[heterosupremacist]

EDUCATION CODE
SECTION 66270-66271.1

66270. No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any characteristic listed or defined in Section 11135 of the Government Code or any other characteristic that is contained in the prohibition of hate crimes set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 422.6 of the Penal Code in any program or activity conducted by any postsecondary educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls students who receive state student financial aid.

GRRR!!

[Amendment10]

Note that the only sex-related right that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect is voting rights as evidenced by the 19th Amendment. And since LGBT issues are clearly outside the scope of voting rights, politically correct LGBT rights are not constitutionally protected.

So by using constitutionally unprotected LGBT “rights” to trump 1st Amendment-protected religious expression and free speech rights, California would be continuing to violate citizens' 14th Amendment protections, Section 1 of that amendment expressly prohibiting the states from abridging rights that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect.

14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And by establishing LGBT people as a protected / privileged class, California would also be continuing to effectively violate the Constitution’s Clause 1 of Section 10 of Article I imo, where the states expressly prohibited themselves from doing such things.

Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility [emphasis added].

[11th_VA]

I thought there was some sort of title 9 thing that allows religious schools to opt out. Would that federal law trump state law?

[Clintonfatigued]

Could church-run schools be under attack? If so, here’s another one.

[upchuck]

And the corollary:

LGBT Bill Does Not Threatens California’s Religious Schools Home Schoolers

[DeweyCA]

Leftists (Dems) hate Christianity. It is as simple as that. And they want to censor or destroy anything that does not go along with their perverse lifestyles.

[ColdSteelTalon]

Look the fact is the gaystapo might just have to be put down and not in a subtle way.

It is one thing to want certain liberties its another thing to use the force of law against a private institution.