Posted on 08/28/2006 9:27:06 PM PDT by Heartofsong83
Actually, it does not. The government can attach whatever strings it wants to the funds it provides. If you don't like the strings, you don't take the money.
The Supreme Court has ruled this way many times.
It is obviously a disgusting bill, and pretty lame that Arnie signed it, but if you are a private christian college, just don't take money from the state, and you won't be beholden.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1401-1450/sb_1441_bill_20060811_enrolled.html
SB 1441, Kuehl Discrimination: state programs and activities:
sexual orientation.
Existing law prohibits discrimination on the basis of, among other
things, race, national origin, ethnic group identification,
religion, age, sex, color, or disability, against any person in any
program or activity conducted, operated, or administered by the state
or by any state agency, or that is funded directly by the state, or
that receives any financial assistance from the state. Existing law
also requires, with respect to disability, that these programs and
activities meet the protections and prohibitions contained in certain
provisions of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,
and the federal rules and regulations implementing that act, or state
law if the state protections and prohibitions are stronger.
This bill would add sexual orientation to these provisions and
define for these purposes "sex" and "sexual orientation."
The bill would also expand the definition of discrimination under
these provisions to include a perception that a person has any of
these enumerated characteristics or that the person is associated
with a person who has, or is perceived to have, any of these
characteristics.
GOVERNMENT MONEY == GOVERNMENT STRINGS
The only way to avert entanglements is to take a pass on the $$$. As government becomes more oppressive, the decision to push their cash back in their bureaucratic faces and tell them to "Buzz off" will pay enormous dividends. Schools that refuse the dirty funds will be able to offer an educational product free from government-imposed gobbledy-gook, and, thus, head and shoulders above what their former peers can offer.
Near-term pain will be greater long-term gain.
Republicans at all levels are making very hard for me to support the party. I know the alternative is worse, but maybe it is time for a wake up call.
I didn't see the unconstitutionality in the link. The state can offer more protection with it's own funding. That is inherent in the Constitution.
Did you read the bill?
This is not even as much as a shell of the former bill.
While I an not happy, but all it says it adds sexual orientation to the list of items, against which discrimination is prohibited.
"SECTION 1. Section 11135 of the Government Code is
amended to read:
11135. (a) No person in the State of California shall, on the
basis of race, national origin, ethnic group identification,
religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, color, or disability, be
unlawfully denied full and equal access to the benefits of, or be
unlawfully subjected to discrimination under, any program or
activity that is conducted, operated, or administered by the state or by any state agency, is funded directly by the state, or receives
any financial assistance from the state. Notwithstanding Section
11000, this section applies to the California State University."
So if there's an R by the name, you'll worship them until they day you die, huh?
What do you think Angelides would do?
Angelides is on record that he would have signed the previous version of this bill, which really would have forced schools to teach the virtues of homosexuals.
Angelides also said he will sign the homosexual marriage bill, that Arnold vetoed.
Arnold may not be a "full glass" you would like, but a half a glass is far better than en empty glass.
Can't they support third party candidates?
"The wording of the bill your link led me to seemed fairly innocuous."
Exactly. This used to be a horrible bill, teaching in schools the accomplishements of homosexuals, etc., but Arnold told them he will veto it, so to save face they basically took out everything and just so they still have a bill, they have this, just added sexual orientation to the list of things state agencies are not supposed to discriminate against.
Let's try this one more time.
someone says "Can a third-party candidate take advantage of this unconstitutional signing and take over? Let's pray that happens!"
And you want to claim sanity for this person.
If true,the gov has lost it
Sorry guys, it's completely constitutional (on the surface), if they accept public money(Cal Grants), then they should be subject to the same laws as public schools.
I believe the uproar is how the Judiciary sees the added term affecting the bill.
Some of us have said he never had "it" to begin with.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.