Don't let the Democrats lie to you about what this bill is about. Democrats love to groom our children and we won't let them.

'teach your 5 year olds about how men in dresses mutually masturbate' bill

yah I say gay all the time. its a funny word! don't make the funny word illegal!

just make creepy pedophiles who get jobs as teachers bc the are "the funny word" illegal!

It's the "Guess What Sort of Bill California Will Introduce in Response" bill.

Delegating your responsibility to the State can have disastrous consequences, regardless of whether you agree with the intent.

It should be a state issue, not federal government. If the California voters want their children to be sexually preyed on by their child's teachers, then I guess they'll be happy. Florida decided they don't want that. Good on them.

Exactly. The federal government has certain specific powers outlined in the constitution and a lot of federal laws are unconstitutional such as the drug schedule (except on federal property and with commerce between states).

I dunno. There is a bit more in there.

https://flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/Analyses/h1557a.EEC.PDF

1. Don't hold personal information that may effect the child's physical or mental health from parents.

2. Don't encourage a child to hold personal information that may effect the child's physical or mental health from parents.

3. Prudently allows teachers to hold personal information that may effect the child's physical or mental health from parents if the teacher expects abuse.

4. Allows the parent the right to a blank check if they believe their rights granted herein are violated.

Sounds kinda scummy if they expect parents to sue while also giving teachers an out if they fear abuse. Tsk.

Not to mention if children talk about their parents and ask the teacher why Billy has two dad's or Eric two mom's ... who live together and are married... tsk... even that technically violates the Bill on orientation. It's not just about sex.

A lot of that sounds like the teachers get to decide what is what.

Wrong. The parents will get to decide because they’re the ones suing if their child turns out gay.

No, read what you wrote: "Don't hold personal information that may effect the child's physical or mental health from parents." so if the teacher thinks that information on pedophilia won't effect the child's "physical or mental health" then they can teach it, with hold it from the parents, and tell the children to withhold it from the parents.

Oof, he didn’t write that. I did.

The bill explicitly states they cannot discuss sexual orientations of any kind. While philias of any kind are not explicitly banned from being discussed, and I honestly wouldn’t see why that particular one would be outside of some stranger danger discussion - which by the way, those may now be in violation of the new law. Whoops! Given the broad notation of orientation - it does prohibit the discussion of that topic within the bill.

Further, they can NOT encourage the student to withhold information from their parents because they would be in violation of point 2.

Point 3 only gives the teacher an out with point 1, but point 4 renders points 1-3 moot if a parent believes their child’s “physical health and well-being” have been violated from allegedly withheld information.

So, yes. TriggeringComservatives is correct. A parent could sue a school if they discover their child is gay.

Fortunately, the whole premise is preposterous that discussion of orientation affects orientation. So, I guess we’ll be seeing parents in court. And taxpayers will be paying for it.

Worst liberal bill ever.

His translate app does that with userames quite a bit.
When I was using a different account till last year, he kept doing that to me, or asking for a source to what someone else said. When I told him that wasn't me who said it, he'd quote it the same way.

They would only be able to sue if they thought the teachers groomed them to become gay. Which is a common thing in the US. I have 2 nephews that were done that way.

Note to mods, ignore the flag. I was hitting reply. I don’t understand why flagging is so easy on my phone but I have to confirm it on my computer. It should be confirmed regardless of platform.Though I disagree vehemently with Lokaire, he is being as intellectually honest as he can be nor is he harassing me in any way. Though he is full of anecdotes and nothing else.

To Lokaire, my apologies.

Now, your siblings can sue school districts.

Even though scientifically that’s not how homosexuality works.

Yeah, both of my nephews were heterosexual before they got groomed. One went so far as to buy into one of those "how to get women" late night infomercials.
They weren't groomed by schools, they were both groomed by supervisors at their workplaces.

Grooming nor any kind of “programming” can lead to a person’s sexual orientation. Your nephews were always gay and should be allowed to express themselves. But cheer up, or may be just a phase. Not that it matters.

Actually, they were heterosexual before they were groomed. Its a fact. Deal with it.

I suspect your nephews tell a much different story.

So, I’m less inclined to believe it as fact.

"I suspect your nephews tell a much different story.

So, I’m less inclined to believe it as fact."

They sure do. They toe the party line and say they were always gay. However their experiences from before say otherwise. They were very blatant heterosexuals before being groomed.

You’re not going to get through to them. They’re obsessed with gay sex and want to call their opponents groomers and pedophiles. It’s easier than having an actual argument.

Well, I’m a conservative, TC.

So I’m happy to inform you that we’re not all obsessed. There is not a Go***amn thing about this bill that is fiscal or conservative.

It’s just more bullshit to excuse the privatization and destabilization of our country’s education.

Wow. I completely agree. Thanks for standing for LGBTQ+ youth.

The bill is not "anti gay" or "anti LGBT," and it isn't destabilizing education. It's about not allowing K-3rd grade children to be exposed to sex. You can call it sex ed all you want, or a "hate bill," but that isn't even close to what it's about. There is absolutely no reason for children under 10 to be taught garbage in our schools.

Sexual orientation. Not sex. You might want to read the bill.

According to it's interpretations, homosexual couples could sue the school if the teachers even talk about heterosexual marriages. Opps!

You just gave LGBT+ their weapons.

The Bill is unconstitutional as it impedes First Amendment rights and is too vague in what it outlines to do if we can't even agree to what purpose it is about. It is very clearly an anti-LGBTQ bill. And just like any bill that ever is used to discriminate against any groups of individuals, it will not survive the test of time.

See the Defense of Marriage Act.

You're wrong on this one. And I have read the bill to some extent.

The bill is about not teaching our children sexual perversions, or about sex in general. It isn't anti gay, or as the left like to call it "don't say gay." You're falling for their bullshit.

Please tell me where I called the bill that?

I call bills what they are... such as Defense of Marriage Act, Affordable Care Act, and the Parental Rights in Education. It's common in politics for opponents to label it what it really means because politicians are very typical in twisting words. True, opponents are not opposed to doing that either, so I call it by the name it actually is to avoid the confusion.

The bill has nothing to do with not teaching kids sexual perversions. Again, due to how the bill's vagueness against sexual and gender orientation; this includes any pairing of any individuals. And restricting teachers first amendment rights in order to keep parents from suing them or the school district.

It's about letting parents use taxpayer money to defund public education.

"Please tell me where I called the bill that?"

I didn't say you called it that. I said the left call it that. According to your you're a conservative. Although, I don't see it, based on a lot of your comments I've seen.

So do you concede that I am not falling for their bullshit or does my conservatism hinge on my conformity to legislation that is not only discriminatory but wasteful in terms of taxpayer spending?