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?

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?

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.

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?

-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?

-I hope one understands how that would be harmful

absolutely.

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

-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.

-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 Department of Ed can cover the gymnasium

and the lunchroom.

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.

-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?

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

LOL

"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.

-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.

-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.

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...

-You're making it too complex.

I'm not making it anything.

-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 ----".

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.

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.

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.

-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.

-JeffJ is a special type of garbage,

You should out the SOB.

-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??

-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.

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.

Have a nice day ------

Thanks. It's awesome so far.

Just repeating the allegations, angry little fella.