The wording of the bill your link led me to seemed fairly innocuous.
It's unconstitutional as well - as far as I see it, it violates the 1st Amendment...
"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.
The devil is in the details. And I do mean "the devil."
You don't know Sheila Kuehl, Mark Leno, or the handful of homosexual California legislators whose lives are dedicated to using the Democratic majority in the state to ramrod laws onto the books that encode their agenda to normalize homosexuality and transgenderism (and YES! THERE IS AN AGENDA!!!). Their goal is to attach unnatural, abnormal sexual practices to the list of racial and ethnic minorities who are already listed as "protected classes" because of perceived institutional discrimination.
Take it from someone who knows. I have lived in San Francisco my entire life and have watched as marches to stop violence against homosexuals have morphed into demands for same-sex marriage and against the right of parents to change their child's classroom after a teacher "outed" himself to them.