Does it really matter if that is the correct bill. I searched the site for the "gay" and that was one of the ones that came, I scanned it and it seemed like the one that I was looking for. but still I got my point across w/ the op. so if this is the correcct bill, than thank you, I will edit the OP.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I read that whole bill and only once were "gays" referenced -Almost half of pupils felt their school wasn't safe for LGBTs. The legislators seem to be acting according to what the people in schools see as dangerous.(2) Many school districts are not effectively addressing discrimination
and harassment on campus. Less than half of grade 9 pupils express feeling
safe at school, while 46 percent of pupils said their schools were not safe
for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) pupils.
This bill is called the Safe Place to Learn Act. It sets up reviews, discussions, and oversight committees to deal with the increasing violence and discrimination in California schools. Nowhere does it allow for someone to get sued for using the word "gay" "fag" or "homosexual". I suggest all the dumb asses who voiced their displeasure for reasons that are not even relevant to actually read the link. Starting with the OP.
Here it is for you people too attention deficient to click a link before you post:Please tell me how any of those are PC or negatively impacting the state of California.Article 5.5. Safe Place to Learn Act
234. (a) This article shall be known and may be cited as the Safe Place
to Learn Act.
(b) It is the policy of the State of California to ensure that all local
educational agencies continue to work to reduce discrimination, harassment,
and violence. It is further the policy of the state to improve pupil safety at
schools and the connections between pupils and supportive adults, schools,
and communities.
234.1. The department, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 64001,
shall monitor adherence to the requirements of Chapter 5.3 (commencing
with Section 4900) of Division 1 of Title 5 of the California Code of
Regulations and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 200) as part of its
regular monitoring and review of local educational agencies, commonly
known as the Categorical Program Monitoring process. The department
shall assess whether local educational agencies have done all of the
following:
(a) Adopted a policy that prohibits discrimination and harassment based
on the characteristics set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code and
Section 220.
(b) Adopted a process for receiving and investigating complaints of
discrimination and harassment based on the characteristics set forth in
Section 422.55 of the Penal Code and Section 220.
(c) Publicized antidiscrimination and antiharassment policies, including
information about the manner in which to file a complaint, to pupils, parents,
employees, agents of the governing board, and the general public. The
information shall be translated pursuant to Section 48985.
(d) Posted antidiscrimination and antiharassment policies in all schools
and offices, including staff lounges and pupil government meeting rooms.
(e) Maintained documentation of complaints and their resolution for a
minimum of one review cycle.
(f) Ensured that complainants are protected from retaliation and that the
identity of a complainant alleging discrimination or harassment remains
confidential, as appropriate.
(g) Identified a responsible local educational agency officer for ensuring
district or office compliance with the requirements of Chapter 5.3
94
Ch. 566 — 3 —
(commencing with Section 4900) of Division 1 of Title 5 of the California
Code of Regulations and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 200).
234.2. The department shall display information on curricula and other
resources that specifically address bias-related discrimination and harassment
based on the characteristics set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code
and Section 220 on the California Healthy Kids Resource Center Internet
Web site and other appropriate department Internet Web sites where
information about discrimination and harassment is posted.
234.3. The department shall develop a model handout describing the
rights and obligations set forth in Sections 200, 201, and 220 and the policies
addressing bias-related discrimination and harassment in schools. This
model handout shall be posted on appropriate department Internet Web
sites.
That was the bill you originally posted. Good job reading your own links bud.
Again, I will say this, I'll edit the OP and give you credit for finding the correct bill. I was kinda busy at the moment I was looking for it, not to mention pissed about learning that, shall we call it a "fact". Again I thank you for finding the correct bill (I'm assuming its the correct one banning the use of words like gay/fag/homo/queer/etc. and it follows what I said in the OP). at the time I skimmed the bill, it was the correct one, or atleast it seemed like the correct one.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
That was the bill you originally posted. Good job reading your own links bud.
Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity, but I'm not sure about the former.
so what are you going to call them if you can't even call them homosexuals which should be the proper designation for them.
it's like saying that you can sue somebody for calling them straight absolutely nuts.
it's like saying that you can sue somebody for calling them straight absolutely nuts.
Best. Post. Ever.colonelioan wrote:
Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity, but I'm not sure about the former.
That is probably one of Einstein's best sayings.colonelioan wrote:
Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity, but I'm not sure about the former.
phail. The Patriot Act restricts nothing regarding the 1st Amendment.Varegg wrote:
Thats gay, but what did you expect from the people that came up with such gold plated papers like the Patriot Act ?
In fact, a famed Democrat, Franklin Delano Roosevelt restrained the media in WW2; his administration prevented photographs displaying casualties and the like from being printed--wouldn't that be considered more of a restraint on the first Amendment?
Agreed. As much I like FDR, he did do some very bad things in addition to the good things he did. He tried to stack the Supreme Court by attempting to add more justices, and he also put thousands of East Asian immigrants into internment camps during the war. They were nothing like concentration camps, but removing them from their homes wasn't exactly constitutional.The_Mac wrote:
phail. The Patriot Act restricts nothing regarding the 1st Amendment.Varegg wrote:
Thats gay, but what did you expect from the people that came up with such gold plated papers like the Patriot Act ?
In fact, a famed Democrat, Franklin Delano Roosevelt restrained the media in WW2; his administration prevented photographs displaying casualties and the like from being printed--wouldn't that be considered more of a restraint on the first Amendment?
So yeah, the Patriot Act is pretty mild compared to some of the stuff done by previous administrations, but still... that doesn't make the Patriot Act any more constitutional in its own right. It affects the right to privacy more than anything else.
Thanks, now on bright side of this planet, the police holds the gay dude, and the skinhead punches him in the belly.
Guess the country.
Guess the country.
Until you mentioned a skinhead, I would've guessed Iran.colonelioan wrote:
Thanks, now on bright side of this planet, the police holds the gay dude, and the skinhead punches him in the belly.
Guess the country.