71 7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or72 any other form of psychological distress on account of his or73 her race, color, sex, or national origin.
So some snot nosed snowflake right wing kid can screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble for "feels".
Some snot nosed snowflake right wing kid can already screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble for "feels" by falsely accusing the teacher of preaching Islam at him when all the teacher said was Muhammad started a religion that expanded out of Arabia and now has 1.8 billion followers. Do you think that's a reason we should make it legal for public school teachers to preach their own respective religions at the captive audiences the government supplies them with?
I think it would a good reason not to pass a law that vaguely protects students from having to "feel bad about their religious background". Or
any law censoring education, in fact. Just because someone intends to shoot at you no matter what you do, doesn't mean it makes any sense to hand them ammunition for the task.
So, just to clarify, were you just making a general comment about what laws shouldn't be passed, or did you intend to imply that SB 148 'vaguely protects students from having to "feel bad about their religious background"'? If it was the latter, can you point out the provision that does this?
And, just to clarify, when you say '
any law censoring education', were you expressing your agreement with me that SB 148 would be a bad law because it unconstitutionally restricts free speech in private schools? Or were you expressing the opinion that the government instructing its own employees on the matter of what to say and what not to say while on the job qualifies as "censorship"?
And, just to clarify, do you think the existing laws prohibiting public school teachers from preaching their own respective religions at the captive audiences the government supplies them with should be overturned?
On a more general note, it seems to me from the overall drift of this discussion that the above quoted clause in SB 148,
"71 7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or72 any other form of psychological distress on account of his or73 her race, color, sex, or national origin.",
is in need of some context. For example, if the clause in context reads:
"There shall be a cause of action against a school for the effect of a teacher's speech if as a result of it,
1. ...
7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin. ...",
then that provision means some snot nosed snowflake right wing kid can screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble if he feels bad on account of his race, etc. But if, on the other hand, the clause in context reads:
"(8)(a) Subjecting any individual, as a condition of employment, membership, certification, licensing, credentialing, or passing an examination, to training, instruction, or any other required activity that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels such individual to believe any of the following concepts constitutes discrimination based on race, color, sex, or national origin under this section:
1. ...
7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin. ...",
then that provision doesn't give anyone a cause of action to screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble if he feels bad on account of his race, etc.,
unless the teacher told the class that they should feel bad on account of their race, etc.
Reading this thread, it's as though a number of posters' eyes saw the context of the quoted clause and yet somehow their brains saw a completely different context.