Posted on 08/29/2006 9:27:23 AM PDT by calcowgirl
Over 200 years ago our Founding Fathers changed history when they, with the stroke of their pens, declared that the United States would not only recognize, but protect citizens’ freedoms of religion and speech.
Yesterday, with the stroke of his pen, Governor Schwarzenegger declared that such freedoms are subject to the approval of a politically correct government. By signing SB 1441 (Kuehl-D) into law, the Governor decided that certain Constitutional freedoms will not be protected in the state of California.
SB 1441 adds sexual orientation (actual or perceived) and gender identity (actual or perceived) to the list of protected classes under California law prohibiting discrimination. According to the State Senate’s legislative analysis, “This clarification would greatly expand the effect this bill would have on programs and services provided or paid for by the state or a state agency.”
To enforce these new protections, the state may withhold funding from any organization that “discriminates” against homosexuals, transgenders, bisexuals, or anyone’s gender (actual or perceived). Now, under California law, simply living out your faith is considered discriminatory.
As applied, this legislation would prevent parochial schools, private schools, Christian, Catholic, Jewish, Mormon, and many other religious universities, from receiving student financial assistance if they also maintain a student code of conduct preventing behavior deemed immoral by their religious beliefs.
In order to receive a CalGrant for your child’s education, you may no longer send your child to a religious school. This will put an unbelievable strain on California families as they will be forced to choose between their deeply-held religious beliefs and affording a college education for their children. If legislators truly desire diversity in California, religious institutions should receive the same equal protections sought by radical homosexual activists. Instead, with the signing of SB 1441, religious rights are secondary to the special rights created by this new law.
Instead of using their resources to educate future leaders, these schools will now be forced to defend themselves in discrimination lawsuits brought by the male teacher who perceives himself as female and wears a dress to school.
For those who still don’t believe that there is a radical homosexual agenda, keep in mind that the characteristics added to the protected list are designed to target people of faith alone. After all, who will be most directly affected by this legislation? Private schools, religious institutions, and faith-based businesses.
According to the State Senate’s legislative analysis, “the impact of this bill is both wide-ranging and deep.” Government services affected by this new law include police and fire protection, recreational programs, social services, health care clinics, and, of course, public schools.
This bill is yet another step towards discriminating against citizens with moral and religious principles who desire to express their beliefs and educate their children according to those beliefs. SB 1441 will inevitably result in reverse discrimination where individuals, organizations and businesses are discriminated against because of their bona fide religious convictions.
In creating special rights for a few, Arnold denies fundamental rights for the rest of us.
I'm just speechless. Is he doing it because he's up for re-election?
This is just more proof that California is lost, and that victories by liberals like Schwarzenegger are nothing to brag about or to take hope from for the party. The only hope is that such madness can be mostly contained to the deep blue states.
Howl all you want Freepers, I am now sitting out the election for governor in the state of California this year.
Signing SB 1441 a "Susan Kennedy" MomentI just about fell out of my chair about 10 minutes ago. This Governor signed SB 1441, a perfectly hideous bill, so out of the mainstream of social thought that one has to wonder what the calculation is, exactly. What is the political purpose? Are there minions of newly energized transvestites now going to push Arnold over the top in November? Probably not one tenth of the number of conservatives that will stay home in this election, in effect saying "to hell with it".
You can view a summary of the bill here, but I have to tell everyone bothering to read this, including the Governor's fundraisers, to quit calling because I ain't coming and I ain't giving. I can understand triangulation, but this is the freaking gutter. Had you worked the minimum wage deal and this bill signing into the text of the Governor's speech last Saturday he would have been booed out of the room. This is a bill you didn't need to sign, and it now reduces your worth for second term to vetoes on about three issues (tax increases, single payer health care and relaxation of Workers Comp reform). It used to be five but you've needlessly caved in on those.
And guess what? I've got two hours on KMJ this Friday to talk about it, to 300,000 of my best conservative friends. You've jumped the shark, Arnold, for no good reason whatsoever. I would love to hear from someone on your staff to justify this move. The talk lines are at 559-490-5858.
Isn't that why he does everything?
And there are those who think the Patriot Act takes away freedom.
California is a conservative's affirmation.
He did the same thing last year signing a bunch of onerous GLBT legislation, people just weren't paying attention.
> the state may withhold funding from any organization ...
And this is a problem because....
The more organizations the Gubmint fails to fund, the better.
Fine, but be sure and vote the rest of the ballot.
I'll be voting Constitution Party for the governor's office.
Can't blame ya. Would do the same.
If not for the native-born regulation, there's no question in my mind that he would run for POTUS. He's got more money than a t.v. evangelist!
Didn't vote for him last time (McClintock) and won't vote for him this time. I just leave blank spots on my ballot or write-in candidates, but I ALWAYS vote.
Another big test for Ahnuld is coming soon. The illegals/drivers' license is back for a vote. This time it may reach Ahnuld's desk.
You thinking he'll argue it's a way to keep track of them?
No. Personally, I think he'll argue that it is a safety issue. If they are licensed, then he will argue that they (illegals) can be held liable for lack of insurance, traffic violations, and the rules of the road.
As if the address they use on the thing will even be correct. If he goes for it, look for taxes to go up to support the added warrants when these criminals fail to show up at traffic court. BTDT.
I can't tell what Arnold's core beliefs are or whether he (any longer) has any. What happened to the guy who bashed Austrian socialism, stood for individual/entrepreneurial freedom and plugged Milton & Rose Friedman's "Free To Choose" videos?
That said, I think he is being very shrewd now that his designated opponent is a huge leftist: Arnold now can rather safely move left (meaning, even more left than Arnold was previously, and that was pretty bad already) and STILL be well to the right of Red Phil.
We Californians have it pretty bad when our only choices for Governor 2007-11 are a liberal and a leftist. Sigh.
Someone get McClintock in here. Even if he can win in 2010, I wonder if much of the state will be left, economically. We're on our way to becoming a much bigger version of Hawai'i: a beautiful state in the sense of weather and natural wonders, but surviving more and more on tourism, retirees-who-can-afford-the-financial-rape, etc.
Although I'm a Texan, my dad lived in CA for many years and I have always liked it there. Of course, that was before you were teaming with nationalities other than from Mexico. Likewise, my native Houston is not what it was when I grew up there. I had never seen a turban when I moved out at 13, unless it was on a woman!
WWAD
What Will Angelides Do?
No, it's NOT considered discriminatory. Just stop feeding off the public trough and you can set your policies as you see fit.
Edited to clarify: I have no problem with ethnic enrichment of a community. It's just that lately there's no effort made to blend and the resulting visual changes affront the landscape and at times it's a bit scary. That was all I meant.
It's just that lately there's no effort made to blend and the resulting visual changes affront the landscape and at times it's a bit scary.
Heh, you should see parts of our city. There should be signs ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK.
Exactly!
I voted for McClintock when Arnie ran the first time, knowing that he (McClintock) wouldn't win, but also knowing that Arnie isn't really a conservative, and because I just couldn't vote for him. That hasn't changed. I still won't vote for the bugger; and I don't want his campaign people calling me, or wasting money sending me beggar mail for his re-election. Angelides will suck, but I hope to be finally moving out of California by then anyway. It just isn't going to get better here, and I for one won't go down with the ship.
Now before you libertarians assail us with more "you shouldn't send your kids to fake schools" (i.e. the old evolution/create argument), or the religious FReepers tell us that "good Christians shouldn't send their kids to secular schools", or the GOP business class tell us "send your kids where ya want; just pay for it yourself", you need to remember the reality of the situation.
I just finished paying aproximately $90,000 to put both kids through 12 years of Christian private schools. I am now embarking on paying over $125,000 to put one of them through a good Christian College. Though she was Validictorian of her high school class, had a 4.0 average, and high SAT's, took 5 years of high school classes including math through Calculus, Physics/Chemistry/Biology, etc., she was denied entry as "unqualified" by five California UC schools. She was denied entry because she was a Christian, and attended a Christian school that taught from a Christian world view. Meanwhile, while paying for my kids school, I've paid at least $300,000 in taxes to California (i.e. including income, property, gas tax, sales tax, etc.) over the past dozen years.
These government-directed, exclusionary policies are directed at Christians, and specifically, to deny my kids equal opportunity because of their faith, or to compel other Christians to give up their faith. Why is Arnie doing this? He's a secular liberal. It's what they do.
And, since it's the official policy of the California GOP to disciminate against me and my family because of our faith, I'll never cast another GOP vote again.
Actions have consequences. I'm willing to live with the consequences of being a Christian; the GOP had better be prepared to find new voters. I'm not the only cultural conservative/Christian out there that's now "ex-GOP".
SFS
The money will be spent, regardless. Would you rather see a parent use their CalWorks voucher at a Christian School or the communist La Raza charter school? This basically discriminates against all faith based organizations, or requires them to embrace the homosexual agenda.
Do I think we should do away with most of these welfare programs entirely? YES. That said, nothing in this legislation moves in that direction nor will it reduce state spending one iota.
So--if some person, business, group, or institution refuses to join in someone's fantasy that they've changed or "transcended" their sex--that's grounds for legal action?
Fine. Conservatives should welcome a trial/test case to determine the scientific validity of these claims.
We're in the same boat. Now that kids are out of high school, we have little tying us to California. If my daughter loses her CALGRANT, it'll seal the deal.
SFS
bump
Nondiscrimination in State Programs and Activities Act (SB 1441)
Lead Author: Senator Sheila Kuehl
Sponsor: Equality CaliforniaThis legislation would prohibit discrimination based on actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity in state operated or funded services, activities and programs.
PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED LAW
Under existing law, individuals applying for or participating in programs and activities operated, administered or funded by the state cannot be discriminated against on the basis of race, national origin, ethnic group identification, religion, age, sex, color or disability. SB 1441 would add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected classifications for the purposes of this provision. The bill would also include protections for any person perceived to have, or associated with another person who has, any characteristic covered by the bill.
BACKGROUND
State and local governments provide many important services and programs. These include police and fire protection, recreational programs, social services and public schools. Under current law, a person can be turned away or denied services solely on the basis of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity. A person can also be discriminated against simply because he or she is perceived to have one of the covered characteristics or by virtue of his or her association with another person who is covered by existing law on the basis of race, national origin, ethnic group identification, religion, age, sex, color or disability.
California public policy is clear that individuals should be protected under the law against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. This policy is reflected in major statutes such as the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), which covers discrimination in employment and housing, and the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which covers discrimination in public accommodations.
WHAT THIS BILL WOULD DO
This bill would extend prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity to include all services, programs and activities provided by state and local governments or any of their instrumentalities or agencies. All governmental activities of public entities would be covered, even when carried out by contractors.
Some examples of state and local government programs and services that would be covered under this legislation include:
- Medi-Cal
- State Disability Insurance
- CalWORKS
- Food stamp programs
- Unemployment insurance
- Workers’ compensation
- Financial aid programs administered by the University of California or the California State University
- Child support services
- Programs and services for veterans
- Legal service programs
- Home loan assistance programs
- Government contracting and procurement
- Business licensure
- Voter registration
In addition to adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the statute that governs nondiscrimination in state programs and activities, SB 1441 would protect individuals based on perceived characteristics or association with another person who is a member of a protected group. This change in the law would address various forms of governmental discrimination, for example:
- Denying voter registration to a person who is 18 years of age because he or she “looks too young”
- Refusing public healthcare benefits to a person based on the increased insurance costs that would be caused by the person’s dependant child who is HIV positive
- Denying food stamps to a person who is perceived to be a noncitizen when in fact he or she would qualify for the program
- Discriminating against a person who wants to adopt a child because his or her spouse has a disability
LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS IN SUPPORT (AS OF 4/28/06)
Equality California (Sponsor)
American Civil Liberties Union
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
AIDS Project Los Angeles
Asian Americans for Civil Rights & Equality
Attorney General Bill Lockyer
California Association for Nonprofits
California School Employees Association
California Teacher’s Association
California Faculty Association
Gay and Lesbian Alliance of the Central Coast
Lambda Letters Project
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF)
National Association of Social Workers
National Center for Lesbian Rights
San Francisco AIDS Foundation
I do know what you mean. I was more aware after a trip to Europe, where there's virtually almost no signage at all. When I returned, everything here looked like that scifi movie, "Bladerunner."
Probably, but spending is where we should be directing our energy, not on whining about [perceived]anti-discrimination legislation. Sad as it is, the majority of this State will not even notice this legislation, and they won't even notice the whining. But, if we can direct our energies at instilling fiscal responsibility on our government, then they'll notice.
You suck at the government tit, you play by government rules. Did organizations really think they could maintain their freedom and take government money at the same time?
I am truly stunned! I knew it was bad, but I had no idea how bad!
> you need to remember the reality of the situation
The reality is: California is several perfectly fine conservative states held under the political thumb of some coastal cities... and that ain't gonna change until there are some *major* changes.
Seccede from California. Split Nor Cal off on it's own. Get the Central Valley and the Sierras away from the control of Sac and San and LA. Let the whackadoodles have fun in the Bay Area Nation.
Exactly!
====================================================================
That's fine, defund all school related activities, give my kids a voucher allowing them to get an education (primary school for the younger kids; college for my own kids) at the educational institution of their choice. Or, for the true libertarians, remove public funding of education altogether, and give me my tax money back.
Except, of course, that won't happen. There will be no vouchers, regardless of how many times "pilot programs" prove that they work. There will be no charter schools, once the threat of vouchers are gone. There will be no CALGRANT's, reduced interest loans, or other government funded benefits for Christians and other religious people.
So, how is your comment about "Gubmint" defunding of organizations at all constructive. Unless, of course, you favor government discrimination against religious people. That policy amounts to an "income transfer", from Christians to the rest of secular society, and that's better than Christians getting equal funding with other citizens? What a leftist shill ....
SFS
Well, well well.....we impeached the last waste of skin. What makes Arnie think he can't be impeached as well? :I'm just sayin'.:
I think I'm one of the most outspoken on the pork and waste in the State's budget
and the fiscally irresponsible ballot measures.
Can I assume you'll be voting against all of the bond measures?
Okay, let's resort to name calling! That's mighty Christian of you.
And all those RINOs who insist that we must support a liberal "Republican" need to be told to get on board with an honest-to-God conservative for a change. Any time we side with a RINO, we may as well just have a Democrat 'cause they both crank out the same bad style of governing.
Very soon now there will be laws passed restricting speech in these matters (as already exist in some European countries and Canada). These will no doubt be challenged in court. Will the courts uphold the Constitution? Given the decay of this culture and the utter disregard of so many for the ideals and heritage bequeathed to us by the Founders I find that the answer to that question is far from certain.
I always vote against tax and bonds measures.
Bump to that!
Is double bumping anything like "double clutching?"
Please post a copy of the letter from the five UC schools that states that she was denied admission because she is Christian. My baby sister graduated from a private christian school with similar grades and she was accepted everywhere she applied. She chose Berkeley, and now she's in med school at Penn State.
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.