While I agree that the bill is not a good one, I think that the writers of the article who are saying that every school will become a "homosexual-bisexual-transsexual indoctrination center", and that childre will be "molested", to be overreacting.
with his signature also ordered public schools to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose.
Thank God I don't live in CA. No boy is going to go into a locker room where my daughter is getting dressed.
Further, homecoming kings now can be either male or female – as can homecoming queens, and students, whether male or female, must be allowed to use the restroom and locker room corresponding to the sex with which they choose to identify.
Oh why, oh why, can't I be a high school student now... I so would have loved to use the Girls locker room! Thats the story of my life always late to the show! :xp:
@ Yes Cali is a nuthouse! One big nuthouse! Not always a good thing IMHO.
Oh why, oh why, can't I be a high school student now
Didn't think of that. Suddenly it seems obvious where I'll be going when I'm done studdying in Norway.
While I agree that the bill is not a good one, I think that the writers of the article who are saying that every school will become a "homosexual-bisexual-transsexual indoctrination center", and that childre will be "molested", to be overreacting.
What do you expect from the World Net Daily, a rather conservative-minded website?
Curiously, the bill was supposedly signed into law on October 12, yet the only places on the 'net I've been able to find reference to it are WND and FreeRepublic, two conservative websites who would of course be outraged at such a law. I don't quite know what to think at this point, but I believe I'll wait until a news source like Reuters or the BBC has posted this story before commenting fully on it.
I can really see why people are getting so upset about a bill designed to “afford equal rights and opportunities to all persons in the public or private elementary and secondary schools and postsecondary educational institutions of the state regardless of their sex, ethnic group identification, race, national origin, religion, or mental or physical disability and prohibits a person from being subjected to discrimination on those bases.”
I’ve read the bill and if someone can show me where it states that boys/girls can use the others restrooms or locker rooms I’d really appreciate it.
I actually did not see the terms laboratory, restroom, bathroom, dressing room or locker room in the bill.
SB 777 (
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0751-0800/sb_777_bill_20070510_amended_sen_v97.html)
More likely the restroom paranoia was something worked up by detractors of the bill in hopes of defeating it and then ran with Christian groups and right wing media outlets wanting to win points with their conservative base.
I don’t like the bill, but I also wish that legislation to protect individuals from any type of discrimination was unnecessary, but obviously it is still a necessary fact of life.
I was baffled at first, but then I noticed the ad for "The Rise of Atheist America" and "Zion Oil and Gas Company," and realized that this source is horribly biased.
I'll wait for a pseudo-objective writeup from a more "reputable" source to comment on this one.
The way they framed it made the bill seem ludicrous, even by my standards, by the way.
Reason Reuters won't care about this is because this is a tempest in a teapot.
From prelimnary research, don't be fooled by that report. What this bill does is simply state that books must be NPOV towards "protected classes", such as sexual preference.
The problem is, well, that people alledge that the history textbooks ALREADY are NPOV towards the "protected classes" (as in, there is nothing condemning them or discussing abotu them at the moment), as in, they don't care, therefore, having such a law would basically state that the history textbooks must be in favor of the "protected classes". This is where the Indoctrination charges come in...the textbooks will be 'promoting' the "protected classes", which is not really that good.
Basically, I am opposed to it, but only due to the fact that it furthers 'political correctness'. And that it wastes Californa's taxpayers money. But I don't live there, so I have no reason to worry about that.
All the sources I found are pro-bill and anti-bill, nothing really netrual, so be careful of bias.
ANTI-SB 777
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200710/CUL20071015b.html)
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070628/28205_Pro-Gay_Curriculum_Bill_Passes_Calif._Assembly_Committ) ee.htm
http://www.proudparenting.com/node/878)
PRO-SB 777
http://media.www.daily49er.com/media/storage/paper1042/news/2007/09/19/Opinion/Our-View.Pending.Social.Change.Bills.Deserve.Ink-2977594.shtml)
http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/awsmom8/15938)
Ok, so you can't smoke with your kids in the car, but you can walk into the girls room. Its getting curiouser and curiouser.
Thank you mimartin for introducing some logic into this thread and posting a link to the actual SB777. The fact that that website is clearly as much for "indoctrination" as they claim Arnie is making CA Public schools only proves how little credibility it has.
AB394 deals with nursing and their wages. not parents and teachers.
AB14 alters who on what basis anyone or anything can be discriminated against in regards to businesses and state stuff.
AB14 (
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_14_bill_20061204_introduced.html)
I’ve read the bill and if someone can show me where it states that boys/girls can use the others restrooms or locker rooms I’d really appreciate it.That equal rights means unisex facilities is a myth perpetuated either deliberately or accidentally and used actively by right-wing outlets to oppose the bill. Kinda like when FOX News 'mistakenly' told their viewers Barrack Obama was a Muslim, knowing full well how much of their base would never vote for a Muslim.
I still find it ridiculous that unisex bathrooms would be 'discrimination' or even 'persecution' of Christians. Following the same logic, isn't gender-segregated bathrooms discrimination or persecution of nudists?
Actually, unisex bathrooms are only the logical conclusion and extension of such a law. By marking a restroom as only male or female, you are by definition discriminating against anyone that doesn't fit in that category. If you uphold that any form of discrimination based on gender or orientation, etc.. is unlawful......unisex bathrooms are the end result. Will there be a lawsuit by someone immediately after the bill is signed, maybe not......but the stage is set. Any other conclusion is illogical and merely sticking one's head in the sand/willfully ignoring the obvious.
Any other conclusion is illogical and merely sticking one's head in the sand/willfully ignoring the obvious.
Not really.
You see, there is a thing known as discrimnation that makes sense (alright fine, it's a term I made up, but it's based off the whole 'common sense' aspect that would usually be put into play in such a court case). As long as we still believe that some sort of discrimination makes sense, everything will be fine.
Example of Discrimnation That Makes Sense: Criminals should not have the ability to vote becuase they are criminals, and they forfietted the right to vote when they committed crimes.
Example of Discrimination That Makes Sense: Insurance companies can charge higher preimums for people who have a gene that makes them predisposed to a certain diease, due to the fact that they are in fact predisposed to that certain diease.
Example of Discrimination That Makes Sense: Men and Women have different biological needs, and bathrooms are needed to be created and designed so that both Men and Women can have those needs met. Plus, the whole 'icky' factor as well.
Example of Discrimnation That Does Not Make Sense: Black and white cannot intermarry because of the fact that it would contimante the gene pool. (Note that IF scientific laws proved superiority of whites or blacks, then this discrimination would in fact, make sense. As it does not, then such discrimination does not make sense, and is therefore prohibited.)
I'd say you have much more faith in society than I have at this point. Given the overly litigious charachter of modern American society, the law would have to be carefully crafted to designate OFFICIALLY what is specifically considered a form of discrimination. If left loosely defined, the end result is more or less what I'm saying. This is all the more likely if society moves from more "traditional" mores to "modern sensibilities".
Actually, unisex bathrooms are only the logical conclusion and extension of such a law...Any other conclusion is illogical and merely sticking one's head in the sand/willfully ignoring the obvious.
Same type of logical conclusion as not banning assault rifles because they will be coming for your hunting rifle next or not banning partial birth abortions because they will be going after all abortions next. To me it is more illogical not to do what is right out of fear of what people might do.
There are things that could be construed as discrimination in schools that are done and allowed for safety and/or to prevent distractions (examples dress code, not allowing pocket knifes, detention and test). For safety reasons alone, no elected official is going to allow unisex bathrooms in schools
Why would anyone want unisex bathrooms anyway? I have been to them in New York and Dallas night clubs and I personally found it disgusting. All it did to me is it made me drink less beer.
As I pointed out, in an heavily legalistic society that is being pushed toward more "progressive values", I don't see as rosy a "reasonable" picture as you do.
1. I support unbanning Assault Rifles because I like playing with AR's, and I think making up long-winded justifications for that would be insulting your intelligence and wasting both our time. That's not to say there aren't rational reasons to allow the ownership of fully automatic weapons, but that explanation is my honest opinion.
2. I think it ought to be left to the individual school, business, or government establishment to decide what sort of restroom arrangement it deems appropriate. Granted, the Government has authority to decide what configurations of facilities are provided at federal buildings. Likewise the states should have that authority over state institutions, local governments have the same power over their buildings, and individual business owners ultimately have the right to do the same with their own establishments.
3. I honestly don't care why anyone would want unisex bathrooms, so long as nobody's rights get violated because of it, likewise for gender-segregated restrooms. However,that doesn't mean that they should be forbidden from having them should they so desire.
Disclaimer:I'm not accusing anyone of trying to ban unisex bathrooms, that is just a statement of intent on my part.