not freedom of speech

You simply cannot find that fine line to do what you wish expecting teachers of elementary, junior, senior high students to walk it. You say it is okay for them to teach no matter how uncomfortable some students may be. So when they teach something that the student doesn't comprehend correctly and that student kills themselves because of what is taught, you will be okay with that. Not teachers fault on how they taught it, right? Yes, my example is extreme, but teachers will teach where some children will misunderstand. There is no way to walk that fine line that you are supporting.

 

What HB 7 stipulates sex over gender in reguards to employment and education, including participating in sports, use of the toilet, etc. In legal terms, when sex is used, it diminishes the gender identification standard in Bobstock v Clayton County. The bill also goes on about educational instruction, specifically towards history of African American history of the United States. It will mininize how slavery was developed and exercised in the United States while whitewashing some of the worst times in our history. The key to this bill is that the Florida and School District board of education must approve all ciriculum in a manner that is " A person should not be instructed that he or she must 521 feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress 522 for actions, in which he or she played no part, committed in the 523 past by other members of the same race or sex." This is going to be very hard to do to walk a fine line. It also provides incentive to provide an opposing view in education.

As for employment, the bill does not change anything that major employers don't already do if they have corporate sensitivity training.

As I said, the bill diministes LBGQ issues within education and the workplace, basically ignoring that sexual orientation and gender identification is not discrimination, and it blaces a burden on the education system to approve circiculum that appeals to everybody including the Neo Nazi groups.

 

DeSantis has found an issue he is flogging because he believes it will garner more votes for him. Full stop.

 

My capricious boss made me take a loyalty oath and did a background check and a drug test. Why didn't Florida protect me from the tyrant?

There is a difference between making someone feel responsible for the actions of others and becoming aware of the actions of others. The "blame game" you mention is smoke and mirrors and unless your primary identity is linked to white supremacy it does not apply to you.

 

Clearly you have never been through mandated biannual manager sexual harassment training. Managers creating a hostile work environment has subjected employers to financial recovery by those harmed, for a very long time.

All this law says, according to your very own post:

If an employee is slandered by their employer in that manner, all this says is that are entitled to sue for damages for that harm.

Why are you in support of employers being shielded from an evaluation of their conduct by a jury, when they're are engaging in deliberate lies and slander of employees based on their immutable characteristics?

 

Corporations and companies are not protected by 1st amendment freedom of speech. Even schools are not fully protected. There are tons of things a corporation is not all;owed to jam down an employees throat (mind) or say to or about an employee..

 

I don't see this new law as being terribly impactful. Just another attempt at looking as though you are a warrior for your voters' rights.

 

Because they want to mandate employers to inflict that trash upon us and want us to have no remedy. The legislature and the Governor are getting in their way.

 

Yes.
i) Legitimate power flows from elected representatives.
ii) Illegitimate power flows from unelect cabals of authoritarians.

The great question of this years elections will be some of the Left's attempt to wield illegitimate power vs the legitimate authority of We The People.

As Biden explains: BIDEN: "This law's gonna put an end to all that, gonna put people in a much different position to be able to determine their own, their own judgments about when to sell their cattle, when they should — gonna change things!"

And no one knows what in the hell he is talking about, including him.

https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/sta...oo-stupid-to-understand-his-greatness-n534962

 

So, what you are saying, is that the OP misrepresents the legislation which is its focus, by only concentrating on one small part, of the overall bill; is that correct?

 

That is a ridiculous standard to try to support: lying about history, so as not to upset any kids who "misinterpret," it. Have you given any thought to black kids, "misinterpreting," the fact that their ancestors were enslaved, here, for hundreds of years? Or are we just supposed to pretend like slavery never happened?

Great plan.

 

Not having read the bill (or the minds of those behind it) It sounds like a law saying you can't browbeat and guilt-trip people for something they had no control over and not be held accountable.
The CRT movement is pretty much that. I for one- say that is wrongful and very much equivalent to slander, -for which you can be sued. This is group slander- if you are white, you are guilty and unworthy...
and that was crap from day one.


Far too may politically motivated movements like this are being imposed- in schools, by government agencies, by some companies, and numerous organizations. This is not the same as publicizing their views or opinions,(free speech, no matter how dumb it is) but rather associating the acceptance of such arbitrary views with your ability to earn a living, to be acceptable to those you work with. The shame is that a law has to be introduced to fight the insanity of thinking one can indoctrinate people to a ideology in that way. Scarlet letter crap.

In many states, employers aren't allowed to even ask an applicant if they have a criminal record; in states where that is not prohibited, the EEOC still recommends they do not.
That question has direct relevance to the qualification for employment, and the government says that is not the employers business. To then say that you can pull this psychological BS on employees and imply their status depends on their listening to it is highly offensive. I'd vote for the bill.

 

yes, and that is what they are trying to sell.

 

What about Native Americans? Shouldn't we start there? And I have no problem teaching history, but I need zero commentary from anyone about how any other person should feel about that history. It is history that has nothing to do with any person on the planet today. Period!

 

Sounds to me like this has nothing to do with free speech, but about hostile work environment and that employers can be sued for such.

 

When you teach history, especially today's controversial topics, you WILL get a reaction. When I was in high school, we had a Japanese exchange student. When the topic of WW2 and Pearl Harbor came up, the Japanese student felt ashamed, embarrassed, and personally responsible. However, that is the culture of the Japanese. Bear in mind, the teacher made sure no one in the class made any deragatory remarks, sneer comments, and only the facts were given. When the Japanese teach their history and WW2, especially Pearl Harbor, from a different viewpoint. You can also look at Germany, Russia, France, UK, and so forth on common histocial events that involved the host nation as well as other nations.

The bill was written by a group of people who never taught a thing in their life, including Sunday School I might add. It's a purely ideological bill, especially on history, and gender identification.

 

Your understanding of history, is fundamentally flawed. History, precisely IS, the story that explains why things are now, the way that they are.

As far as how students, "should feel about that history," while I will agree that there is always potential for abuse here, the fact is that education already does, and always has, strongly suggested, at least, how students should feel about that history, especially when there is a disposition that is widely agreed- upon, by the society. For example, when you learned about WW2, and the Jewish Holocaust, was it taught in such a way as to leave any doubt in your mind, who had been the "bad guys?" Do you feel that things like this should be taught in a way, free from any judgements, whatsoever?

The thing, which I presume that you appreciate, is that part of the goal of education always has been, and always will be, to turn out, good citizens. So things considered patriotic, such as acts by George Washington, are likely to always be taught in an admiring light. Conversely, being a traitor, will always be portrayed badly. John Wilkes Booth, who murdered our President, will likely always be seen, on the whole, as a villain. Do you disagree with this concept?

So, by the same principle, it has now become a well established belief, with a majority of our population, that blatant racism, at least, is not good for our country. Therefore, passing Jim Crow laws, aimed at denying black people their Constitutional voting rights, or performing extra- judicial lynchings of citizens belonging to a minority group, I think have always been portrayed, at least whenever they have been taught, as "not good," ways to behave. I would expect that this will continue to be the case, as I believe that it should.

If you feel differently about this, your views are WAY out of the mainstream. If you don't have any problems with my examples, that would prove that your proscription against teaching how one "should feel," about history, was poorly, and too vaguely, worded.

 

It was not about whether anyone agreed on what they were doing or whether it was right or wrong. When government says you can't say a specific thing that is limiting speech. If government limits speech you disagree with today will that lead to limiting yours tomorrow.

 

I disagree.

This law is addressing an imaginary problem, not a real one. There is no supporting evidence of any of what this bill is supposedly addressing. This is pure political populist theater, another useless law that only throws more cogs into an overburdened judicial system and whose ramifications and potential for abuse by bad players is not yet fully realized let alone examined. This bill will fall mainly into the column of unintended consequences, and it could take up to a decade to reverse if passed.

 

I think we're saying much the same thing. I saw it as not being impactful because it is written about a situation which rarely exists. I say it is a bill attempting to manipulate voters and you see it as pure political populist theatre.

 

Oh, absolutely on the same page.

I'm was born and raised in Miami, FL, so I know the history of stupid laws that clutter the state. They're never a problem till you run into them. Zoning and construction permits are notorious and ripe for corruption. But it as we all know, not just there, corruption, bribery, fraud, and all sorts of financial schemes permeate just about every industry in FL.

This bill if it becomes law just adds another avenue to be exploited by the criminally minded.

 

Do you support a male manager telling a female subordinate that he'd enjoy sleeping with her?

 

They are free to speak, and free to be held responsible if that speech harms another. We are all held to that standard.

 

Anytime the rights of another are illegitimately violated, it affects all of us. Democrats made the same argument about slavery when white abolitionists pointed out that Democrats were violating the fundamental rights of their slaves.

 

Employers should not be "training" their workers for anything but the job they are supposed to do. That goes for both sides of the political spectrum.