As far as I can tell SB 148 protects people of all races and religions from discrimination. Do you see anything in lines 44-78 -- the list of actions it defines as legally discriminatory -- that you think are not in fact discriminatory? Conversely, as far as I can tell it doesn't protect anyone from their own feelings. The rest of the bill contains among other things an expression of the legislature's disapproval of hurting people's feelings, but I don't see where it does anything substantive about it. And as I think you noted upthread, some of that stuff they said they disapproved of would make you feel bad too. So if the schools do take that part to heart and refrain from teaching in a way the legislators disapprove of, that would protect you from your feelings too, not just white people from theirs (if we pretend for the sake of discussion that you're still in school.)
First thing, let's not pretend that SB 148 is a response to something that happened outside of some white people's feelings. There is absolutely no proof that CRT was/is being used in Florida Public Schools or Private businesses. So yes, its purpose is to protect some white people from their own feelings.
Just as a for-example, SB 148 prohibits subjecting any individual, as a condition of passing an examination, to training that espouses, promotes, advances, or inculcates that an individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion. I.e., teachers aren't allowed to tell their classes affirmative action is a good thing. Are you seriously claiming that no Florida teacher ever told his class affirmative action is a good thing?
Consider this, what is in SB 148 that is not already being covered under the civil rights act (which also protects everyone)?
Most of it, as far as I can see. What do you see in it that was already covered under existing civil rights acts, and which civil rights acts do you have in mind?
If schools or corporations were actually doing any of the stuff SB 148 suggests then the Governor has failed to implement the law.
It sounds like you're conflating deeds that were already illegal, with espousing the deeds, which wasn't. For instance, it was already illegal for an employer to refuse to hire Chinese people. SB 148 makes it also illegal for an employer to require his employees to listen to his rants about what a bad idea hiring Chinese people is.
Do you see anything in lines 44-78 -- the list of actions it defines as legally discriminatory
BTw - I'm not ignoring your question I just don't know what you mean by lines 44-78.
Sorry, I forgot how long ago it was that somebody linked to the law.
Here it is again.
But the whole thing is legally discriminatory if you consider that everything it aims to legislate as unlawful is either already covered by the Civil Rights Act or only white people who are afraid of the CRT boogie man that doesn't exist in our schools or corporations are offered protection from said boogieman.
Well, in the first place, it bans teachers from blaming Japanese students for Pearl Harbor the same as it bans teachers from blaming white students for Jim Crow. And in the second place, legislators being motivated by having a particular group in mind doesn't make a law legally discriminatory as long as they write the law to cover everybody. For instance, when racial preferences were overturned in Texas colleges, the legislature reacted by passing a law that gave automatic admission to students in the top 10% of their high school classes. The entire point was to work around the ruling and get more black and Hispanic students admitted to top Texas colleges, but that didn't make it illegal.
