining about them....just initiating a conversation about them. If the courts agree with the USDA's requirements....that's fine.

Of course, wimps like you and lil joe interpret that as though I'm sticking up for these states or accusing the USDA of some massive government overreach.

I posted earlier why the states were justifying their lawsuit. It's from the articles that covered the complaints.

Do I have a knowledge Federal Laws that cover these discrimination exposures? Of course not.

I'm merely stipulating that whatever Federal law that protects a gay kid in the auditorium doesn't end when they leave the auditorium and head to the cafeteria.

Unless someone wants to challenge that assertion, stop whining. Or whine to someone else.

Geez.....why do some posters need so many ------- shoulders to cry on?

Twoothy
lil joe
clown

you ------- take EVERYTHING personal. Then you respond with personal insults at a pretty low level.

can any of you go 1 thread without a meltdown??

#181 | Posted by eberly at 2022-08-06 10:27 AM | Reply

"I'm merely stipulating that whatever Federal law that protects a gay kid in the auditorium doesn't end when they leave the auditorium and head to the cafeteria."

So then,the lawsuit itself:
Frivolous? Virtue Signaling? Or do they have a point?

#182 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-06 10:29 AM | Reply

-was issued without providing the State and other stakeholders the opportunity for input as required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),

-was premised on a misreading and misapplication of the Supreme Court's holding in Bostock v. Clayton County, and

-imposes new and unlawful regulatory measures on state agencies and operators receiving federal financial assistance from the USDA, which will inevitably result in regulatory
chaos that threatens essential nutritional services to some of the most vulnerable citizens.

Those are the complaints.

It's not the complaints that is the issue here for people. The reason this is news is which states that are complaining and the states not involved. It's clearly a red state/blue state divide.

#183 | Posted by eberly at 2022-08-06 10:33 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

"It's clearly a red state/blue state divide."

Thank you for stating the obvious.

Is it a frivolous, virtue signaling divide, or is there a substantial, meaningful issue the Republicans have raised which deserves a look at being provided judicial relief?

#184 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-06 10:38 AM | Reply

Do I have a knowledge Federal Laws that cover these discrimination exposures? Of course not.

You should have led and finished with that instead of saying this is "already covered by Federal Law." You talk out of your ass all day long, someone finally calls you out on it, them you accuse them of having a "meltdown" while casually admitting you don't know ----.

#185 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-06 01:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You're still having a meltdown, lil joe.

It's not talking out of one's --- when one assumes there are laws that protect protected classes of people.

And your response is "well, I don't know either so you should just shut up"

Why don't you just shut up, lil joe.? You've offered exactly squat to this conversations other than to attack me and others for conversing and asking questions.

I write employment practices liability insurance. I work with employers who are occasionally drug into litigation with regard to discrimination against protected classes of people, lil joe.

I insure public school districts who also get drug into similar occurrences with faculty, administrators and yes ... .students. Again, protected classes of people, lil joe.

Why don't you display some discipline and ignore me. You're clearly incapable of anything except personal attacks. Look at your posts on this thread, for christs sakes, lil joe.

I actually expect to be hit with questions on this from clients and underwriters, lil joe.

You're nothing but an angry hostile wannabe begging to be taken seriously.

I, OTOH, work in the real world.

#186 | Posted by eberly at 2022-08-06 02:08 PM | Reply

can any of you go 1 thread without a meltdown??
#181 | POSTED BY EBERLY

If me asking you to clarify what you meant is what you consider a "meltdown", I'm not really sure how you survive in the real world.

Maybe your statement was meaningless and pretending to be a victim is your method to avoid acknowledging it.

Who knows.

#187 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-08-06 02:26 PM | Reply

186 Blah blah blah

Didnt read

Have a nice day ------

#188 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-06 02:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Should it be okay to fire employees for being homosexual or transgender?
#175 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Of course he believes it should be.

It's what he's fighting for.

His freedom to discriminate, his right to bigotry.

He's a champion for ignorance and hate.

As are all conservatives.

#189 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-08-06 02:30 PM | Reply

"I write employment practices liability insurance. I work with employers who are occasionally drug into litigation with regard to discrimination against protected classes of people"

So when companies break the law, they don't have to pay damages, because that's covered? That kind of thing?

That sounds like a license to print money, since those kinds of lawsuits can reach into the millions, no company would want that kind of liability.

But doesn't it sort of defeat the purpose of the liability if companies can just insure against it?

#190 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-06 02:45 PM | Reply

Have a nice day ------

Thanks. It's awesome so far.

#191 | Posted by eberly at 2022-08-06 03:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

-was issued without providing the State and other stakeholders the opportunity for input as required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),
-was premised on a misreading and misapplication of the Supreme Court's holding in Bostock v. Clayton County, and
-imposes new and unlawful regulatory measures on state agencies and operators receiving federal financial assistance from the USDA, which will inevitably result in regulatory chaos that threatens essential nutritional services to some of the most vulnerable citizens.
Those are the complaints.
It's not the complaints that is the issue here for people. The reason this is news is which states that are complaining and the states not involved. It's clearly a red state/blue state divide.
#183 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2022-08-06 10:33 AM | FLAG: (CHOOSE) | FUNNY: 2

These are the allegations from the Republicans? Their argument is that not discriminating will "result in threats to services"?

Can that be proven? It would seem backwards from just providing everyone lunch? And probably less costly in every sense possible.

Their overhead must be incredibly extensive to outthink school lunches on a whim. Can they think up an effective regulatory body that ensures all public schools are funded, fed and free of religious administration? And while they're at it - we know it will take at least a 300+ body count at one of these popular school massacres before even ONE city will prohibit guns. I can't do anything but wait. Kinda like what these unfed kids will be doing for lunch.

#192 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2022-08-06 04:03 PM | Reply

Gotta admit...ol' beverley's got gaslighting down to an absolute science.

#193 | Posted by Angrydad at 2022-08-06 08:01 PM | Reply

Just repeating the allegations, angry little fella.

#194 | Posted by eberly at 2022-08-06 08:44 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Amazing that this fake headline is still on the front page. So much for any pretense of caring about the credibility of this site or that it's not actively trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

#195 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-08-07 03:35 AM | Reply

Nearly all the headlines on the front page are "fake" and misleading. They are seldom supported by the linked articles linked, and often the articles linked are not supported by the sources the articles quote. American media has become a cesspool of propaganda.

#196 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-07 07:16 AM | Reply

"Nearly all the headlines on the front page are "fake" and misleading."

Don't let the screen door hit you on the way out!

#197 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-07 12:52 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2022 World Readable

Drudge Retort