BS and you know it. There will be frivolous lawsuits that wouldn't have happened but for this dumb law and it will chill conduct. That's the entire point. As for "following" the curriculum - that was already the case and no curriculum includes teaching kindergarteners to be gay. There is no legitimate purpose to this bill. It exists in part for deplorable signalling and in part to chill behavior. But of course you won't let that get in the way of your reductionist analysis that ignores the motivations for and, likely consequences of, the bill.BearGoggles said:Unit2Sucks said:
BG is purposefully ignoring the private right of action which has been widely adopted the last few years to chill behavior. Just like in the Texas anti choice bill and Florida's anti woke act, whatever that is supposed to be about. How long before some parent sues a school because his kid's kindergarten teacher is gay?
It's completely on brand for BG to take a reductionist view of the language and ignore why it's happening. No one was teaching sex ed in Kindergarten in Florida. If the entire purpose of the bill was to prevent 5 year olds from being exposed to sex ed, the bill is completely unnecessary. So why would it have been proposed and passed?
Maybe we should pass a bill to prevent elementary school kids from being radicalized by the NRA and taught how to operate machine guns? After that we can focus on preventing them from being taught how to abuse their spouses. I mean who would oppose that?
This bill didn't happen by accident. BG's view is intentionally ignoring the purpose behind the bill, which is of course the very reason this thread was started.
LOL at the comparison to Texas. The Texas law created a private right of action against individuals to impose anti-abortion rules that a state could not lawfully adopt. I think that is wrong and unconstitutional and have posted as such.
The Florida law gives parents the right to sue the school district - not individuals - if the school district is not following the law. That is not only materially different than the Texas law, it is common place. People sue all the time to enforce laws and/or rights - the gay marriage litigation was exactly that. Pretty much every civil rights action was exactly that.
There is no chance a parent is going to successfully sue under this law for having a gay teacher. Just stop. If the teachers follow the curriculum, there won't be an issue.
I'm not intentionally ignoring the purpose behind the law - it is to prevent woke teachers from imposing their views on students in derogation of parental rights.
If you agree that republicans hate gays, I guess I'll ask why democrats/liberals hate babies?
And you accuse me of being reductionist.
Here's a good discussion of this bill, the private right of action and the playbook that DeSantis is using:
Quote:
Florida's bill goes further, by encouraging everyday civilians to enforce it. If passed, parents would be allowed to directly sue a school districtand possibly receive damages in addition to attorney's feesif they suspect an educator has violated the law.
This "private right of action" has been a recurring theme in the DeSantis agenda. Last June, he signed into law a bill that allows any student who has been "deprived of an athletic opportunity" by a trans kid to sue the school. And DeSantis' proposed "Stop WOKE Act," an initiative to ban the teaching of critical race theory in schools and businesses, would have allowed parents and students to bring lawsuits against school districts that contravened the law.
Republicans in the state Senate are currently advancing another version of that proposal, which would prohibit teachings that suggest students and employees should "feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin." (DeSantis has expressed frustration with it, because it doesn't allow individuals to sue the schools directly.)
Even though it hasn't yet passed, that bill has already had a chilling effect. This week, a Florida school district canceled a history professor's planned seminar for teachers on the civil rights movement. In an email to educators who'd planned to attend, the superintendent said the school district wanted a committee to review the professor's presentation, "in light of the current conversations across our state and in our community about critical race theory."
This kind of smothering environment is the desired outcome of Florida's "don't say gay" bill.
If parents are empowered to take legal action against any already-cash-strapped school that acknowledges the existence of LGBTQ people, schools will simply stop acknowledging that LGBTQ people exist. As Wolf put it: "Teachers would be fearful of legal repercussions, and therefore resistant or reluctant to create an affirming or inclusive classroom environment."
And by outsourcing enforcement to vigilante parents rather than leaving it to the statejust as Texas legislators did with their abortion ban, in a tactic blessed by the Supreme CourtFlorida lawmakers have ensured that no one can challenge the law in federal court before it's enforced.
