Don't Say Gay?

[AZhitman]

Don't like it? Go to a private school .

No thanks. I already pay for public schools.

As such, they'll do as I (collectively, taxpayers) say. Not the other way around.

[AZhitman]

This is the last time I ever take a thread title from HuffPost without reading the source material.

My whole beef with it was that it would somehow keep teachers from acknowledging the family situation of students in LBGT families, but this doesn't sound like that at all, and thus I have zero beef.

Repeat after me:

"I will consult multiple sources that aren't bookmarked on Howie's computer."

[AZhitman]

This isn't direct discrimination against a group of people, per se, but it is discriminatory against a group of people indirectly.

This law seems really unnecessary, and that's my real objection to it.

What has that group of people been deprived of?

I concur with your second statement. ANY TIME there's less legislation, it's a good thing in my book.

[IBCoupe]

This isn't direct discrimination against a group of people, per se, but it is discriminatory against a group of people indirectly.

This law seems really unnecessary, and that's my real objection to it.

What has that group of people been deprived of?

I concur with your second statement. ANY TIME there's less legislation, it's a good thing in my book.

Recognition, legitimacy.

[stebo0728]

Recognition, legitimacy.

Are those things considered to be a right? To anyone? I'm not saying anything about the particular group of people in question, but those 2 things are certainly not something the constitution can or will garauntee to anyone.

[HashiriyaS14]

Repeat after me:

"I will consult multiple sources that aren't bookmarked on Howie's computer."

LOL. True enough.

[IBCoupe]

Recognition, legitimacy.

Are those things considered to be a right? To anyone? I'm not saying anything about the particular group of people in question, but those 2 things are certainly not something the constitution can or will garauntee to anyone.

You're reading the Constitution incorrectly. The Ninth Amendment says that the Bill of Rights isn't a complete list. The Fourteenth Amendment says that States must provide equal protection of the law. That's the more important concern here.

Whether legitimacy and recognition are rights is absolutely immaterial to the question, "Is the government discriminating?"

[stebo0728]

Ok fair enough.

[szh]

I don't think there are any mature and rational people in Tennessee?

Telcoman

Unlike all those intelligent and rational folks in New Jersey, right?

On a slightly dissimilar vein ...

My boss is African American and has traveled and lived all over the country - including the South. Do you know what city he considers the most racist of the places in the US that he has been in?

Boston.

FWIW, I am not white and have lived in Mississippi without any issues whatsoever - including going into "red-neck" bars with friends and being treated perfectly normally. Do you know where I have personally (i.e., addressed to me) encountered racist problems?

Philadelphia.

Our liberal North-East has the worst records for racism and ignorance in the US.

Please don't make ignorant comments, Telco.

Z

[IBCoupe]

You would absolutely have a point, Stebo, if Tennessee wanted to ban any lesson plan regarding any sex or sexuality before high school, there wouldn't be discrimination, and there probably wouldn't be a constitutional question.

[R/T Hemi]

I didn't read the entire article, but it seems strange that they would target a word. Society frequently changes terms for classes of people. I suspect that when they are referred to as "Happy Butterflies" that too would become illegal. Gay is much nicer than many of the terms I've heard.

[AZhitman]

I didn't read the entire article, but it seems strange that they would target a word. Society frequently changes terms for classes of people. I suspect that when they are referred to as "Happy Butterflies" that too would become illegal. Gay is much nicer than many of the terms I've heard.

If you had read the article, this post wouldn't exist.

...not being critical, just enlightening.

[AZhitman]

Recognition, legitimacy.

What protected class (i.e., group of people) in this case is being denied recognition or legitimacy?

I spend quite a bit of time dealing with this as I submit Position Statements in response to Federal EEOC cases, and I'm just not seeing a legitimate claim of illegal discrimination.

[mattblancarte]

What protected class (i.e., group of people) in this case is being denied recognition or legitimacy?

Gay people. Why is it okay to teach kids about sex, but not inform them of what a gay person is until several years later? It implies that the information is somehow dangerous to children, does it not?

You're looking at this purely from a legal standpoint (which is fair). I'm challenging the logic and morality behind pointless lawmaking that targets a group of my fellow citizens.

If this was a law to ban teaching kids about sex toys, I wouldn't care. If this was a law to ban teaching kids (in a public school) how to operate a rifle, I wouldn't care.

I also don't think these politicians or those who voted for them deserve any respect because they are being "polite" about this law.

This law may not be a case of illegal discrimination, but the law is not the only standard that I need to hold my moral fiber to.

Again, this type of idiotic lawmaking comes as no surprise to me, as the majority TN lawmakers and voters have demonstrated a similar set of values in recent history.

Intelligent design taught in science class + blocking children from gays... I wonder where they got these ideas from... Oh wait, I know...

[IBCoupe]

Recognition, legitimacy.

What protected class (i.e., group of people) in this case is being denied recognition or legitimacy?

I spend quite a bit of time dealing with this as I submit Position Statements in response to Federal EEOC cases, and I'm just not seeing a legitimate claim of illegal discrimination.

Gays aren't set out as a protected class, and I suppose you know this. That does not mean this is not discriminatory. "Protected class" means it's easier to prove it's illegal discrimination. You can justify the discrimination all you want, Greg, but you're not escaping the very real fact that this is a discriminatory bill.

So, no protected class is being denied recognition or legitimacy. Arguably, however, gay people are being denied recognition and/or legitimacy. You're doing it again, Greg: someone starts making a claim that government action is wrong, and you pretend they said "illegal."

Furthermore, the absence of a protected class does not mean that the discrimination is legal. All it means is that we apply a different level of deference to state legislatures. If you'd like to explain why you think this law passes rational basis examination, then, by all means, do so.

[stebo0728]

Gays aren't set out as a protected class, and I suppose you know this. That does not mean this is not discriminatory. "Protected class" means it's easier to prove it's illegal discrimination. You can justify the discrimination all you want, Greg, but you're not escaping the very real fact that this is a discriminatory bill.

So, no protected class is being denied recognition or legitimacy. Arguably, however, gay people are being denied recognition and/or legitimacy. You're doing it again, Greg: someone starts making a claim that government action is wrong, and you pretend they said "illegal."

Furthermore, the absence of a protected class does not mean that the discrimination is legal. All it means is that we apply a different level of deference to state legislatures. If you'd like to explain why you think this law passes rational basis examination, then, by all means, do so.

This makes sense. The argument is not whether a discrimination is occuring, but rather whether the discrimination is warranted. We employ warranted discrimination every day. Under 18 means no voting. Taking drugs means no job. Being women means making sandwiches only. All warranted discriminations.

So is the discrimination in question warranted?

[IBCoupe]

Spot on, Stebo, that's the right question.

I don't think it is. It's a silly law that probably will have absolutely no effect on schools. Was there a rash of Kindergarten Queer Eye parties?

[AZhitman]

What protected class (i.e., group of people) in this case is being denied recognition or legitimacy?

Gay people.

No, they're not.

If gay people are being discriminated against because a school is not allowed to develop lesson plans that incorporate education about "gayness", then there's a hell of a lot more groups being discriminated against.

Think about it.

Further, this lawmaking doesn't "target" a group. It may ignore or exclude them, but there's no more "targeting" of gays here than there is "targeting" of Muslims (since they're not teaching the Quran, right?)

"Blocking children from gays"? Uhhh, looks like you didn't read the proposal either. Are you willing to ASSUME that the teachers in the TN public school system are QUALIFIED to teach kids about homosexuality? Are you a parent that is willing to shirk your responsibilities and ASSUME those teachers can teach your kids about a topic as important as sex and pregnancy and STD's?

Set aside the pro-gay agenda. I don't disagree with it.
Set aside the anti-faith agenda. It's beneath you.

You could have just stopped at this: "This law may not be a case of illegal discrimination...". The rest doesn't affect you.

[IBCoupe]

Greg, if it were simply an absence of lesson plans dealing with homosexuality, you'd have a point. And so you probably did have a point, right up until recently. But now the State of Tennessee has said there will be no lesson plans in the future regarding homosexuality before high school. It doesn't matter if the teachers below the high school level are qualified to teach classes involving sex and sexuality. The State has discriminated. Plain and simple.

And you're picking an awfully odd time to become a stickler for not talking about laws outside a commenter's jurisdiction. Yes, I could have stopped at "It might not," but I didn't. You'll just have to get over it.

[mattblancarte]

No, they're not.

Yes, they are.

If gay people are being discriminated against because a school is not allowed to develop lesson plans that incorporate education about "gayness", then there's a hell of a lot more groups being discriminated against.

Think about it.

I may be unaware, but what other group of people have been banned from being mentioned in a lesson plan? I learned about the KKK, Nazi criminals, organized crime, etc. in school. Not following you here.

Further, this lawmaking doesn't "target" a group. It may ignore or exclude them, but there's no more "targeting" of gays here than there is "targeting" of Muslims (since they're not teaching the Quran, right?)

Time out. There seems to be a conflation of what can and can't be taught. Teachers can inform kids about the Quran in school. They may not be able to provide lesson plans that study directly from the Quran, but they can absolutely describe what a Muslim is and make children aware of Muslims in their community.

To say that this law doesn't target homosexuals is patently false. They are at the core of this issue.

"Blocking children from gays"? Uhhh, looks like you didn't read the proposal either. Are you willing to ASSUME that the teachers in the TN public school system are QUALIFIED to teach kids about homosexuality? Are you a parent that is willing to shirk your responsibilities and ASSUME those teachers can teach your kids about a topic as important as sex and pregnancy and STD's?

Yes. I am willing to assume that teachers are qualified to inform schoolkids of what it means to be a gay person. It's not that complicated.

Yes, I would be willing to allow my kid to go through sex-ed in public school. I went through it. It's harmless, and helpful to children. Plenty of evidence to back that up.

Set aside the anti-faith agenda. It's beneath you.

Anti-faith is not beneath me. Piety is not a virtue that we share, good sir.

I'm tolerant of religion right up until it becomes a justification for unjust discrimination. Gays happen to be the easiest and most visible target nowadays, so I end up having to engage in these civil-rights-ish arguments in their defense.

Why set aside anything, Greg? I would like to discuss what is happening in real life, without the veil of subjectivity.

Seriously, though. Can anyone here enlighten me to any other justification for anti-gay legislation?

You could have just stopped at this: "This law may not be a case of illegal discrimination...". The rest doesn't affect you.

It does affect me. I feel compassion for those who are unjustly held down in society.

Honestly, do you think this kind of discrimination is warranted? If so, for what reasons?

[AZhitman]

You're rapidly falling into the trap of assuming I agree with the bill. Don't.

Have you READ the bill? Seems to me you're operating under the assumption that Hash did, which is to believe the sensationalized headline (which is inaccurate).

...what other group of people have been banned from being mentioned in a lesson plan?

They may not be able to provide lesson plans that study directly from the Quran

Thanks for answering that for me. See below:

they can absolutely describe what a Muslim is and make children aware of Muslims in their community.

And this law doesn't prohibit that for gays either. It's not a "don't say gay" law. Read.

Anti-faith is not beneath me.

Then we have nothing further to discuss.

Piety is not a virtue that we share, good sir.

I made no mention of piety. You're confusing yourself now. I could give a damn if you're "pious", that's none of my business.

It's called tolerance, and unless you're willing to extend your self-described "compassion" to those of faith as easily as you do those of an alternative lifestyle, then that's hypocritical.

I'm tolerant of religion right up until it becomes a justification for unjust discrimination.

As am I. Actually, I'm pretty intolerant of "religiousness". Do not like.

Gays happen to be the easiest and most visible target nowadays

Uh, I disagree. But whatever.

I end up having to engage in these civil-rights-ish arguments in their defense.

Why? Because they're incapable of doing it on their own? Sorry, you'll get no martyrdom here, bro. I like you and all, and I'm as defensive about people's individual rights as anyone, but this ain't one of those.

By the way, Tennessee does not require sex ed, but does have a "family life curriculum" that emphasizes abstinence. Any issues with that?

See, if the elementary school DOESN'T EVEN teach sex ed, it's a bit silly to get in an uproar over a lack of curriculum covering gays. Right? As Isaac said, it's kind of an irrelevant piece of legislation.

Honestly, do you think this kind of discrimination is warranted? If so, for what reasons?

See line one.

[mattblancarte]

Have you READ the bill? Seems to me you're operating under the assumption that Hash did, which is to believe the sensationalized headline (which is inaccurate).

And this law doesn't prohibit that for gays either.

Actually, it does. The bill states:

(2) Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, no public elementary or
middle school shall provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual
orientation other than heterosexuality.

In other words, it's okay to talk about heterosexuality. Anything else is not okay.

My argument still stands.

I made no mention of piety. You're confusing yourself now. I could give a damn if you're "pious", that's none of my business.

It's called tolerance, and unless you're willing to extend your self-described "compassion" to those of faith as easily as you do those of an alternative lifestyle, then that's hypocritical.

Perhaps I made a mistake in my inference. I presumed that because you were saying anti-faith is "beneath me," I should reconsider the religious ramifications.

My bad.

Why? Because they're incapable of doing it on their own? Sorry, you'll get no martyrdom here, bro. I like you and all, and I'm as defensive about people's individual rights as anyone, but this ain't one of those.

By the way, Tennessee does not require sex ed, but does have a "family life curriculum" that emphasizes abstinence. Any issues with that?

See, if the elementary school DOESN'T EVEN teach sex ed, it's a bit silly to get in an uproar over a lack of curriculum covering gays. Right? As Isaac said, it's kind of an irrelevant piece of legislation.

I would never claim that gays aren't strong enough to fight their own battles. To me, they are just fellow countrymen who are being slighted by confused and troubled men in power.

It's interesting that TN doesn't require sex ed in school. Data shows their system to be rather ineffective at lowering teen pregnancies and reducing STI's. My issues would be unrelated to the anti-gay legislation, but yes, I have issues with their system.

I agree, it is silly to get in an uproar. You'll notice, if you re-read my initial response in this thread, that I began with a resounding "meh."

I even went as far to say that it most likely will not affect the children in school.

Our argument devolved into an debate over whether or not the headlines were justified, and whether or not gays are being attacked. I think... Hard to tell at this point.

Honestly, do you think this kind of discrimination is warranted? If so, for what reasons?

See line one.

You are the shiftiest devil's advocate I've ever debated. :P I knew you weren't in favor of the bill.

Anyways, my resentment is aimed at the legislators and the voters who put them into office. I have a problem with the law, still, and would like to see it amended.

I will also stand by my explanation for why it came to be, as well.

[AZhitman]

...you had me at "shiftiest".

p.s. It was amended. Read that. And I agree with the rest. Nicely done, sir.