[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by itai195

It seems like there's a lot of FUD being spread by the anti-gay crowd again unless I missed something.

i didn't start the thread. I simply posted the article to which the thread starter's blog link referred to.

And please chill out with the anti-gay accusations. It gets old.

Additionally, i think it was SB 1441 that the article was referring to...

SB 1441 would require all businesses and
organizations receiving funding from the state to
condone homosexuality, bisexuality, and
transsexuality or lose state funding. There is no
exception for faith-based organizations or business
owners with sincerely held religious convictions.

Under the provisions of SB 1441 business owners and
faith-based organizations would have to embrace
these various forms of sexual behavior, or perceived
sexual behavior, in order to continue their contracts
with the state government.

and here

SB 1441, as introduced, Kuehl Discrimination: state programs and activities: sexual orientation.

Existing law prohibits discrimination on the basis of, among other things, race, national origin, ethnic group identification, religion, age, sex, color, or disability, against any person in any program or activity conducted, operated, or administered by the state or by any state agency, or that is funded directly by the state, or that receives any financial assistance from the state. Existing law also requires, with respect to disability, that these programs and activities meet the protections and prohibitions contained in certain provisions of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the federal rules and regulations implementing that act, or state law if the state protections and prohibitions are stronger.

This bill would add sexual orientation to these provisions and define for these purposes "sex" and "sexual orientation."

The bill would also expand the definition of discrimination under these provisions to include a perception that a person has any of these enumerated characteristics or that the person is associated with a person who has, or is perceived to have, any of these characteristics.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Huh?!? You make it sound as if the only way poor parents can afford Catholic schools is if the state pays. Why should the state use secular public funds to subsidize education at a religious private institution? Let the local church or arch-diocese that runs the religious school provide the necessary scholarships to the poor students who want to attend their schools.

Why shouldn't the state subsidize the cost if a citizen wants to send their kid to a catholic school? It's been proven that private institutions generate far better results at a fraction the cost of what it takes to put them through public schools. Why limit the choices, or better yet, why eliminate all choices?

I should say that I am a school voucher proponent, so that factors much more into my position here than any religious talk. I'm not even a religious guy. I just think that many religious schools do a superior job of educating their students on a much tighter budget.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Why shouldn't the state subsidize the cost if a citizen wants to send their kid to a catholic school?

Ummm, is this a trick question? Or do you really not know why a goverment agency shouldn't be providinig money to a religious group?


How about because the state shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing religious organizations. If religious organizations need money they should get it from members of their religion, not from the state treasury.

As for school vouchers, I think it is an excellent idea as long as it is restricted to public schools. Let the voucher system be used to increase competition among various public schools such that they all seek to improve their reputation. But don't let vouchers be used to force public schools to compete against private schools. Public funds should be used to improve public schools not to improve private schools.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Why shouldn't the state subsidize the cost if a citizen wants to send their kid to a catholic school? It's been proven that private institutions generate far better results at a fraction the cost of what it takes to put them through public schools. Why limit the choices, or better yet, why eliminate all choices?

Are catholic schools the only private institutions in the US? If so, why should homosexuals be denied the choice of having the opportunity the recieve the far better results offered by a private institution? Why limit the choices?

[- - e r i k - -]

I expect him to dodge that question too.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Tolerance? Like the tolerance CA had for its smokers? That kind of tolerance?

Or tolerance as in "Arnie requires votes from SF"?

I really don't think Arnold is playing at the Frisco vote. First of all, he's a Republican. Second of all, being a Republican is a pretty good idea in California. We have elected four Democrats ever, and the last one got recalled and Arnold took his place. He's also consistently shot down San Francisco's bizarre attempts to sneak gay marriage into California.

To be honest, I think Arnold is a pretty honest guy. He's politically savvy, but he's not a career politician. He'd be a lot more popular now if he were trying for that, but instead he's insisted on playing the bad guy to the poor, sympathetic nurses, teachers and firefighters.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

And please chill out with the anti-gay accusations. It gets old.

Well I am not arguing on the side of those who appear to support discrimination. Didn't mean to make any accusations, just found the original article sorely lacking in detailed info and that raises the alarm for me.

Additionally, i think it was SB 1441 that the article was referring to...

Ahh good find, I missed that one. Arnold has been signing a lot of legislation lately.

I'm not sure how the discussion of private high schools is relevant. Catholic high schools don't receive any public funds that I'm aware of. Cal Grants are for university students. I agree regarding your views of private vs public high school performance, but college is a different matter.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

Hehe. Your debating skills are purely based on spin. Doesn't work Kevin.

Not spin at all. It was a valid question. Forcing ideals onto someone isn't being tolerant to their beliefs. In no way.

It's the exact opposite.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

What a burn.

No burn at all. It was simply wrong.

If you'd didn't have so many people ignore, you'd not embarrass yourself like this.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

How about because the state shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing religious organizations.... I think it is an excellent idea as long as it is restricted to public schools. ... Public funds should be used to improve public schools not to improve private schools.

That's not the way the thinking ought to be on this.

The subsidization would be going to familes. They then decide where to send their child to school.

Do we limit food stamps to only be used at public institutions?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Are catholic schools the only private institutions in the US?

No. I was just using them as an example because there are a decent amount of them by me.

If so, why should homosexuals be denied the choice of having the opportunity the recieve the far better results offered by a private institution? Why limit the choices?

They're not denied... they can go to a catholic or private school if they desire. And I agree - why limit the choices?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by itai195

I'm not sure how the discussion of private high schools is relevant. Catholic high schools don't receive any public funds that I'm aware of.

I'm not sure of that, either. As i read more, it appears the main targets that are school-specific are CalGrants (colleges) and CalWorks (childcare centers).

However, there are plenty of other areas that are affected (see below). My issue is that it hurts actual people. Yeah, the state doesn't need to fund these groups directly. I'm in agreement there. But why do they need to cut off CalGrants for students who want to attend colleges with a religious affiliation? Why cut off assistance to a needy parent who wants to send their preschooler to the local church's day care center? And employees of faith-based universities are now not covered by disability or unemployment insurance? I think all those instances are garbage.

Some of the programs that would be affected by this bill are: 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 services programs, home loan assistance programs, licensing of businesses, government contracting and procurement activities, and voter registration.

[Doofy]

I trust that the state of California will no longer be requiring these institutions and their employees to report their earnings and pay the appropriate taxes?

No, thought not.

[olePigeon]

I have to say that Arnold Schwarzenegger is the first Liberal Republican candidate I've been excited about in a very long time. While ousting Davis on the premise of money didn't help one bit (financially, I think we've been worse off), I think Schwarzenegger has hit home with me on the environmental, scientific, education, and now moral (subjective) fronts that you rarely see with any Conservative Republican.

I posted a long while back shortly after he was elected, that while I was disappointed in Californians electing a man simply because he was famous, the one quality I admired about him was that when he set his goals, he stuck with them.

I'm guessing all the Conservative Republicans are kicking themselves in the ass for helping to get this guy elected. Banning offshore drilling and logging redwoods, passed alternative fuel bill, huge support for stemcell research (just signed an awesome deal with the UK), increased funding for public education, and now supporting Gay Rights.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Yeah, the state doesn't need to fund these groups directly. I'm in agreement there. But why do they need to cut off CalGrants for students who want to attend colleges with a religious affiliation? Why cut off assistance to a needy parent who wants to send their preschooler to the local church's day care center? And employees of faith-based universities are now not covered by disability or unemployment insurance? I think all those instances are garbage.

As a moderate republican, I think Arnold Schwarzenegger is spot on!

You asked "But why do they need to cut off CalGrants for students who want to attend colleges with a religious affiliation?" My answer is... because it's still tax dollars being utilized to promote the intolerance of homosexuals (even if it's indirect).

Would you be as upset if I wanted to use a CalGrant to send my son to a school that taught that females were inferior to men?

If faith-based organizations do not want to teach tolerance of homosexuals, etc... then they should look elsewhere for alternative funding sources.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy

I trust that the state of California will no longer be requiring these institutions and their employees to report their earnings and pay the appropriate taxes?

No, thought not.

What's this got to do with anything?

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I have to say that Arnold Schwarzenegger is the first Liberal Republican candidate I've been excited about in a very long time. While ousting Davis on the premise of money didn't help one bit (financially, I think we've been worse off), I think Schwarzenegger has hit home with me on the environmental, scientific, education, and now moral (subjective) fronts that you rarely see with any Conservative Republican.

I posted a long while back shortly after he was elected, that while I was disappointed in Californians electing a man simply because he was famous, the one quality I admired about him was that when he set his goals, he stuck with them.

I'm guessing all the Conservative Republicans are kicking themselves in the ass for helping to get this guy elected. Banning offshore drilling and logging redwoods, passed alternative fuel bill, huge support for stemcell research (just signed an awesome deal with the UK), increased funding for public education, and now supporting Gay Rights.

I don't necessarily agree here.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is not directly supporting (or condemning ) gay rights, as much as he is defending human rights and tolerance... which is key. I really like it when Arnold is asked about gay marriage. His answer is usually "It's not my decision to make, it's the courts decision" and I agree 100%. He also has no problem having no official stance on an issue.

Also, as a Republican... I also am happy to see that they banned offshore drilling, logging of redwoods, passed an alternative fuel bill, stemcell research, increased funding for public education.

I hate that the left has painted EVERY republican as oil thirsty environment haters. It's just not true. If only Schwarzenegger was born in the US

[itai195]

My problem with Schwarzenegger, and really I like him alright otherwise, is that his idea of a special interest is the nurse's union. This is the state where tax return simplification, something I'd bet is massively popular, was struck down due to aggressive lobbying by accounting firms (as one example). That's the kind of bs I thought he was promising to eliminate.

Unfortunately I don't like Angeledes much... I was really rooting for Westly.

Back to the topic, it's possible to provide a Catholic education and still be tolerant of gays. That is the current church teaching, IIRC.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by itai195

My problem with Schwarzenegger, and really I like him alright otherwise, is that his idea of a special interest is the nurse's union.

Unions are special interest groups, yeah.

Originally Posted by itai195

This is the state where tax return simplification, something I'd bet is massively popular, was struck down due to aggressive lobbying by accounting firms (as one example).

I either didn't notice or don't recall that. Could you provide more info or a link?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

Also, as a Republican... I also am happy to see that they banned offshore drilling, logging of redwoods, passed an alternative fuel bill, stemcell research, increased funding for public education.

I hate that the left has painted EVERY republican as oil thirsty environment haters. It's just not true. If only Schwarzenegger was born in the US

I didn't say all of the Conservative Republicans, just most (and obviously subjective.) It's not that they hate the environment, they just don't care. Mostly because the majority of people supporting protective bills and pushing progress in cutting edge medicine and research are Liberal Democrats; so there's a knee-jerk reaction to oppose it simply because of party affiliation.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by itai195

Back to the topic, it's possible to provide a Catholic education and still be tolerant of gays. That is the current church teaching, IIRC.

Current teaching says gay sex = evil.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Current teaching says gay sex = evil.

Yes, but it's not intolerant of gays themselves, for what it's worth. Not sure if that's enough to comply with this new law.

[Chuckit]

"I'm not intolerant of blacks. I just don't believe in them mixing with our folk."

Yeah, don't think that flies.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Unions are special interest groups, yeah.

I wasn't clear. I'm not saying that unions aren't special interest groups, just that those weren't the special interests people thought he was going to take on (eg Sacramento insiders and lobbyists).

I either didn't notice or don't recall that. Could you provide more info or a link?

Have you heard of the Ready Return and the massive opposition to it in Sacramento?

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

"I'm not intolerant of blacks. I just don't believe in them mixing with our folk."

Yeah, don't think that flies.

I know where you're coming from, I just am not sure where this new law draws the line. I'm not a lawyer

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

How about because the state shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing religious organizations. If religious organizations need money they should get it from members of their religion, not from the state treasury.

Originally Posted by spacefreak

That's not the way the thinking ought to be on this.

The subsidization would be going to familes. They then decide where to send their child to school.

Do we limit food stamps to only be used at public institutions?

Why did you leave out the high-lighted part of my post?

And "the way the thinking should be on this" MUST not run afoul of the California or United States Constitution. The desire to give children the best education should not trump the needs to maintain the separation of church and state.

I said it before and I will say it again: It is the state's sand-box and they get to make the rules. If you want to play in their sand-box (get a state-funded education) you have to do so on their terms (no intolerance of homosexuals and no public funding of private religious schools).

Why is this so hard for you to accept? It's like you want to go into Burger King and expect they should give you a Big Mac when all they sell are Whoppers. Your expectations are un-realistic given the parameters of the situation in which the issue is being debated. I mean, here you are advocating for public funding of private religious institutions as a matter of parental choice.

Your comments in this thread are really mind-boggling. Do you want the US Constitution to apply ALL THE TIME? or only when it suits your needs.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Not spin at all. It was a valid question. Forcing ideals onto someone isn't being tolerant to their beliefs. In no way.

It's the exact opposite.

Hahahah. No, I was referring to the way you spun it the first time and then try to make an argument based on the spin.

This is not forcing any beliefs upon anyone. I was being sarcastic when I went along with your ridiculous argument.

[spacefreak]

Yeah, heaven forbid the state offer a grant to a student who wants to go to a catholic school...

Consider the statistics: In accordance with a requirement of President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act, in 2002 the Department of Education carried out a study of sexual abuse in the school system.

Hofstra University researcher Charol Shakeshaft looked into the problem, and the first thing that came to her mind when Education Week reported on the study were the daily headlines about the Catholic Church.

“[T]hink the Catholic Church has a problem?” she said. “The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.”

So, in order to better protect children, did media outlets start hounding the worse menace of the school systems, with headlines about a “Nationwide Teacher Molestation Cover-up” and by asking “Are Ed Schools Producing Pedophiles?”

No, they didn’t. That treatment was reserved for the Catholic Church, while the greater problem in the schools was ignored altogether.

As the National Catholic Register’s reporter Wayne Laugesen points out, the federal report said 422,000 California public-school students would be victims before graduation — a number that dwarfs the state’s entire Catholic-school enrollment of 143,000.

Yet, during the first half of 2002, the 61 largest newspapers in California ran nearly 2,000 stories about sexual abuse in Catholic institutions, mostly concerning past allegations. During the same period, those newspapers ran four stories about the federal government’s discovery of the much larger — and ongoing — abuse scandal in public schools.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1933687.shtml

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

They're not denied... they can go to a catholic or private school if they desire. And I agree - why limit the choices?

If that's the case, then what's the problem here? If they admit homosexuals, then they shouldn't be losing any funding, if I understand this law correctly.

[spacefreak]

The homosexual can go to the school, but for funding of the Cal Grant to continue, the institution must condone and embrace homosexualism. That latter part becomes a problem for some whose religious tenants promote heterosexual affairs.

A Catholic school can have gay students, but they can't officially condone and embrace homosexualism, transsexualism, etc.

[Spliffdaddy]

Somehow I'm having trouble seeing how spending less of my tax money is a bad thing.

Don't want to 'embrace' homosexuals? Good for you. Saves me money.

[besson3c]

Richard Simmons is gay. Just wanted to let you know.

[Spliffdaddy]

Thanks for that enlightening tidbit.

edited: Can I hit that bong a few times? Appears to be some good stuff.

[spacefreak]

Any word on Gene Simmons from KISS?

[Chuckit]

There are probably about 11,000 groupies who could say a few words on Gene Simmons from KISS.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Richard Simmons is gay. Just wanted to let you know.

Are you sure cuz I see fat chicks following around all the time?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

The homosexual can go to the school, but for funding of the Cal Grant to continue, the institution must condone and embrace homosexualism. That latter part becomes a problem for some whose religious tenants promote heterosexual affairs.

A Catholic school can have gay students, but they can't officially condone and embrace homosexualism, transsexualism, etc.

Interesting. This law reaches further than I thought. The law seems to require the institution to not be based on any fundamentals that condemn homosexuality. I guess if the government of California doesn't want to discriminate against homosexuals, than it's money shouldn't go to programs that comdemn homosexuality.

[- - e r i k - -]

[Face Ache]

^ Now this is probably the funniest thing I've seen on 'NN.

You're gonna get a lot of use out of that one.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Private schools outperform public schools because the teachers are better.

That's a statement that can be disputed, and completely misses the point, which is that the issue is one of accountability, whether it's a private institution or a government one. Assuming that one type of institution is better than another, based solely on who, or what, funds it, ignores the reality that the effectiveness of an institution is determined by how much parents and educators are involved with the school. Private institutions are just as subject to waste, malfeasance and incompetence as govermental ones, but it's easier to scapegoat government units.

[Spliffdaddy]

There aren't any efficient government services. I rank the teachers alongside the post office and DMV in terms of effectiveness.

Private school teachers are accountable to parents and administration - public school teachers are accountable to nobody..except their labor union.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

There aren't any efficient government services. I rank the teachers alongside the post office and DMV in terms of effectiveness.

Private school teachers are accountable to parents and administration - public school teachers are accountable to nobody..except their labor union.

Having been a teacher... I simply don't agree that private school teachers are superior to public school teachers. IMHO, public schools would improve 10X if they were able to "kick out" students in the same way private schools can. I spent 60% my time working with the trouble makers, 20% with the good students... and the remaining 20% was spread across the rest of the class.

I wonder how different the teaching experience would have been if discipline would have been if that 60% of my time was reduced to 20%.

Also, public school teachers are reviewed on a yearly basis for the first three years and every 3 years after that. Many are required to have a masters degree. They are accountable to the school district, the school board, the teachers union, the PTA, etc. It's not as easy as you make it.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

The law seems to require the institution to not be based on any fundamentals that condemn homosexuality. I guess if the government of California doesn't want to discriminate against homosexuals, than it's money shouldn't go to programs that comdemn homosexuality.

If the law stopped at "condemn", you'd be right. Unfortunately, the law requires programs to "promote" and "embrace".

That works out fine for the public school system, where children are 100 times more likely to be sexually abused than in any religious program.

You want to cut off disability and unemployment insurance for a janitor at a Catholic college just because the Catholic church doesn't embrace or promote homosexuality or transsexuality, that's fine. I say the janitor is still a citizen who deserves equal protection.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

If the law stopped at "condemn", you'd be right. Unfortunately, the law requires programs to "promote" and "embrace".

I think you're right, there. I can't think of any secular institutions that promote homosexuality or transsexuality. "Embrace" is a little less clear ... I can think of a few secular institutions that do so, but many that take a neutral stance, which is far from "embrace".

In short, I imagine that even secular institutions could be denied funding based on "promote" and "embrace".

[spacefreak]

I actually think this law holds at embrace, so that ambiguity does remain. Other similarly-backed bills landing on the Governors desk utilize "promote".