Wyoming for the win! We need more of this

The whoooosh is to be expected. I didn’t really think you two gals would understand it, but I know at least one your ilk who does.

I appreciate PT’s willingness to really commit to the stupid though. Race, your timidity here is disappointing.

This retarded pervert is upset that he can’t parade naked in a locker room in front of little girls if he visits Wyoming. Disgusting on every level.

The dazzler approves of showering with your teen daughter so why would he be upset if his daughter had to shower with a dude who just took her starting basketball spot from her?

Happy Independence Day, cowards.

In Griswold, the Supreme Court rejected a Connecticut state law that banned the use of birth control by married couples. (Yes, really.) The court reasoned that “specific guarantees in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights have penumbras … where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion.” There is the First Amendment’s rights to express your religious and political beliefs and to freely associate with others; the Third Amendment’s right to privacy in one’s own home by refusing to house soldiers during peacetime; the Fourth Amendment’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government; the Fifth Amendment’s right against self-incrimination; and the Ninth Amendment’s preservation of other individual rights, regardless of whether they are mentioned in the Constitution.

Taken together, the Supreme Court concluded, the protections in the Bill of Rights meant the Founders believed there is a “right to be let alone.”

Conservative legal heroes such as Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas hate this. Each has explicitly argued that the right to privacy is not a constitutional right because the Founders did not did not explicitly say there’s one. In 2007, Justice Thomas wrote that there is “no general right to privacy” or relevant liberty in the U.S. Constitution. Justice Scalia, in the same Lawrence v. Texas case, spoke disparagingly of the “so-called ‘right to privacy.’”

I have been reading many of you gals parroting Scalia and Thomas on this issue for more than 20 years. Today you celebrate a judge’s ruling based upon the same rights you would claim don’t exist in other contexts. Hypocrisy? Absolutely. Yours.

“I want you to spell it out unless that hurts my feelings!”, shrieked Race.

(I don’t have a problem with the judge’s reasoning, Phyllis.)

Title 9 isn’t for trannies?

No shit, Einstein!

When did you give up complex thought?

That's what woke SJWs do when presented with inconvenient facts. Hhusky assures everyone he's not part of that ilk, but votes with them 98% of the time.

The young adults we’re 4th of Julying with would howl at the notion that I’m an SJW. These tranny issues bore me to tears.

Even you should be able to recognize that this isn’t where anyone here disagrees.