You reap what you sow. This is what happens when a guy trying to mail down the 2024 Republican primary passes non-sensical, unnecessary laws.
This is what compliance with the Florida “Don’t Say Gay” bill has created…
- Thread starter Menace Sockeyes
- Start date
FFS - he gave you the bill and the rep that proposed it just like you asked. SMFH.
HB1557
Amendment 546314
PDF of amendment:
Last edited:
Funny how quickly @TJ8869 cuts bait when he realized he's cooked. Give him a slight opening and this thread is 14 pages.
When you're wrong you result to being "not clever". I struggle on which TJ I prefer after this new performance
He's been posting in other threads, but has disappeared from this one. He always seemed to enjoy arguing about meanings of other phrases, but this one seems to have stumped him.
You said Democrats unanimously supported the proposed amendment. Would Democrats have supported the bill if that one change had been made?
Do you understand how legislation works?
Yes, I do. I'm asking if the Democrats who supported the proposed amendment would have supported the bill had the amendment passed.
This answer signifies that you don’t.
It isn’t about supporting the bill it is about making a terrible bill just a bad bill.
The Republicans have a super majority in the Florida Legislature I believe. They can pass whatever they want and will. As a minority party in a super majority you work to make laws less bad.
Would some Democrats vote for the bill with the amendment? Probably, but it wasn’t about that.
You made a whole lot of incorrect assumptions about my knowledge of the legislative process before eventually, finally, answering my question.
Let's try this instead. Would you have supported the bill if the proposed amendment had passed?
How about you answer my question first, why do you think the Republicans in the legislature opposed the change in wording?
Clearly because they're Nazis. Would you have supported the bill if the proposed amendment had passed?
So you still want to give smart ass answers.
I have no problem with banning sex education in K-3 because it doesn't happen anyway. Would I be pushing to pass a bill with the language changed, no. Would I be on HROT complaining that the bill is an attempt to push an anti LGBTQ agenda, no. I would still contend that the bill was unnecessary.
Here is my take:
I would have to reread the bill with the amendment in place. I typically won’t support legislation that:
1. addresses issues that don’t exist,
2. Is counter productive to current good law (teachers are mandatory first reporters and the new law may conflict with that requiring parental consent for services)
3. create an incentive to go after public officials particularly when vague language is used (lawsuit provisions and potential loss or license for educators over something that is broadly and vaguely defined)
And this doesn’t even discuss the power mongering purposes behind this bill. It is really easy (and fun for some) to persecute the vulnerable to create red meat for the idiot cabal.
Last edited:
The bill is unnecessary; and it's intentionally vague to chill speech.
Non-Trumpy conservatives would be against it.
And it leads to stupid results, turning parents (mostly Karens and HOA board members) into narcs, like when a class asks a gay teacher, who had just returned from his honeymoon, about his wedding.
Teacher moves out of Florida rather than deal with this bullshit. That's bad for Florida and students.
But at least the usual suspects can feel good about themselves.
Non-Trumpy conservatives would be against it.
And it leads to stupid results, turning parents (mostly Karens and HOA board members) into narcs, like when a class asks a gay teacher, who had just returned from his honeymoon, about his wedding.
Teacher moves out of Florida rather than deal with this bullshit. That's bad for Florida and students.
But at least the usual suspects can feel good about themselves.
Last edited:
That was a sixth grade class. The new law only applies to PreK through 3rd grade. And not only did the school district not take any disciplinary action against Thollander, they sent a response letter defending Thollander to the parents who had complained.
The law is written so vaguely it will result in crap like this.
Again, we received a complaint that lessons on the reproductive system weren’t age appropriate for HS science, ag, and health classes.
Here is my take:
I would have preferred the bill if it contained the proposed amendment. But I don't have a big problem with the law as it is written because I don't think it's appropriate to have any discussions about issues pertaining to sexuality or gender with children that young. Those are discussions that can take place when they get closer to puberty.
The law might seem unnecessary to some, and I doubt that many teachers discuss matters of sexual orientation or gender with students in those grades. But there are many laws that are rarely broken but are still on the books because the action(s) they prohibit would be harmful.
Bill is working already. Intent of the bill is and was always anti-LGBTQ, is and was always bigoted hatred. And it’s just getting started.
Nobody was teaching sex ed to K-3, moron.
America deserves to die with this shit.
And I'm assuming the school told the parent who complained to piss off. Lessons on the reproductive system in high school science and health classes are perfectly acceptable. Not so much in kindergarten.
So dark. I feel bad for you when you get in these headsets, but your most beautiful lines come in the saddest of times.
How is the bill "working already"? Some parents complained and got nowhere with their complaint. No legal action was taken against him. No disciplinary action was taken against him. The school board stood up and defended him against the parents' complaints.
Parents complain to schools all the time about a wide variety of issues. These parents weren't emboldened by the new law, they were bitching because some parents just like to bitch.
Lol not dark, truth. Look man my brother is gay. I have several LGBTQ friends. There is no way around it. This bill is intended to do exactly what that 5th grade teacher’s story represents. The bill is designed to make being LGBTQ “unwelcome”.
The affect of the complaint remains impactful to the target of the complaint. That’s the point.
Yes, I read the article too.
Just because the school board didn’t take action in this case doesn’t mean speech isn’t impacted.
That’s the “chilling” part. Teachers will restrict their speech to avoid having a complaint.
The next elected school board may not be so reasonable.
But hey, let’s crowd source abortion and teachers. Today’s GOP.
Of course we did.
However, the law will increase the frequency of complaints and creates an undue burden on schools.
Sure the school didn’t get sued this time, but there is a whole network of conservative legal folks finishing for the right complaint in the right jurisdiction to file a lawsuit. And laws like this encourage it.
And we are spending an exponentially increasing amount of time on this stuff. These people don’t just file a complaint and be done with it. They badger the teacher, the department head, the principal, the curriculum director, the superintendent, the school lawyer and the school board members. Some of these folks are sending 20+ emails/day and if you don’t answe everyone, they send another 20 complaining about that.
We had 2 moms eat 3 hours of time with 2 administrators and at the end basically said: “You seem like nice people, but we know educators are part of an international satanic cabal that runs a child sex trafficking ring”. How the hell do you deal with that?
Last edited:
It sounds like you've got some serious nutjobs in your school district and I don't envy you having to deal with them. Florida banning discussion about sexual orientation and gender identity in PreK-3rd grade classrooms has nothing to do with that.
So that you and/or others can then accuse me of equating those issues with talking about gender identity or sexual orientation? This isn't my first day on HROT.
My point, with or without examples, is that there are many laws that are seldom broken but still serve a purpose. Do you disagree with that statement?
And even if I'm wrong about that, do you agree or disagree that a kindergarten classroom is no place for discussion about sexuality?
I’m sure it is random coincidence that this issue has become a hot topic in the conservative media leading to bills like this being introduced and passed in multiple states and the uptick in crazy complaints we have gotten.
Sure, let’s go with that.
No, I'm seriously trying to think of laws that have been created for things that rarely happen, but would be harmful if they did. It's not a gotcha question. I even tried Googling to find some.
ETA: I taught kindergarten most of my 34 years of teaching and never once did I teach anything about sexuality. I did have students who had two same sex parents or relatives that were gay so occasionally those subjects would come up when other students had questions, but I believe I handled them in a age appropriate manner. Who knows if that would pass with parents these days?
How many states have passed similar laws and when did they do so? When did the uptick in crazy complaints begin?
I'm not sure you're correctly identifying correlation and causation here.
Just off the top of my head, there probably aren't a lot of underground cockfighting rings. But cockfighting rings are nevertheless illegal in most places.
Now I'm going to sit back with some popcorn and watch the deluge of dumbasses claiming TJ equated discussion about sexuality with underground cockfighting rings.
I said nothing about causation. I said they were related when you said they weren’t.
Laws being passed like this (and the attendant conversation around them) encourage the crazy folks. And not the part about k-3 instruction the vague language and encouragement to sue without consequences.
And once the law passed out of the Florida legislature, the complaints increased and suddenly started using language from the bill.
State lawmakers have proposed a record 238 bills that would limit the rights of LGBTQ Americans this year — or more than three per day — with about half of them targeting transgender people specifically.
Nearly 670 anti-LGBTQ bills have been filed since 2018, according to an NBC News analysis of data from the American Civil Liberties Union and LGBTQ advocacy group Freedom for All Americans, with nearly all of the country’s 50 state legislatures all having weighed at least one bill.
Throughout that time, the annual number of anti-LGBTQ bills filed has skyrocketed from 41 bills in 2018 to 238 bills in less than three months of 2022. And this year’s historic tally quickly follows what some advocates had labeled the “worst year in recent history for LGBTQ state legislative attacks,” when 191 bills were proposed last year.
The slate of legislation includes measures that would restrict LGBTQ issues in school curriculums, permit religious exemptions to discriminate against LGBTQ people and limit trans people’s ability to play sports, use bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity and receive gender-affirming health care.
Proponents of these bills say they’re about protecting children, parental rights, religious freedom or a combination of these. Opponents, however, contend they’re discriminatory and are more about scoring political points with conservative voters than protecting constituents.
“It’s important for people to pause and think about what is happening — especially in the health care context — because what we’re seeing is that the state should have the authority to declare a population of people so undesirable that their medical care that they need to survive becomes a crime,” Chase Strangio, the deputy director for transgender justice at the ACLU LGBT & HIV Project, said. “What more terrifying intrusion of the state could there be?”
As the number of anti-LGBTQ bills hits record highs, research shows that so, too, has support for LGBTQ rights and policies prohibiting discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people. Nearly 8 in 10 Americans, or 79 percent, support laws that protect LGBTQ people from discrimination in jobs, housing and public accommodations, according to a Public Religion Research Institute survey released Thursday. That same survey also found that nearly 70 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage, up from 54 percent in 2014.
LGBTQ advocates and political experts say the uptick in state bills is less about public sentiment and more about lobbying on behalf of conservative and religious groups.
Activists contend that the groups have pushed for the legislation in response to a string of progressive wins, including two landmark Supreme Court rulings — one that legalized same-sex marriage in 2015 and another that won LGBTQ people nationwide protection from workplace discrimination in 2020 — and the election of President Joe Biden in 2020.
They also reason that the bills are part of a wider political strategy to use transgender people as a “wedge issue” to motivate right-wing voters.
“Conservative politicians, conservative religious leaders, religious organizations, and sometimes conservative scholars, often present themselves as defenders of traditional values and traditional institutions in society,” said Gabriele Magni, an assistant professor of political science at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. “LGBTQ rights have become a natural target because they go against one of the most traditional institutions of society, and that is the family.”
NBC News’ analysis of the ACLU and Freedom for All Americans data found that among anti-LGBTQ bills, measures targeting trans Americans have significantly increased in recent years. For example, 22 of 2019’s 60 anti-LGBTQ proposed bills, or 37 percent, were anti-trans bills, compared with 153, or 80 percent, of 2021’s 191 anti-LGBTQ bills. This year, about 65 percent of the anti-LGBTQ bills filed as of March 15 — 154 — were anti-trans bills.
“The authors of these bills and the dark money groups pushing for them do not want it to be possible to be a trans kid in this country,” said Gillian Branstetter, a longtime trans advocate and the press secretary for women’s advocacy group the National Women’s Law Center. “They’re responding to trans kids as if they were responding to a contagion.”
Anti-trans legislation — specifically, measures that would block trans students from competing on school sports teams that align with their gender identity — have been among the most successful of the anti-LGBTQ bills filed in recent years. Since the start of 2021, 11 states have written trans sports bans into law, according to tallies from the ACLU and the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ advocacy group.
Nearly 240 anti-LGBTQ bills filed in 2022 so far, most of them targeting trans people
The annual number of anti-LGBTQ bills to have been filed has skyrocketed over the past several years, from 41 in 2018 to 238 in less than three months of this year.
www.nbcnews.com
Yes, you did. Numerous times. You have repeatedly claimed that the new law has already resulted in an increase in complaints and will continue to cause more complaints.
I'm suggesting that the complaints were already increasing even before bills were introduced and/or laws passed.
You must have blinked when all the voter fraud laws have been proposed/passed. Most of these types of things happened with the advent of the Tea Party.
LOL at your ignorance of the issues around cockfighting (and dogfighting, etc.) in many communities. Not to mention the illegal gambling associated with it. SMH
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Players file lawsuit against state for privacy rights violations
- Latest: WaterlooChazz
-