LGBTs Get Backlash: North Carolinians Began Collecting Damages for NCAA Pulling Out: Oops!

[Dr.Traveler]

The NCAA is well within it's rights to boycott the state, and North Carolina is well within it's rights to sue if a contract is in place. North Carolina's governor though should weigh very carefully if he goes through with it. Contract violation isn't always easy to prove and the NCAA has very very deep pockets and very good lawyers. Going to court and then on to appeal will cost the taxpayers millions with little hope of recouping the money in a timely manner.

Or they are run by libs and acted out of emotion. If there's a contract they are fucked, good on the governor's office for spanking them.

I'll confess, I'm not a lawyer. But my understanding is that contracts involving venues for major events usually have an out allowing cancellation for various reasons for either party. Right or wrong, North Carolina's law has ran afoul of Title IX issues a lot of colleges have become sensitive about and as such I'd imagine there's fertile ground there for cancellation.

Standing will be an issue, as was pointed out earlier. I imagine a lot of the lawsuits will be dismissed due to standing while the rest get stonewalled.

Realistically the only way to punish the NCAA effectively if you disagree with them is a boycott. If you are willing to organize and really fight fire with fire you could advocate for the college athlete's right to form unions. If North Carolina were to find a way to at least threaten to allow their student athletes to unionize the NCAA would fold fast.

Political correctness likely isn't in the contract. Hurt feelings likely isn't in the contract. Allowing men in the ladies room likely isn't in the contract. Leftists like to pretend sexual preference is a race. It isn't. And declaring it so likely isn't in the contract.

Damage to brand or things related to bad publicity likely are in the contract. You may decry PC, but if you act like an ass to people you suffer negative publicity. That's not a violation of Free Speech, that's just a consequence of being an ass. Legality of the facility likely an issue too. If any of the events are being held on a campus accepting Federal Funding, the North Carolina law would put the campus squarely in the cross-hairs of Title IX enforcement.

I'd imagine that a lot of the schools in North Carolina involved in this aren't going to rush to sue simply because of the Title IX issue. I may be misremembering it, but a fair number of the colleges and universities in North Carolina came out and said they wouldn't be enforcing the law on campus due to Title IX.

Damage to brand by something like not allowing men in the ladies room? No one would have been stupid enough to sign a contract like that. You haven't demonstrated how that's acting like an ass, like most libs you think way to highly of yourself.

A good tip here, free of charge, when debating someone, establish a foundation before you build on it. Otherwise it's a silly waste of time.

Damage to brand is a likely out here. The NCAA wants to be in compliance with Title IX which bans many forms of discrimination. They want to appeal to a wide audience that would include the Les/Bi/Gay/Trans community. Being seen as supporting a law that is not popular nationally is damaging to the brand. What's PC or not is determined by what the culture of the time and day sees as acceptable and right now, people aren't fond of things they see as discrimination based on sexual orientation.

 

[jc456]

wow they really do hate women and children.

 

[bodecea]

Is the NCAA private? If so they can do what they want.why would north Carolina want the games?

As a North Carolinian, I agree. We also have one of the fastest growing economies in the country. Those of you who want to give sexual predators access to little girls showering and changing can go fuck yourselves

That's a lot of hetero males right there....

Did you not just make the claim that lesbians should be considered predators and thus excluded from female showers?

Just makes sense, there may be some hetro men that want to use the showers to see a female naked, but all lesbians are attracted to the female form.

That's very telling really.

I did not make such a claim.....I guess you have to make stuff up that others "say". Do that often? In between your fantasies of lesbians?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I'll confess, I'm not a lawyer. But my understanding is that contracts involving venues for major events usually have an out allowing cancellation for various reasons for either party. Right or wrong, North Carolina's law has ran afoul of Title IX issues a lot of colleges have become sensitive about and as such I'd imagine there's fertile ground there for cancellation.

You can't punish someone for protecting women and girls from sexual harassment, intimidation or exposure to males in their bathrooms, locker rooms or showers. It can't be done. It is not a legitimate "out" for a contract.

BTW, did you know the 7th circuit fed just announced that Title VII doesn't apply to LGBT? Look up Hively v Ivy Tech (2016).

But let's talk about Title IX

Title IX states that: 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. Title IX and Sex Discrimination

No biological male has ever been denied the use of the boys room. No biological female has ever been denied the use of the girls room. There is no Title IX issue for boys pretending to be girls to gain access to their hygiene facilities...or vice versa. 'Pretend' or delusions are not covered under Title IX.

Any resolution in your favor would have to require a medical doctor, or probably more likely a whole panel of them testifying that "biology is the same as pretend". Long story short. And no MD would take the chance that their testimony resulted in what everyone can predict: rape of women or girls by allowing males in their showers & locker rooms.

Title IX is a lot more expansive than you realize here. I've had to sit through a lot of mandatory Title IX training videos on college campuses. It covers all kinds of issues related to sex such as discrimination, conduct, etc.

You mean their interpretations of it.

I mean the current interpretation by the courts and the Federal Government, both of whom are in the true enforcement position. Title IX has expanded greatly and covers a lot of aspects of operation in Higher Ed.

 

[bodecea]

wow they really do hate women and children.

Alt-Righties? You betcha.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

The NCAA is well within it's rights to boycott the state, and North Carolina is well within it's rights to sue if a contract is in place. North Carolina's governor though should weigh very carefully if he goes through with it. Contract violation isn't always easy to prove and the NCAA has very very deep pockets and very good lawyers. Going to court and then on to appeal will cost the taxpayers millions with little hope of recouping the money in a timely manner.

I'm betting though the NCAA is in the clear on this one. They wouldn't have pulled the events if there wasn't a legal out in the contract.

The NCAA isnt within its rights to boycott a state that preserves the rights of women and children.

The NCAA can boycott anything it wants, within its own bylaws.

again, with repercussions that they might not like. I can't wait.

Yeah, the NCAA will probably face repercussions they won't like too. I just don't expect that lawsuits around this issue go far. What I expect to happen is for the GOP to quietly start to support allowing student athletes to unionize. That issue right there is the Sword of Damocles over the NCAA's head and the GOP's general anti-Union stance has provided cover for them for years. IF the GOP as a whole decides to punish or break the NCAA, allowing student athletes to unionize would pretty much do them in.

 

[Iceweasel]

Or they are run by libs and acted out of emotion. If there's a contract they are fucked, good on the governor's office for spanking them.

I'll confess, I'm not a lawyer. But my understanding is that contracts involving venues for major events usually have an out allowing cancellation for various reasons for either party. Right or wrong, North Carolina's law has ran afoul of Title IX issues a lot of colleges have become sensitive about and as such I'd imagine there's fertile ground there for cancellation.

Standing will be an issue, as was pointed out earlier. I imagine a lot of the lawsuits will be dismissed due to standing while the rest get stonewalled.

Realistically the only way to punish the NCAA effectively if you disagree with them is a boycott. If you are willing to organize and really fight fire with fire you could advocate for the college athlete's right to form unions. If North Carolina were to find a way to at least threaten to allow their student athletes to unionize the NCAA would fold fast.

Political correctness likely isn't in the contract. Hurt feelings likely isn't in the contract. Allowing men in the ladies room likely isn't in the contract. Leftists like to pretend sexual preference is a race. It isn't. And declaring it so likely isn't in the contract.

Damage to brand or things related to bad publicity likely are in the contract. You may decry PC, but if you act like an ass to people you suffer negative publicity. That's not a violation of Free Speech, that's just a consequence of being an ass. Legality of the facility likely an issue too. If any of the events are being held on a campus accepting Federal Funding, the North Carolina law would put the campus squarely in the cross-hairs of Title IX enforcement.

I'd imagine that a lot of the schools in North Carolina involved in this aren't going to rush to sue simply because of the Title IX issue. I may be misremembering it, but a fair number of the colleges and universities in North Carolina came out and said they wouldn't be enforcing the law on campus due to Title IX.

Damage to brand by something like not allowing men in the ladies room? No one would have been stupid enough to sign a contract like that. You haven't demonstrated how that's acting like an ass, like most libs you think way to highly of yourself.

A good tip here, free of charge, when debating someone, establish a foundation before you build on it. Otherwise it's a silly waste of time.

Damage to brand is a likely out here. The NCAA wants to be in compliance with Title IX which bans many forms of discrimination. They want to appeal to a wide audience that would include the Les/Bi/Gay/Trans community. Being seen as supporting a law that is not popular nationally is damaging to the brand. What's PC or not is determined by what the culture of the time and day sees as acceptable and right now, people aren't fond of things they see as discrimination based on sexual orientation.

You keep speaking in broad brushed vague terminology when we are discussing a lawsuit.

Rather than try to jerk me around like I was a know nothing college student post the exact portion that states a state may not defend women from men in their restrooms. Thanks in advance.

 

[Iceweasel]

I'll confess, I'm not a lawyer. But my understanding is that contracts involving venues for major events usually have an out allowing cancellation for various reasons for either party. Right or wrong, North Carolina's law has ran afoul of Title IX issues a lot of colleges have become sensitive about and as such I'd imagine there's fertile ground there for cancellation.

You can't punish someone for protecting women and girls from sexual harassment, intimidation or exposure to males in their bathrooms, locker rooms or showers. It can't be done. It is not a legitimate "out" for a contract.

BTW, did you know the 7th circuit fed just announced that Title VII doesn't apply to LGBT? Look up Hively v Ivy Tech (2016).

But let's talk about Title IX

Title IX states that: 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. Title IX and Sex Discrimination

No biological male has ever been denied the use of the boys room. No biological female has ever been denied the use of the girls room. There is no Title IX issue for boys pretending to be girls to gain access to their hygiene facilities...or vice versa. 'Pretend' or delusions are not covered under Title IX.

Any resolution in your favor would have to require a medical doctor, or probably more likely a whole panel of them testifying that "biology is the same as pretend". Long story short. And no MD would take the chance that their testimony resulted in what everyone can predict: rape of women or girls by allowing males in their showers & locker rooms.

Title IX is a lot more expansive than you realize here. I've had to sit through a lot of mandatory Title IX training videos on college campuses. It covers all kinds of issues related to sex such as discrimination, conduct, etc.

You mean their interpretations of it.

I mean the current interpretation by the courts and the Federal Government, both of whom are in the true enforcement position. Title IX has expanded greatly and covers a lot of aspects of operation in Higher Ed.

Of course. However your own words reveal the problem. If it was constitutional, men in the ladies room would be a the laws of the land. In fact, the SCOTUS shot down obama's imposition on Texas. For someone claiming to be knowledgeable, you are in the dark a lot and think bluffing your way around it will work.

 

[jc456]

so you're saying the NCAA are hypocrites and hate americans? I agree.

 

[kaz]

Is the NCAA private? If so they can do what they want.why would north Carolina want the games?

As a North Carolinian, I agree. We also have one of the fastest growing economies in the country. Those of you who want to give sexual predators access to little girls showering and changing can go fuck yourselves

That's a lot of hetero males right there....

I don't know what that means. You probably don't either

 

[jc456]

Or they are run by libs and acted out of emotion. If there's a contract they are fucked, good on the governor's office for spanking them.

I'll confess, I'm not a lawyer. But my understanding is that contracts involving venues for major events usually have an out allowing cancellation for various reasons for either party. Right or wrong, North Carolina's law has ran afoul of Title IX issues a lot of colleges have become sensitive about and as such I'd imagine there's fertile ground there for cancellation.

Standing will be an issue, as was pointed out earlier. I imagine a lot of the lawsuits will be dismissed due to standing while the rest get stonewalled.

Realistically the only way to punish the NCAA effectively if you disagree with them is a boycott. If you are willing to organize and really fight fire with fire you could advocate for the college athlete's right to form unions. If North Carolina were to find a way to at least threaten to allow their student athletes to unionize the NCAA would fold fast.

Political correctness likely isn't in the contract. Hurt feelings likely isn't in the contract. Allowing men in the ladies room likely isn't in the contract. Leftists like to pretend sexual preference is a race. It isn't. And declaring it so likely isn't in the contract.

Damage to brand or things related to bad publicity likely are in the contract. You may decry PC, but if you act like an ass to people you suffer negative publicity. That's not a violation of Free Speech, that's just a consequence of being an ass. Legality of the facility likely an issue too. If any of the events are being held on a campus accepting Federal Funding, the North Carolina law would put the campus squarely in the cross-hairs of Title IX enforcement.

I'd imagine that a lot of the schools in North Carolina involved in this aren't going to rush to sue simply because of the Title IX issue. I may be misremembering it, but a fair number of the colleges and universities in North Carolina came out and said they wouldn't be enforcing the law on campus due to Title IX.

Damage to brand by something like not allowing men in the ladies room? No one would have been stupid enough to sign a contract like that. You haven't demonstrated how that's acting like an ass, like most libs you think way to highly of yourself.

A good tip here, free of charge, when debating someone, establish a foundation before you build on it. Otherwise it's a silly waste of time.

Damage to brand is a likely out here. The NCAA wants to be in compliance with Title IX which bans many forms of discrimination. They want to appeal to a wide audience that would include the Les/Bi/Gay/Trans community. Being seen as supporting a law that is not popular nationally is damaging to the brand. What's PC or not is determined by what the culture of the time and day sees as acceptable and right now, people aren't fond of things they see as discrimination based on sexual orientation.

so again, what happened to the women's rights? Isn't that what spurred title IX?

 

[Iceweasel]

The NCAA is well within it's rights to boycott the state, and North Carolina is well within it's rights to sue if a contract is in place. North Carolina's governor though should weigh very carefully if he goes through with it. Contract violation isn't always easy to prove and the NCAA has very very deep pockets and very good lawyers. Going to court and then on to appeal will cost the taxpayers millions with little hope of recouping the money in a timely manner.

I'm betting though the NCAA is in the clear on this one. They wouldn't have pulled the events if there wasn't a legal out in the contract.

The NCAA isnt within its rights to boycott a state that preserves the rights of women and children.

The NCAA can boycott anything it wants, within its own bylaws.

again, with repercussions that they might not like. I can't wait.

Yeah, the NCAA will probably face repercussions they won't like too. I just don't expect that lawsuits around this issue go far. What I expect to happen is for the GOP to quietly start to support allowing student athletes to unionize. That issue right there is the Sword of Damocles over the NCAA's head and the GOP's general anti-Union stance has provided cover for them for years. IF the GOP as a whole decides to punish or break the NCAA, allowing student athletes to unionize would pretty much do them in.

How did you arrive at all this? I hope student do unionize. They will bankrupt the colleges likity split. I haven't seen anything about the party punishing the NCAA or what exactly you are calling punishment.

 

[jc456]

wow they really do hate women and children.

Alt-Righties? You betcha.

so you don't believe in women's and children's rights. I get it.

 

[kaz]

The beauty of these sorts of boycotts is that they beat the RW bigots at their own game.

Why do you feel the need to go into little girls bathrooms? Something is very wrong with you.

That's what hetero male predators do...like Josh Dugan.

Yes, and you're giving them the access to do it

I give no hetero male predators access to anything...look to your own mirror there.

Of course you do. All a sexual predator has to do is say they're an inner woman. There is no recourse to stop them

 

[kaz]

The beauty of these sorts of boycotts is that they beat the RW bigots at their own game.

Why do you feel the need to go into little girls bathrooms? Something is very wrong with you.

That's what hetero male predators do...like Josh Dugan.

Yes, and you're giving them the access to do it

I give no hetero male predators access to anything...look to your own mirror there.

You can't legally stop them as they are similarly situated to tranny males. Hell, that's your favorite argument afterall.

Exactly. Who's going to stop a sexual predator going in a girls room when they are going to start screaming lawsuit?

 

[kaz]

wow they really do hate women and children.

Alt-Righties? You betcha.

so you don't believe in women's and children's rights. I get it.

Being a Democrat requires self victimization first

 

[Iceweasel]

I for one didn't know NCAA's brand was men in the ladies room. Good to know!

 

[kaz]

Is the NCAA private? If so they can do what they want.why would north Carolina want the games?

As a North Carolinian, I agree. We also have one of the fastest growing economies in the country. Those of you who want to give sexual predators access to little girls showering and changing can go fuck yourselves

That's a lot of hetero males right there....

Did you not just make the claim that lesbians should be considered predators and thus excluded from female showers?

Just makes sense, there may be some hetro men that want to use the showers to see a female naked, but all lesbians are attracted to the female form.

That's very telling really.

I did not make such a claim.....I guess you have to make stuff up that others "say". Do that often? In between your fantasies of lesbians?

I was the one with fantasies of lesbians, I didn't see Pop say that

 

[Onyx]

Exactly. Who's going to stop a sexual predator going in a girls room when they are going to start screaming lawsuit?

Honestly, I am not even sure why we do not have solely unisex bathrooms.

I mind my cock and you mind your vagina.

 

[kaz]

Exactly. Who's going to stop a sexual predator going in a girls room when they are going to start screaming lawsuit?

Honestly, I am not even sure why we do not have solely unisex bathrooms.

I mind my cock and you mind your vagina.

You can take care of your own vagina