• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

State Senate approves bill banning language discrimination

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I am sure all the globalist scum are cheering this Commiefornia bill which I am sure their liberal governor will sign.A business shouldn't be forced to provide an interpreter or put bilingual bull**** on all their packaging because some lazy ass scum refuse to learn the language of the country.


State Senate approves bill banning language discrimination | L.A. Now | Los Angeles Times


Alarmed that a professional golf association proposed to exclude competitors who don’t speak English, the state Senate acted today to prohibit businesses in California from discriminating against customers, including refusing them service, based on the language they use.

The Ladies Professional Golf Assn. last year backed down from a policy that would have suspended golfers who do not speak adequate English on the premise that language fluency in speeches and media interviews was critical to the sport's promotion efforts.

The golfers were considered "patrons" of the LPGA, not employees.

State Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) said the policy raised an issue that required changes to state civil rights laws that already protect employees from discrimination based on language.

"I don’t understand the connection between speaking English and playing golf," Yee said on the Senate floor. "This is really about protecting our ability to speak the language that we wish."

Yee recalled as a young boy going to a San Francisco hardware store with an uncle who was mistreated because of his lack of proficiency in English.

SB 242, which now goes to the Assembly, was approved on a 21-15 vote, with Republican lawmakers opposed based on concern it would open businesses up to a rash of civil rights lawsuits if customers felt they did not get good service.

Yee noted the bill protects English speakers as well from being discriminated against by non-English-speaking business owners. The bill includes an exemption that says firms can require a specific language to be spoken if it is justified by a "business necessity," such as clear communications for safety, and that notification is provided as to when and where the language restriction is to be observed.

The bill drew concerns from U.S. English, a group that promotes English-only policies. Rob Toonkel, a spokesman for the group, said it makes good sense for businesses to treat customers well.
 
because some lazy ass scum refuse to learn the language of the country.

There is no national language in the United States. Because of that, there is no "requirement" to learn the national language. The "unofficial" language(s) of the US is determined by the language(s) that those in the US speak.
 
There is no national language in the United States. Because of that, there is no "requirement" to learn the national language. The "unofficial" language(s) of the US is determined by the language(s) that those in the US speak.

I agree with you.. up until the point that it starts costing the tax payer or businesses more in REQUIRED translation.

Here in AZ we voted down a measure that would give the school's funding for printing tests in English and Spanish.... The turned around and did it anyway... on our dime.
 
There is no national language in the United States. .
Our founding documents are in english, our government business is done in english and the huge vast majority of people in the US speak english. Therefore English is our language. SO those coming to this country to live here should learn english. Scumbag politicians shouldn't be forcing any business and taxpayers to cater to other languages.
 
Our founding documents are in english, our government business is done in english and the huge vast majority of people in the US speak english. Therefore English is our language. SO those coming to this country to live here should learn english. Scumbag politicians shouldn't be forcing any business and taxpayers to cater to other languages.

And yet most of the founding fathers spoke multiple languages, they made no constitutional provisions for a national language and when writing the constitution stated clearly that the president should be a male. If we're going by historicity then your argument fails.
 
There is no national language in the United States. Because of that, there is no "requirement" to learn the national language. The "unofficial" language(s) of the US is determined by the language(s) that those in the US speak.




But there should be a requirement to service all languages?


Let's say I own a gun range. Would it be safe for me to let someone onto the range who could not understand range commands because of language?
 
But there should be a requirement to service all languages?

Let's say I own a gun range. Would it be safe for me to let someone onto the range who could not understand range commands because of language?

.....uh. Yeah. Your gun range. Your rules. Nothing to do with the government.
 
.....uh. Yeah. Your gun range. Your rules. Nothing to do with the government.




from the op:

Alarmed that a professional golf association proposed to exclude competitors who don’t speak English, the state Senate acted today to prohibit businesses in California from discriminating against customers, including refusing them service, based on the language they use.


I did not realize the professional golf association was a government entity. Did you bother to read the context of the thread before you responded? :lol:
 
And yet most of the founding fathers spoke multiple languages, they made no constitutional provisions for a national language and when writing the constitution stated clearly that the president should be a male. If we're going by historicity then your argument fails.
Please point out the text in the Constitution that require the President to be male.
 
Hatuey said:
JamesRage said:
Our founding documents are in english, our government business is done in english and the huge vast majority of people in the US speak english. Therefore English is our language. SO those coming to this country to live here should learn english. Scumbag politicians shouldn't be forcing any business and taxpayers to cater to other languages.
And yet most of the founding fathers spoke multiple languages, they made no constitutional provisions for a national language and when writing the constitution stated clearly that the president should be a male. If we're going by historicity then your argument fails.

I always found this "back to the founding fathers" argument quite absurd. There are many things that the founding fathers advocated that would seem absolutely ridiculous to support today, slavery being the most obvious example. I don't see you [JamesRage] opposing Obama's presidency on the grounds that he's black and belongs in the fields and not the Oval Office.

But there should be a requirement to service all languages?

Personally I don't really care about discussing the legislation, as it doesn't directly affect me and I'm really not interested in getting in the middle of such a typical liberal/conservative whinefest. I was merely responding to JamesRage's assertion that English is the US's national language and that everyone that lives in the US must learn English.

However it is interesting now to note how hypocritical his position is, whereby he is against the legislation forcing businesses to cater to people that can't speak English under the guise of "freedom" (or whatever you would like to call it) but would support legislation forcing millions of people to learn English.

Please point out the text in the Constitution that require the President to be male.

The first female presidential candidate was Victoria Woodhull in 1872. However, the legitimacy of her candidacy was questioned because of her sex:

"* She was a woman.

This was the most cited legal impediment in the 19th century. Some of Woodhull's contemporaries believed that because she was a woman she was not a citizen and, therefore, not entitled to vote. Since the Constitution required that the President be a citizen, she would also be excluded from holding the office of President. Others believed women were citizens, but that the states had the right to limit the franchise to males only. Some Woodhull supporters believed that even if Woodhull could not vote legally, that would not have excluded her from running for public office. United States law has its roots in English common law, and under English common law, there was an established precedence of women holding public office."
-[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Woodhull"]Wikipedia[/ame]

The issue of citizenship could certainly be claims for supporting Hatuey's statement.
 
Enough is enough.... Oh, wait. Maybe it isn't. Sure, lets ban language discrimination, and we can implement the new law by redoing our street signs in Spanish, Mandarin, Farsi, Japanese, Swahili, Portuguese, French, German, Italian, Russian, Arabic, and Swedish. While we are at it, maybe there might be enough room on those signs for English too, please?
 
I always found this "back to the founding fathers" argument quite absurd. There are many things that the founding fathers advocated that would seem absolutely ridiculous to support today, slavery being the most obvious example. I don't see you [JamesRage] opposing Obama's presidency on the grounds that he's black and belongs in the fields and not the Oval Office.



Personally I don't really care about discussing the legislation, as it doesn't directly affect me and I'm really not interested in getting in the middle of such a typical liberal/conservative whinefest. I was merely responding to JamesRage's assertion that English is the US's national language and that everyone that lives in the US must learn English.

However it is interesting now to note how hypocritical his position is, whereby he is against the legislation forcing businesses to cater to people that can't speak English under the guise of "freedom" (or whatever you would like to call it) but would support legislation forcing millions of people to learn English.



The first female presidential candidate was Victoria Woodhull in 1872. However, the legitimacy of her candidacy was questioned because of her sex:

"* She was a woman.

This was the most cited legal impediment in the 19th century. Some of Woodhull's contemporaries believed that because she was a woman she was not a citizen and, therefore, not entitled to vote. Since the Constitution required that the President be a citizen, she would also be excluded from holding the office of President. Others believed women were citizens, but that the states had the right to limit the franchise to males only. Some Woodhull supporters believed that even if Woodhull could not vote legally, that would not have excluded her from running for public office. United States law has its roots in English common law, and under English common law, there was an established precedence of women holding public office."
-Wikipedia

The issue of citizenship could certainly be claims for supporting Hatuey's statement.
Could be claimed but would be totally wrong. There is no Constitutional language forbiding women to be president.
 
Could be claimed but would be totally wrong. There is no Constitutional language forbiding women to be president.

The constitutional language would in that case be that the US president has to be a US citizen.
 
Back
Top Bottom