California makes it illegal for state-funded service providers to discriminate

**Terminator** · 09-01-06, 03:00 PM

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger this week made it illegal for state-funded service providers, such as police and fire departments and universities, to discriminate against homosexuals, bisexuals and transgendered persons.

Senate Bill 1441, signed into law Monday by Mr. Schwarzenegger, "closes a crucial gap" in state civil rights law, said lead sponsor state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, who was backed by Equality California, a homosexual rights group.

But conservative groups say it will allow attacks on organizations that think homosexuality is unnatural or sinful, and is an "assault" on religious freedom.

The new law will "force religious colleges to either abandon their biblical standards on sexuality or reject students with state financial aid," said Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families.

Numerous Christian colleges, such as Westmont College, Shasta Bible College, Trinity Law School and William Jessup University, asked Mr. Schwarzenegger to veto the bill, he said.

Day care centers, businesses and nonprofits that contract with the state or take state vouchers will be forced to choose between promoting homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality within their operations and work forces, including hiring practices, or forfeiting state funding, said Ron Prentice, chief executive of the California Family Council.

Miss Kuehl said the new law should ensure that homosexuals, bisexuals and transgendered persons can get state-funded services including health care, recreational programs, financial aid, child support and food stamps without bias.

She said "a person may still be denied crucial public services on those bases" and that the new law bolsters existing protections.

State law forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in housing, employment, education and public accommodations.

The new law "is an outright, blatant assault on religious freedom in California," said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute.

It will inevitably lead to a "legal assault against religious institutions," said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute.

The tumult is far from over: The Democrat-led California Legislature passed a bill this week that would prohibit public schools from using textbooks or sponsoring activities that "reflect adversely" on homosexuality. Mr. Schwarzenegger, a Republican, hasn't said if he will sign it.

The newly passed bill, Senate Bill 1437, also sponsored by Miss Kuehl, would prohibit public schools from using textbooks or sponsoring activities that reflect "adversely" upon people because of their sexual orientation.

"[N]egative and hateful messages" about homosexual, bisexual and transgendered people "are still plaguing our schools," said Geoff Kors of Equality California.

Conservative groups said the new bill would force schools to promote homosexual lifestyles and same-sex "marriage."

**lesta311** · 09-01-06, 08:03 PM

I'm undecided. I don't think that someone should be discriminated against based on sexual orientation. I also don't think that educational and relegious institutions should have to "water down" their teachings and beliefs in the name of political correctness.

I'm not going to speak out on this since I can't suggest an appropriate middle ground. I will say that when the government gets involved in shaping ones relegious belief and educational teaching, It tends to do more harm than good.

I guess that if you don't beleive in what this law is trying to accomplish, then you will have to work and attend private institutions. Segregating ourselves from the general populace in the quest for your own brand of knowledge in turn breeds ignorance.

**TXCharlie** · 09-01-06, 08:15 PM

I voted yes... I think atheists should be allowed to attend "Bible Colleges", for examle, if they really want to - But would they really want to? Of course not. Call them on their bluff

And since when does tolerance of something equate to promotion? They can allow people in the doors, and still teach them that they're sinners. Then everybody's happy!

**Crimebytes2** · 09-01-06, 08:22 PM

I agree. Just because we don't approve of a particular lifestyle/religious belief, doesn't mean we can discriminate based on such. While we all differ in race, creed, color, sex, age, physical/mental disability, religion, national origin, and policitcal beliefs, we all have one thing in common - we're human.

**JLK** · 09-01-06, 08:36 PM

i believe the bill is wrong the gay movement has been trying to force its way on people for a while. good people need to take a stand.

**MonsterMash** · 09-01-06, 09:06 PM

What burns me up is someone making their sexual preference a political statement. I like women, but I wouldn't hump one at a restaurant dinner table. Yet, two men can kiss at dinner and suddenly I am homophobic because I don't agree with it. Did anyone stop to consider that noone would say anything if they kept it to themselves? A man and a woman carrying on blatantly in the workplace about their relationship would be reprimanded and/or terminated. But 2 men doing the same thing is a civil rights lawsuit if anyone even looks at them funny. Assholes.

Since when did "equal rights" become a license for all these special interest groups to shove their agenda down my throat?

**TXCharlie** · 09-01-06, 09:26 PM

Monster, you would see the humor in it all if you attended the unofficial "Gay Day" at the Texas State Fair

It's f---in hilarious. I attended it by mistake one year, and couldn't figure out what was going on with guys in pink hot pants and petting each others' butts. But as long as they're not mugging and shooting anybody, that's an improvement for that neck of Dallas.

Ahhh... Just another couple of months. This time I should bring my camera

**MonsterMash** · 09-02-06, 01:28 AM

Originally Posted by TXCharlie

Monster, you would see the humor in it all if you attended the unofficial "Gay Day" at the Texas State Fair

It's f---in hilarious. I attended it by mistake one year, and couldn't figure out what was going on with guys in pink hot pants and petting each others' butts. But as long as they're not mugging and shooting anybody, that's an improvement for that neck of Dallas.

Ahhh... Just another couple of months. This time I should bring my camera

Ive seen versions of it in Pensacola, Fla. Not my cup of tea.

**General Patten** · 09-02-06, 06:24 AM

i say yes.

no-one should be penalized for their male/female preferences.

As was said before, people should keep their professional life... well, professional.....
...but what they do on their own time is their own business.
(as long as everyone involved is consenting and of age, of course)

just my 2 cents worth...

**BigDawg** · 09-02-06, 08:20 AM

I think the premise of the law is good, but think its being carried a bit to far. Just because an institution gets some funding from the state then the state can dictate its whole agenda per say? I'm not against how they want to live their lives, just keep it private as I do my life with my wife.

I'm also wondering if this law isn't getting really close to the "seperation of church and state" clause. Does anyone else think that it has crossed the line?

**timatoe127** · 09-02-06, 10:39 AM

"Miss Kuehl said the new law should ensure that homosexuals, bisexuals and transgendered persons can get state-funded services including health care, recreational programs, financial aid, child support and food stamps without bias."

These things are already available. This is not about "equal treatment", it's about "special treatment". While these things above are what they say they are fighting for, no one has been denied these. That's why they move on to the Bible colleges and so on.. In this big new PC world if you disagree, your a racist, biggot, homophobe. If there's any doubt about being special treatment, why are there still a) All black colleges, that don't have to admit whites, b) All women colleges, that don't have to admit men c) Gay/Lesbian groups given public funding on college campuses, yet religious "Straight" groups given no funding because they are labeled Hate groups.

Here in the Sacramento Valley, at the end of last school year, a school district decided to have a district wide "moment of silence" in order to highlight the "struggles of gay and lesbian students". When a few students wore shirts that disagreed by means of religious statements, those students were all suspended from school. I don't think the school district would ever consider any special program to highlight "straight" students.

My personal opinion, live your life how you want, I really don't care as long as you don't break the law. Just don't expect special treatment because you chose to live outside of the social norm.

This now concludes my rant...

**Piggybank Cop** · 09-02-06, 11:02 AM

Just voted no; don't need to justify it either.

**Willowdared** · 09-02-06, 01:52 PM

I have mixed feelings about this.

We already provide an amazing level of protection for people living alternative lifestyles.

I think private groups/schools have the right to set their own curriculum.

The problem arises when private organizations want "public" funding. I'm not sure it's right to think you can have it both ways.

I'm sure what started this is gay families wanted their kids going to the best school - which means private schools - which almost always means church run. The California school system sucks - and the flight to private schools is now a flood. When they realise what goes with being in a church run school, their first response is to cry foul, instead of maybe starting their own publically funded magnet school.