Posted on 12/03/2007 11:20:15 AM PST by cold666pack
Current California law makes it illegal for schools to offer instruction or an activity that "reflects adversely upon persons" because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin or ancestry.
A new law scheduled to take effect in January would revise the protected list to disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation. It would also change the words "reflects adversely" to "promotes a discriminatory bias."
(snip)
A fundamental philosophical, or even moral, conflict lies at the heart of the political clash the same conflict that fuels the perennial battle over same-sex marriage. One side believes that homosexuality, bisexuality or other non-heterosexual orientations are within the normal range of humanity. The other side believes that they are immoral aberrations.
Setting aside, for the moment, the underlying philosophical conflict, SB 777 is another troublesome step down the slippery slope of politics dictating what version of history and current events children should be taught. Moreover, while the law professes merely to protect against instruction that "promotes a discriminatory bias" which sounds plausible on its face lawsuit-leery educators may see it as forcing them to censor or repress anything that even indirectly touches on sexual orientation in a way that someone, somewhere, sometime might consider offensive.
The specter of a 250-pound linebacker seeking to shower with cheerleaders is extreme and unlikely, but SB 777 does open a door to vexatious litigation. The protected classes in current law are fairly self-evident, but sexual orientation is a matter of personal identification. Just about anyone including the most testosterone-soaked heterosexual could claim injurious discrimination.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
I guess new California history textbooks will say, 'On September 11, 2001 several persons flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.'
It is lunacy like this that makes me want to kick California out of the Union. Don't worry-I would admit either Puerto Rico or Guam so we don't have to buy new flags.
An unanswerable question among the popular purveyors of the homosexual agenda. Unfortunately among the radical homosexuals, they would say yes. Sexual deviance, starting with adultery and divorce... is the original slippery slope.
Otherwise there would be no "oldest profession."
Because telling the religious faithful that homosexuality is "okay" could reflect adversely on their lives, the language of the law had to change.
To those teaching the sex positive agenda, yes. They seek to end all moral judgements over sexual pairings.
They want you to drop your puritanical notions.
There is no slippery slope. The Homosexual Agenda is merely the battering ram used by the Sex Positive Agenda to knock down society’s laws and mores against such actions.
GoAskAlice and other sites have already addressed health concern questions without moral judgement on the act itself. It is ok in their book. Anything goes.
She never was interested in Dobie all those years ago. She was just interested in seeing that Dobie never got to be with Tuesday Weld...
How about the classroom exercises where students are all asked to “come out” and declare they are homosexual even if they aren’t all in the name of “unity”?
How about the exercises where children are asked if there are any of their classmates (of either gender) that they would like to “marry”?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Thalia Menninger was an even better name for her.
They believe in moral judgements. Political correctness is all about passing judgement against those who are politically incorrect.
If you oppose socialized medicine, you are a “sinner” because you let your fellow man suffer from illness and medical maladies.
If you oppose illegal immigration, you are a “nationalist” who wants to close the doors on the same country that let your ancestors in.
Political correctness is all about moral judgements.
Every year, in manay schools in CA there is something called a National day of silence, which is when kids that support homosexual rights as the same and stronger than hetero rights are encouraged to not speak all day. I think it is endorsed through many schools.
Does this law apply to public schools only?
I just quoted the (presumably edited for PC) article...
hmmm...Not sure of the answer to that. I think they would be prevented from imposing this on religious chools, and in fact the opoenents of 777 are encouraging parents to pull kids out of public schools, but I think, many charters have to also abide by public school rules, so i suspect they too would be subjected to these new rules.
But not homeschooling, I presume. That’s our next step.
Same facial expression and hairstyle 50 years later!
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.