The Justice Department will withhold federal funding for a bazillion programs that North Carolina currently enjoys handouts of your tax microcents if they don’t rescind the transgender bathroom bill.

In reading the article from the NY Times found here I found this statement which i would like to comment on:

Tim Moore, the North Carolina Speaker of the House, called the letter an attempt to “circumvent the will of the electorate and instead unilaterally exert its extreme agenda on the people directly through executive orders, radical interpretations of well-settled common-sense laws and through the federal court system.”

I know some like this concept about the will of the electorate, the voters, and the claim that executive orders are being forced on people and “shoved down the throat” some say, but the problem is that we are talking about what we interpret the US Constitution to mean when it calls for equal treatment and the priority of enforcing equal treatment.

So it’s become pretty clear to me that people who feel like a woman and dress like a woman and want to use the woman’s rest room because they feel most comfortable there and safe, that to force them to use the men’s room is treating them unequal to others. No one forces anyone to use a rest room that they don’t feel comfortable in, I have never heard of such a thing, so why should anyone be told they can’t use the rest room that they feel most comfortable in?

You cannot say that because it may cause others to feel uncomfortable as an excuse to treat people who need to pee differently. If people become distraught by someone’s dress or perceived sex, they can still use whatever rest room makes them most comfortable. The constitution is not about providing comfort, it most fundamental provision is about equal treatment to form a more perfect Union.

Thus since comfort is not in our US Constitution, I can’t be concerned about that, I have to be concerned with equal treatment and the Justice Department is correct.

Thus in this situation the “will of the electorate” goes directly against the constitutional principles of equal treatment and cannot be upheld, otherwise what we have allowed in America is different classes of people and that is obviously unconstitutional by any stretch of it’s interpretation.

Take it in a different comparison, is it fair to discriminate in housing because of one’s way of dress? Whatever their sex is we already have laws that say you absolutely cannot discriminate based on sex but the same concept applies to housing discrimination based on dress when it comes to interpreting the basic constitutional principles. If we were to not allow such equal treatment where would it end? The thin voluptuous sexy models that are found in the night club ladies room could call for a ban on fat cows using it because they are offended by fat pigs and cows using their rest rooms and it makes them feel uncomfortable. It’s the same argument being made against men who dress like women and use the ladies room.

Now don’t have a cow about all this……here, have an abstract, created by using your tax microcents and all the profits generated for such studies by all the milk you drink provided you by fat cows.


This study examined whether dairy cows could distinguish among people based on the treatment received, whether cows used color as a cue to make this discrimination, and whether cows generalized their discrimination to other locations. Twelve cows were each repeatedly treated in a special treatment stall by two people wearing red or yellow overalls.

the full abstract can be found here