The fact that the vote was 4 to 7 IN MONTANA is enough to write an article. They're infiltrating everywhere...

Thanks for the reference. I knew I was close.

I think you're looking for Luke 23:34 "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do." in reference to the Romans that crucified Him. I'm not a biblical scholar, but picked up a few things along the way.

Jesus also said "judge them not by their words, but by their actions"

That part of the bill prohibiting school employees from promoting the "genderaffirming" or

was it ('gender-transitioning"?) stuff, I don't know about. First Amendment? Still, kids in a public school are in an inherently coercive situation. So "gender-affirming" would seem to be forcing something on them, as they are below the age where one could properly "consent". As I have repeatedly said, (continue to say) let's abolish public (government-financed & government operated) schools!

However, it is this type of insanity that is the mirror, philosophically, for fundamental right/wrong, moral/immoral perception.

Purportedly Jesus says: Bless them for they know not what they do.
How about: Bless them for they know not what they are. Lao Tzu and Rand cleared up this issue for me. Quite evident after growing up on farms.

This issue has gone off-the-cliff insane.
I'm not playing along anymore or even discussing it. I'm simply going to ignore it.

Here's an objective insight.
Life must metabolize energy and procreate. If either is disrupted death or extinction occur.
Homosexuality is either a bio-chemical or mental choice that ends procreation.
Wilful mutilation of reproductive activity ends procreation.
These individuals are suicidal in objective reality. They should/ we should, experience an extinction event of the group if this is biological phenomena, alone.
All the gender benders are seeking license for Hedonism, and protection from discriminatory actions. Too bad. So sad. These are the faction that will pursue sexual activity, procreation, abortion and welfare support, at the expense of others.

EXPLETIVE them all !!!!
I'll not bar their path/lives until they try to extract from me monetary compensation for their irresponsibility or try to affect any order upon those directly in the furtherance of Life.

Remember this: Furbies are a new species, and not specifically protected under law. giggle

Yup, discriminate as you will. Publicly or Privately.
I've just glossed over the substantive arguments leading to the language. Wilful physical mutilation resulting in asexuality isn't covered. Belief is also not covered.
"I identify as ..."
"Hold up there, I identify as an axe and I want to axe you something". "Would you care to contract?" "Be veeery careful how you answer"

I believe in live and let live. One can 'transition' into a penguin for all I care. But even I have my limits:
> I refuse to believe that one is in fact a penguin.
> I refuse to pay for their penguin transition surgery.
> I refuse to call one by any penguin sir name or pronoun.
> I refuse to be forced to agree with or affirm this mental disorder.
> I steadfastly refuse to grant penguins any special rights, privileges or benefits not granted to non-penguins.
Other than that, I have no strong opinions on the matter.

Heh!
Not 53 genders, but 53 forms of mental disorder.

Yet humans suffer the hubris. At least I know, in reasonable circumstance, I can now fix stupid.

Gynecomastia. I just looked for some stats. You don't want to know.

That's based upon 64 Civil Rights. Looks like ADA was not entered into court.
Under CRA SCOTUS ruled correctly.

It has not been argued that self mutilation violates a funda-mental rule of Life. Life must metabolize energy and have the ability to procreate or the will to procreate. It's not suicide of the individual, yet is it the election of discontinuing the Line for the sole purpose of Hedonism.

This is why we have the battle over the status of sex/gender in the courts. No one has proposed this objectively .... yet.

Of course it is gaslighting. I just point out that Gorsuch's ruling regarding the protected status of sexual orientation undoes most of what is cited in Montana's code. :(

You can not change what God created.

Perhaps. I'd have to read the case and pick out the precedents, what was overlooked/presented to the court as well.
This is gaslighting at finest. Elizabeth Warren sponsored the 2017 changes. Her name is also on the attempt to change Aircraft Carriers Act 2017 and 19 and ADA title II in 19. Create the "problem" covertly and propose "solution" through "We are fighting for you" without revealing the origin.

Idaho has a pending bill to do the same. Utah ratified their's just a few days ago. I hear South Dakota also has one up for consideration.

You're going to have to clarify which part of the underwear. If it sticks out up top they're probably not a male... =D

My bet is that Gorsuch's ruling last year can be argued to override this...

The only gender affirming care anyone should need. Is that if they are confused as to what their gender is, tell them to look inside of their underwear. If it sticks out they are male and if not then they are female.

This is excerpted from Americans With Disabilities Act Jan. 2017
The DIMS are already in violation of Fed Law with the proposal!

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 4(2) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1503(2), excludes from coverage under that Act any proposed or final Federal regulation that ‘‘establishes or enforces any statutory rights that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or disability.’’ Accordingly, this rulemaking is not subject to the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
1 On September 25, 2008, President George W.Bush signed into law the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008 (ADA Amendments Act), Public Law 110–325. The ADA Amendments Act amended the ADA definition of disability to clarify its coverage of persons with disabilities and to provide guidance on the application of the definition. This final rule does not contain regulatory language implementing the ADA Amendments Act. The Department intends to publish a supplemental rule to amend the regulatory definition of ‘‘disability’’ to implement the changes mandated by that law.

§ 36.101 Purpose and broad coverage.
(b) Broad coverage. The primary purpose of the ADA Amendments Act is to make it easier for people with disabilities to obtain protection under the ADA. Consistent with the ADA Amendments Act’s purpose of reinstating a broad scope of protection under the ADA, the definition of “disability” in this part shall be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA. The primary object of attention in cases brought under the ADA should be whether entities covered under the ADA have complied with their obligations and whether discrimination has occurred, not whether the individual meets the definition of “disability.” The question of whether an individual meets the definition of “disability” under this part should not demand extensive analysis.

• (g) Exclusions. The term “disability” does not include—
o (1) Transvestism, transsexualism, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments, or other sexual behavior disorders;

TA-DA!

That's a good rule. I might have thought of a few exceptions 30 years ago; times have changed.

keep your kids away from ALL democrats