The Roberts Court takes aim at the Establishment Clause

[Lursa]

The Maine law itself only applies to districts which do not have a school district. The law allows people to decide which private schools they want their tax dollars to go to, keep in mind, school vouchers are not federal in nature, they are local and state property taxes. In any event, specifying a school that is secular only violates freedom of association and freedom of religion, as these schools must still meet state guidelines and accreditation requirements, so the objection is solely on the religious nature of the schools but this nature is by the choice of the parent(s).

Federal funds have shit all to do with this case.

It was Montana.

 

[weaver2]

Abortion has not been banned in this country despite your rantings to the contrary. States get to decide for themselves what regulations will be put on the practice. Sorry that you hate democracy as much as you do faith and life.

The SC has said states may decide. And 23 states have decided to deny women the right to make a private decision about the most personal part of their lives. How is this not banning abortion? The legislators that voted to ban abortion have done so in the name of their religion. That is not democratic. That's theocracy. Women are being treated as less deserving of private decision making than men. Treating 50% of the population as less deserving than the other 50% is not democratic. It's demeaning paternalism.

Those imposing abortion bans have placed their faith in the dogma of their church that says unless the church controls people, they will do bad things (theocracy) others have place their faith in the intelligence of humans and believe, without being told by some prelate, that most people will do what is right.

Poverty does not make life better. It creates its own set of problems. The people requiring women to bring children in to a life of poverty are creating more poverty, more under-educated children, more foster children, more children that end up with lives in poverty. This is not God's work it is the work of vindictive, punitive, obsessed, old conservative males inflicting their religion on women. That's neither democratic no is it a good life.

 

[Fletch]

The SC has said states may decide. And 23 states have decided to deny women the right to make a private decision about the most personal part of their lives. How is this not banning abortion? The legislators that voted to ban abortion have done so in the name of their religion. That is not democratic. That's theocracy. Women are being treated as less deserving of private decision making than men. Treating 50% of the population as less deserving than the other 50% is not democratic. It's demeaning paternalism.

Those imposing abortion bans have placed their faith in the dogma of their church that says unless the church controls people, they will do bad things (theocracy) others have place their faith in the intelligence of humans and believe, without being told by some prelate, that most people will do what is right.

Poverty does not make life better. It creates its own set of problems. The people requiring women to bring children in to a life of poverty are creating more poverty, more under-educated children, more foster children, more children that end up with lives in poverty. This is not God's work it is the work of vindictive, punitive, obsessed, old conservative males inflicting their religion on women. That's neither democratic no is it a good life.

Abortion does end a human life. Thats not theology, thats science. And only 14 states have banned abortion. Ten years from now I suspect that number will be zero. But you seem to be under false impression that everyone agrees with you and should be subject to your proclamations. Sorry but thats not how things work here.

 

[weaver2]

The Maine law itself only applies to districts which do not have a school district. The law allows people to decide which private schools they want their tax dollars to go to, keep in mind, school vouchers are not federal in nature, they are local and state property taxes. In any event, specifying a school that is secular only violates freedom of association and freedom of religion, as these schools must still meet state guidelines and accreditation requirements, so the objection is solely on the religious nature of the schools but this nature is by the choice of the parent(s).

Federal funds have shit all to do with this case.

Some history: The funding of children to attend private and Church schools is a very old and long Maine tradition. Maine was and still is a somewhat poor state, sparsely populated. Towns were small, far apart and too poor to provide public education other than elementary school, sometimes not even that. The Catholic Church (both French and Irish) in these small towns established schools to which Protestent families sent kids when the public funds were not enough to pay for public schools. Another part of the Main population lived on islands with no schools. Parents sent their kids off to the mainland boarding schools which were usually private and/or Catholic. Although the state could not afford to build and maintain schools and a teaching staff it could afford to pay tuition for these children to attend the private and Church schools.

Our town of 250 people had a two room school: grades 1-3 and 4-6. There was no Jr. High or High school in our district so the state would pay our kids tuition to any school in or out of Maine and they would pay the tuition rate of the nearest High School. It could be any school public, private, religious or heathen. If tuition was higher we were responsible for the difference. At some point the state decided that they shouldn't pay for tuition to Church schools even though there were still one or two districts that had only a Catholic HighSchool and islands with no schools. A law was passed, no tuition to Church schools. This was the law that was recently reviewed and changed.

 

[Fletch]

Some history: The funding of children to attend private and Church schools is a very old and long Maine tradition. Maine was and still is a somewhat poor state, sparsely populated. Towns were small, far apart and too poor to provide public education other than elementary school, sometimes not even that. The Catholic Church (both French and Irish) in these small towns established schools to which Protestent families sent kids when the public funds were not enough to pay for public schools. Another part of the Main population lived on islands with no schools. Parents sent their kids off to the mainland boarding schools which were usually private and/or Catholic. Although the state could not afford to build and maintain schools and a teaching staff it could afford to pay tuition for these children to attend the private and Church schools.

Our town of 250 people had a two room school: grades 1-3 and 4-6. There was no Jr. High or High school in our district so the state would pay our kids tuition to any school in or out of Maine and they would pay the tuition rate of the nearest High School. It could be any school public, private, religious or heathen. If tuition was higher we were responsible for the difference. At some point the state decided that they shouldn't pay for tuition to Church schools even though there were still one or two districts that had only a Catholic HighSchool and islands with no schools. A law was passed, no tuition to Church schools. This was the law that was recently reviewed and changed.

Why dont you just be honest and admit what is really going on here? You believe that people of faith should have no right to be part of any of societies decisions.

 

[Ginger Ale]

The anti-abortion movement was started, promoted, and funded by Jerry Falwell an evangelical activist and preacher and Paul Weyrich a Conservative Catholic political strategist and commentator. Abortion is prohibited by written Catholic dogma and is condemned by evangelicals in their mission statements. The movement's different organizations are allied with specific evangelical churches or with the Catholic Church. The leaders of those organizations are active within their churches. The objections to abortion are couched in religious terms. The fetus is: a gift of life (from God), one of God's creations, given to you by God, against God's design for humanity, the sacredness of life. Condemning abortion is a religious belief. Both Catholic and evangelical leaders have declared it to be against God's wishes and deny the procedure to the women of their church.

Catholics represent 23% of all US citizens, but 64% of those Catholics disagree with Catholic dogma and believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. 25% of all US citizens are evangelical, but, 25% of those evangelicals believe that abortions should be legal in all or most cases. Of 26% of US citizens that have no religious affiliation 87% believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
The poll was conducted by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research,

No confusion about a new poll: Most U.S. Catholics disagree with church leaders on abortion and L.G.B.T. issues

Last week saw the release of yet another poll suggesting that a majority of U.S. Catholics do indeed hold pro-choice views on abortion.

www.americamagazine.org

Banning abortion is clearly a 1st Amendment violation: a minority of religious conservatives imposing a religious belief on the majority.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

I get it. Sorry if I made you feel I disagreed with everything you said. Not my intension. It's not wrong for you, obviously, you have your own opinion. I clearly stated it was just my opinion before I said it.

I've had that feeling you're describing in P-Town MA. Feeling free of critical eyes. I understand. All I was saying is the LGBTQ+ youth want that freedom everywhere, and why not, they are hurting nobody. Our youth will shape the future. Gone are the days when they'd settle for a remote area to feel free of judgement, harassment, and condemning acts. I think it's healthy and progressive to want a country that's inclusive and fair and I applaud their efforts. I do understand the desire to have a safe space tho, I just agree with them, it's shitty we need one.


Nobody is taking away cons rights, never have, never will. Where are you seeing this? Cons aren't a victim if people don't like them taking away their rights nearly for being different.

You aren't a victim if women don't like the bans you're imposing on them. You're not a victim because black people don't like you eliminating parts of their history being taught at school.

You aren't the victim when you ban a book, or ban others speech.
You're the oppressor, not the oppressed. Of course you will not be liked by those you are oppressing. I think that's a given.

Cons never had bills against their right to go to church, to not be gay, not be trans, and never have they been forced to get an abortion. There is no indoctrination of the left. They have always had the choice. That's made up rhetoric.

They've never been subject to what they're trying to do to others. Never. They have never been a marginalized group. I don't understand why you'd even say that to me. Their rights have never been challenged and they aren't the victims. They're the predator.

Again, no offense meant.

I could have sworn you wrote that "they have to move, not us." So if that wasn't there before an edit, then my comment about the rights thing is moot.

The way I see it, society has lost touch with what "common decency" means. Gay people and straight people more or less have the exact same goals, aspirations, and desires. The only thing that really sets them apart is the sex/gender they choose to have sex with and/or marry. We have lost touch with "common decency." I think in the 90s, "common decency" was respected much more, or at least from a child's perspective in New York (I'm a 90's kid). That said, I was heartened when Congress passed a law last year that codified the right to marry for gay people, and I'm hoping that DeSantis, in his anti-woke crusade, eventually passes a law that steps on federal toes and it becomes a lawsuit. In fact, I believe that at least part of the "don't say gay" law interferes with freedom of expression if not speech.

State governments, such as Florida's, have lost track of what the people want. Yes, the state went Republican. But people will eventually get sick of the culture wars, just like they got sick of it before. It seems to me that most people (regular people, not government officials) in Florida don't care too much about the culture wars. Yes, you have the hardcore, extreme conservatives, and the hardcore, extreme liberals, but most people just don't care one way other other and will eventually tire of state governments making issues out things that were a) previously not issues, and b) are not the issues they care about.

In re: victims and marginalization: you are absolutely right. But I'm not arguing about legislation in my examples of safe havens.

 

[DarkWizard12]

I recognize that there are other threads about the separation of church and state, but this is a specific piece about the current Court:

The Roberts Court takes aim at the Establishment Clause (Hill, Opinion)​

"The irony here is that at a time of growing secularism in American society, the current conservative majority on the court is becoming even more pro-religion, reversing decades-old precedents. Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the court has moved away from using the Establishment Clause to enforce a “high wall of separation” to protect non-Christians and non-believers; it now uses the Free Exercise Clause not simply to accommodate religion but to impose the religious views of a minority upon an emerging secular majority. Call this the “New Sectarianism.”"

What struck me particularly, was this statement: "Under the Roberts Court, there has not been a single case where claims of free exercise of religion have been rejected. The court has consistently defended the rights of an individual or minority to impose its religious views on a majority."

I went and looked, and the statement is correct. I could not find a single case refuting the claim, from Hobby Lobby forward. I think this should be of concern to everyone, religious or not. No one wins all of the time - except with this Supreme Court. Does the Establishment Clause still have meaning? Has the Supreme Choir simply written it out of the Constitution?

you don't have to be religious to be for religious rights.

Religious rights is what makes us a secular democracy to begin with.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

you don't have to be religious to be for religious rights.

Religious -rights- in and of themselves are not really the issue. It is the minimization of one group of people's rights to maximize the rights of the other, when in fact all rights should be equal that is the problem. In politics, this naturally happens since there is always a power struggle, but that doesn't make it right.

 

[weaver2]

Abortion does end a human life. Thats not theology, thats science.

Abortion ends life. A life ending is always sad but bringing a child into a world where it will die young, never live up to its potential, never thrive isn't just sad it is a terrible waste of a human life. It is more then tragic.

And only 14 states have banned abortion.

You are right only 14 states have actually banned and made the ban stick, legally. However, at least 9 more states are about to try and ban abortion.

But you seem to be under false impression that everyone agrees with you and should be subject to your proclamations. Sorry but thats not how things work here.

I'm pro-choice. I think families should be able to make the decision about bringing a child or another child into the family without the conservative evangelicals or the conservative Catholics interfering in their private lives. Actually that is how things do work in a democracy with a 1st Amendment; religion doesn't get to vote what rights a woman gets or doesn't get.

 

[Fletch]

Abortion ends life. A life ending is always sad but bringing a child into a world where it will die young, never live up to its potential, never thrive isn't just sad it is a terrible waste of a human life. It is more then tragic.

You are right only 14 states have actually banned and made the ban stick, legally. However, at least 9 more states are about to try and ban abortion.

I'm pro-choice. I think families should be able to make the decision about bringing a child or another child into the family without the conservative evangelicals or the conservative Catholics interfering in their private lives. Actually that is how things do work in a democracy with a 1st Amendment; religion doesn't get to vote what rights a woman gets or doesn't get.

Abortion isnt a Constitutional right and Christans have as much right to vote for things they value as anyone else. Perhaps you ought to review your understanding of the 1st because its nonsense.

 

[Super Chief]

This is why 4-4-1 or 3-3-2 is needed. They lied and cheated to stack the Court with Federalist Society judges who've been groomed from law school on to put theocracy in law (in fact, the FS was created specifically to get judges on the bench who would overturn Roe no matter what). And now, The Court is doing as intended.

The idea that law was some esoteric and high-minded objective analysis was always a farce. This is far worse than a farce.

Not sure why you feel this way. Ask me and I think Roberts and most his cohorts are far too liberal. These so called conservative justices seem to dissapoint and fall short most of the time. Roberts is a joke; he was the one who saved Obamacare. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett are constantly at different times tipping decisions in favor of the left. The only two consistently conservative justices on the court are Alito and Thomas.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Religious -rights- in and of themselves are not really the issue. It is the minimization of one group of people's rights to maximize the rights of the other, when in fact all rights should be equal that is the problem. In politics, this naturally happens since there is always a power struggle, but that doesn't make it right.

We have a system to deal with these issues when one set of rights goes against another. just because you didn't like the result doesn't mean rights aren't equal, nor does it mean that it was the wrong decision. It just means you did not like the decision, that's all it means.

 

[weaver2]

Abortion isnt a Constitutional right and Christans have as much right to vote for things they value as anyone else. Perhaps you ought to review your understanding of the 1st because its nonsense.

Abortion is not a constitutional right. Agree. Christians can vote for things they consider important. Agree. But that is not what is going on right now. A minority built of conservative males that believe their brand of Christianity should be the religion of the country have seized control of the courts and are establishing laws that are clearly the religious dogma of their Catholic or evangelical religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
There are two parts to this right. The government won't make religion a part of, a department of, an advisory of or a functionary of the government or of the law. Government is then free from religious interference in government. Presidents do not have to get permission from a religious group for any action they make. Religious dogma does not have to be considered before enacting laws. Religion does not have a veto power over the government. Religion doesn't not direct the finances of the country. Tribute is not paid to religion. Government is free from the power of religion.

The second part say that since Congress can't establish a religion and government is free to operate without religious interference then religion should be free of government interference. Government cannot persecute a religion. It cannot ban a religion. It cannot start a holy war against a church. It cannot interfered in the dogma a church establishes. It cannot interfere in the punishments a religion may inflict on congregants.

This is a balance of rights and responsibilities. Religion cannot make or get Congress to make laws that establish their dogma as law. And in exchange religion is not taxed and it is free to operate their own affairs within the laws of the United States.

What the 1st Amendment doesn't mean is that religious denominations are not free to vote into law the dogma of their religion. They cannot take rights away from people, they cannot direct the lives of people that are not congregants.

Free exercise is not a carte blanche to make your religion into the law of the United States.

 

[weaver2]

We have a system to deal with these issues when one set of rights goes against another. just because you didn't like the result doesn't mean rights aren't equal, nor does it mean that it was the wrong decision. It just means you did not like the decision, that's all it means.

Then you say "women who have had multiple abortions, treat abortion as a contraceptive and the unborn as medical waste, shouldn't get to have an opinion on abortion."

Really?

 

[PoliSciPulse]

We have a system to deal with these issues when one set of rights goes against another. just because you didn't like the result doesn't mean rights aren't equal, nor does it mean that it was the wrong decision. It just means you did not like the decision, that's all it means.

So how is the Don't Say Gay law supporting someone's rights?

 

[LittleNipper]

This is the most important part of your sentence.

And your highlight reveals something about you.

 

[DarkWizard12]

So how is the Don't Say Gay law supporting someone's rights?

Well, you kinda already loaded the question, don't you think? There is no law that bans saying the word gay, nor is there a law even named "don't say gay".

But if you're talking about florida's Parental Rights in Education law, then i think it's self evident if you read what it says. Students certainly have a right to not be sexually groomed by irresponsible supervisors, and parents have a right to know what their child is learning at schools funded by their tax dollars.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Then you say "women who have had multiple abortions, treat abortion as a contraceptive and the unborn as medical waste, shouldn't get to have an opinion on abortion."

Really?

absolutely. what confuses you exactly?

 

[weaver2]

But if you're talking about florida's Parental Rights in Education law, then i think it's self evident if you read what it says. Students certainly have a right to not be sexually groomed by irresponsible supervisors, and parents have a right to know what their child is learning at schools funded by their tax dollars.

It is complete bullshit that schools are secretly teaching kids terrible things. If the parents don't know what kids are learning its because they are too lazy to find out. Every parent has the right to see the curriculum. It's a public document, available to everyone at the superintendent of schools office and at the Board of Education office. Every teacher has a curriculum for her grade in her room which may be read by every parent.

The people that approve the curriculum are the locally elected members of the school board. The parents that do most of the bitching about schools are the same people that never vote in local elections.

The accusation that schools are nothing more than institutions for sexual grooming and abuse also falls into the bullshit category and is largely the result of one writer Carol Shakeshaft who currently teaches graduate courses in research design, policy research methods, and gender and race equity, at Virginia Commonwealth University's school of Educational Leadership. She has, since 2002, been writing articles and books about sexual assault and harassment in schools that have been criticized for her misleading statistics, misleading definitions and inadequate research.

No Panic Over School Child Abuse | Wendy McElroy

A report claiming that close to 10 percent of children in public schools--more than 4.5 million--endure sexual abuse or misconduct by school employees has recently touched off a media-fueled panic. However, 'Educator Sexual Misconduct,' by Carol Shakeshaft of Hofstra University, is seriously...

www.independent.org

Sexual Abuse by Educators Is Scrutinized

A draft report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education concludes that far too little is known about the prevalence of sexual misconduct by teachers or other school employees, but estimates that millions of children are being affected by it during their school-age years.

www.edweek.org

Charol Shakeshaft - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The reality is between 2017-18 there were about 15,000 cases of sexual assault in public schools reported

Sexual Violence in Schools | NEA

A U.S. Department of Education report found that sexual violence was on the rise in schools before the pandemic. As schools reopen, this trend may continue.

www.nea.org

There are about 50,000,000 K-12 students in the US. That means about .03% of school student have been sexually assaulted and most of the assaults have been students assaulting other students.

The Secret of Sexual Assault in Schools | NEA

Student-on-student sexual assault and harassment happens with alarming frequency in school bathrooms, on school playgrounds, and in the backs of school buses.

www.nea.org

Are there problems in schools. Sure, every large institution has problems and should address them and do better. Are our public schools dens of dark sexual improprieties and attacks? They are not. If parents are concerned about what goes on in schools they can vote in school board elections, read the curriculum, volunteer at school, attend PTA , read their chid's textbooks and written work and go to parent teacher meetings.

 

[Ginger Ale]

And your highlight reveals something about you.

It should reveal my opinion.

 

[Ginger Ale]

I could have sworn you wrote that "they have to move, not us." So if that wasn't there before an edit, then my comment about the rights thing is moot.

The way I see it, society has lost touch with what "common decency" means. Gay people and straight people more or less have the exact same goals, aspirations, and desires. The only thing that really sets them apart is the sex/gender they choose to have sex with and/or marry. We have lost touch with "common decency." I think in the 90s, "common decency" was respected much more, or at least from a child's perspective in New York (I'm a 90's kid). That said, I was heartened when Congress passed a law last year that codified the right to marry for gay people, and I'm hoping that DeSantis, in his anti-woke crusade, eventually passes a law that steps on federal toes and it becomes a lawsuit. In fact, I believe that at least part of the "don't say gay" law interferes with freedom of expression if not speech.

State governments, such as Florida's, have lost track of what the people want. Yes, the state went Republican. But people will eventually get sick of the culture wars, just like they got sick of it before. It seems to me that most people (regular people, not government officials) in Florida don't care too much about the culture wars. Yes, you have the hardcore, extreme conservatives, and the hardcore, extreme liberals, but most people just don't care one way other other and will eventually tire of state governments making issues out things that were a) previously not issues, and b) are not the issues they care about.

In re: victims and marginalization: you are absolutely right. But I'm not arguing about legislation in my examples of safe havens.

I understand what you're saying. A good safe haven is nice but I do worry about the legislation because I have to.

As a woman, I hope you realize we don't have the privilege to "not care" about these culture wars because it has changed our healthcare landscape and caused undo suffering and injury. You don't have to be hardcore for that, you just have to be a woman in need of gynecological care. Trans do not have that privilege either, they're suffering from lack of medical care. Educators can't ignore taking large chunks out of their lesson plans. Etc.

We care a lot about these issues, so much so that's what will direct our votes. But yes, a safe place is a nice break, but unfortunately it doesn't thwart the laws. It only takes a small group of extremists to cause a lot of harm. They're like a bomb.

 

[weaver2]

As a woman, I hope you realize we don't have the privilege to "not care" about these culture wars because it has changed our healthcare landscape and caused undo suffering and injury. You don't have to be hardcore for that, you just have to be a woman in need of gynecological care. Trans do not have that privilege either, they're suffering from lack of medical care. Educators can't ignore taking large chunks out of their lesson plans. Etc..

If you are a woman living comfortably in the middle class recent court decisions and legislation have affected your life somewhat.
If you are a woman working in a job that hires mostly women the recent court decisions and legislation have made your life stressful.
If you are a woman working in a low wage job the recent court decisions and legislation have made your life
extremely difficult.
If you are a woman working in a low wage job and pregnant the recent court decisions and legislation have made life almost unbearable.
If you are a woman working in a low wage job, pregnant and with two kids court decision and legislation you are facing a third child and permanent poverty.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

I understand what you're saying. A good safe haven is nice but I do worry about the legislation because I have to.

As a woman, I hope you realize we don't have the privilege to "not care" about these culture wars because it has changed our healthcare landscape and caused undo suffering and injury. You don't have to be hardcore for that, you just have to be a woman in need of gynecological care. Trans do not have that privilege either, they're suffering from lack of medical care. Educators can't ignore taking large chunks out of their lesson plans. Etc.

We care a lot about these issues, so much so that's what will direct our votes. But yes, a safe place is a nice break, but unfortunately it doesn't thwart the laws. It only takes a small group of extremists to cause a lot of harm. They're like a bomb.

I wasn't meaning women, or transgenders in general, nor do I mean any specific legislation -- am talking in general about "culture wars," which right now is focused primarily on trans people and women, but can cover anything from abortion to Disney. I'm simply suggesting that for those in Florida who do not have these issues "on the radar," they will eventually burn out from the so-called "culture wars" because they will tire of hearing about it all the time. That is what someone who is actually affected by the culture wars, like you, would want since the culture wars will lose its effectiveness as a tool for reelection. This will lead to the culture wars against xyz demographic becoming ineffective as a means of reelection and as a talking point. The ultimate goal being to return to the question of "What have you done for your state" as opposed to "what demographic have you attacked?"

As far as actual legislation that affects the demographics, yes, they need to be informed and they need to effectively counter it. Also, Mr. DeSantis is not following his state's constitution:

SECTION 2. Basic rights.—All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.
History.—Am. S.J.R. 917, 1974; adopted 1974; Am. proposed by Constitution Revision Commission, Revision No. 9, 1998, filed with the Secretary of State May 5, 1998; adopted 1998; Am. proposed by Constitution Revision Commission, Revision No. 6, 2018, filed with the Secretary of State May 9, 2018; adopted 2018.
SECTION 3. Religious freedom.—There shall be no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting or penalizing the free exercise thereof. Religious freedom shall not justify practices inconsistent with public morals, peace or safety. No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.

and

SECTION 23. Right of privacy.—Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person’s private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public’s right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law.
History.—Added, C.S. for H.J.R. 387, 1980; adopted 1980; Am. proposed by Constitution Revision Commission, Revision No. 13, 1998, filed with the Secretary of State May 5, 1998; adopted 1998.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

Well, you kinda already loaded the question, don't you think? There is no law that bans saying the word gay, nor is there a law even named "don't say gay".

But if you're talking about florida's Parental Rights in Education law, then i think it's self evident if you read what it says. Students certainly have a right to not be sexually groomed by irresponsible supervisors, and parents have a right to know what their child is learning at schools funded by their tax dollars.

Totally agree. The "don't say gay" law, does restrict teaching about the issue, and not every lesson is about grooming, either, if done correctly. And there are already laws against sexual abuse, etc. of minors. And yes, the "don't say gay" law is actually not called that. However, I was specifically responding to this:

We have a system to deal with these issues when one set of rights goes against another. just because you didn't like the result doesn't mean rights aren't equal, nor does it mean that it was the wrong decision

So, to rephrase the question in a more neutral-sounding way, from your perspective, what rights does the so-called "don't say gay" expand, and how does it protect students', teachers', and parents' rights in such a way that it is also not stomping on other rights of students, teachers, and parents, and is also not covered by some other law, or setting up one group of people (in this case, gay and transgendered students) to be marginalized and misunderstood rather than accepted?

The specific provisions one were to list in answer to the question, in my opinion, would be the parts of the law that are not the "wrong decision."