Arnold Schwarzenegger will not get my vote in November.
I don't know if I can bring myself to vote for Democrat Phil Angelides, but I won't be voting for Arnold.
WorldNetDaily reported this morning that Gov. Schwarzenegger signed a bill that came out of the Democrat-dominated legislature, and by doing that, he wrote off any chance of support from the Christian community.
The governor yesterday signed a bill that would require all businesses and groups receiving state funding -- even if it's a state grant for a student -- to condone homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality.
There is no exception for faith-based organizations or business owners with sincerely held religious convictions, critics note.
I knew Arnold's heart was in Hollywood, where the definition of "tolerance" is "unquestioned acceptance and approval," but where there's no real tolerance for anyone who disagrees with them.
But Californians elected him to be not Gray Davis. We elected Arnold to fight for us against all the garbage coming out of a legislature that's in the iron grip of far-left special interest groups. We elected him to cut the out-of-control spending and taxing, release the teachers' union stranglehold on our public schools, and make our state more welcoming to businesses.
He tried to go after the unions by holding a special election, and when all his bills were defeated after heavy union-funded attacks, Arnold gave up. He rolled over and played dead, allowing the Democrats to have the state back. This is just the latest piece of evidence that all the fight is out of him.
Meanwhile, the rest of us have to live with the consequences (makes me glad I'll be driving around the country in a motorhome next year, but my kids will still be in California).
The Christian college where I got my Bachelor's degree will be affected. All Christian colleges will be, because Cal-Grants are one of the most ubiquitous forms of financial aid in the state.
"This isn't even a veiled attempt at subtly advancing the radical homosexual agenda," said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute. "SB1441 is an outright, blatant assault on religious freedom in California."
Her group's analysis of the legislation concluded it will prevent parochial schools such as private, Christian, Catholic, Mormon and other religious institutions from getting financial assistance for students if they maintain a code of conduct that does not endorse such behavior.
"Arnold Schwarzenegger has two faces," said [Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families]. "He speaks at churches and says he believes in religious freedom and family values, yet he's stabbing pro-family Californians in the back."
8 comments:
I don't know exactly what the big deal is, really. The state should not discriminate against any individual based on colour, religion, sexual orientation, etc. So by funding Christian colleges that try to denigrate homosexuality, it gives implicit approval of discrimination.
This is a non-issue and you all know it.
FKAB,
The other side of this issue is that they're not allowed to discriminate on the basis of religious belief. So we now have conflicting anti-discrimination laws, and while the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the free excercise of religion, our Constitution does not guarantee anything based on sexual preference.
This is a lawsuit waiting to happen.
The right of a person to their own religious belief does not extend to their right to dictate others.
A frivolous lawsuit, maybe.
That sentence was worded a little poorly, but what it means is that a person can still be reprimanded for discriminating against someone based on any of those qualities even if they aren't actually one of those qualities. For example, if I act a bit effeminate and somebody draws the conclusion that I am gay, but I'm not, then these laws apply here.
At least, that's how interpreted it.
Second: the law is not trying to force you to give up your religious beliefs. It forbids the public school sector (completely free of religion) to adopt a discriminatory policy against certain minority groups. That is completely fair.
Stop trying to make your religion everyone else's.
FKAB,
Stop trying to make your religion everyone else's.
We're not trying to do that. The legislature is trying to make us give up ours.
Skye,
How?
Charlie,
So in that case, the state law overrides religious belief.
When state law conflicts with religious belief (murder, for example, is condoned in the Bible) then the state law takes precedence. How is this a departure from anything else that civilised society has created?
A private Christian college that accepts students who are using state grants may be in violation if they refuse to hire an openly homosexual teacher.
So? Homosexuality is not illegal, so it is not the school's business what the teacher does outside of work. As a tax paying, law abiding civil citizen, a homosexual is the equal to all of you, and should not be discriminated against.
Everyone,
Nobody is forcing you to be homosexual. So when I hear people wailing about how the legislature is removing discrimination from the law (as it should), I am ashamed that I'm sharing the same oxygen with you people.
Some people believe differently to you. Get over it.
FKAB,
This is a finer point of law than the broad one of discrimination against homosexuals.
It has been established in federal courts that when the funds are given by the state, one set of rules apply. The state (feds, localities) generally does not give money to religious institutions for work that would involve evangelism. They could give it to, say, the Salvation Army for non-evangelistic relief work, like a soup kitchen.
The other set of rules applies when the state gives the money to an individual, who then has the choice of where to have that money spent. This would be the case for Cal-Grants (state funds for low-income people to attend college) and school vouchers. The state is not supposed to have a say over where that student chooses to attend college. If he wants to attend a Christian or Buddhist or secular college, it should all be the same to the state.
This new law would change that same scenario, in essence telling students that only some of their college choices are OK. The law introduces what's been termed here (and found illegal by the courts) as "viewpoint discrimination." It would fund only those people who hold state-approved viewpoints.
If a college says, "the Bible (which does not condone murder by the way) says homosexuality is wrong," then they would automatically lose all funding. There's no discrimination in that statement, just disapproval.
This law is a huge leap in the direction of legislating thought and not just action. It would open the door for more attempts at other types of thought-policing and other flanking attacks on religious institutions in America.
As you said, "Some people believe differently to you. Get over it."
Post a Comment