I’m confused. How can Moms for Liberty claim they (or their children are harmed by this rule when the injunctions clearly pose a threat of greater harm to transgender children? Feelings hurt vs. suicide?
Maybe that’s the point. Regardless, as stated above, it’s reprehensible.
This confuses me, my son, and my friends as well. Why does being in this club allow them more protection than received by the LGBTQ kids that title nine extension was supposed to protect?
They sued, asserting that the rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act and should be declared invalid. The judge in their case held they were likely to succeed in that lawsuit and issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the rule in schools attended by the children of members.
I think it's a bad decision, on virtually every one of those points, but that's what happened and why it is blocked for them.
Agreed, bad decision because why does it matter if their child attends the school? What about the LGBTQ kids who, in my Southern California neighborhood schools, far outnumber the 1 or 2 MFL Hate Group members kids. Luckily, we have state, local, and district protections already in place. But it's a nonsensical and unjust injunction. Having trouble explaining it to non lawyers, especially.
All in republicans states that it is somehow blocked, where kids need it the most!! Those states have the most vile hate possible!!
Why doesn't federal procedure mandate the unification of these cases, which all have the same claims and the same requested relief?
I’m confused. How can Moms for Liberty claim they (or their children are harmed by this rule when the injunctions clearly pose a threat of greater harm to transgender children? Feelings hurt vs. suicide?
Maybe that’s the point. Regardless, as stated above, it’s reprehensible.
This confuses me, my son, and my friends as well. Why does being in this club allow them more protection than received by the LGBTQ kids that title nine extension was supposed to protect?
They sued, asserting that the rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act and should be declared invalid. The judge in their case held they were likely to succeed in that lawsuit and issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the rule in schools attended by the children of members.
I think it's a bad decision, on virtually every one of those points, but that's what happened and why it is blocked for them.
Agreed, bad decision because why does it matter if their child attends the school? What about the LGBTQ kids who, in my Southern California neighborhood schools, far outnumber the 1 or 2 MFL Hate Group members kids. Luckily, we have state, local, and district protections already in place. But it's a nonsensical and unjust injunction. Having trouble explaining it to non lawyers, especially.
I lived through the Fifties … don’t wanna go back, thank you very much!
I’m with ya, David Sharpe.
But, there fools and most of SCOTUS I believe would like to retreat to the 1830s.