KY added to California state funded travel ban

[rockmom]

But to answer your question I think protecting relgious freedoms is important. If you are a religious group who disagrees with homosexuality you should not be forced to admit them. I may not personally agree with that sentiment I do believe in religious freedom.

 

I think legislation at the state level is unnecessary. These laws exist at the national level and are Constitutional Rights.

[rockmom]

I did in my next post.

 

Which you posted as I was posting, so, mea culpa.

[LIPTON BASH]

I think legislation at the state level is unnecessary. These laws exist at the national level and are Constitutional Rights.

 

If we are being fair adminstrations on the high school and federal level lately have been coming down hard on conservative organzations. But I am all for less government. Back me on eliminating the Department of Education then ol LB will march with you against this law.

[rockmom]

If we are being fair adminstrations on the high school and federal level lately have been coming down hard on conservative organzations. But I am all for less government. Back me on eliminating the Department of Education then ol LB will march with you against this law.

 

LOL. I'm the person who thinks everyone should have to pay some minimum of tuition so they have skin in the game and their kids attending and succeeding is a real goal.

[StrongSide]

Those are only the top 10. Louisville hosts hundreds of conventions annually.

 

Tourism is the third largest industry in the city.

 

Call me crazy, but it's "kinda" important to a quarter million people who work in some facet of the industry that we keep growing the hospitality industry.

 

Don't you work in Indiana?

[rockmom]

Don't you work in Indiana?

 

Yes.

[Jumper_Dad]

Section 3 (a) (3).

 

Permits any student organization to choose (admit or deny) applicants in the furtherance of its mission.

 

Can you post the link you found that in? I looked through the link I presented and did not see wording as you posted or really anything close to saying that.

 

Section 3 (a) 3 looks to be...

(3) Consistent with its obligations to respect the rights secured by the Constitutions

9 of the United States of America and the Commonwealth of Kentucky, a local

10 board of education shall ensure that:

11 (a) 1. The selection of students to speak at official events is made without

12 regard to the religious or political viewpoint of the student speaker;

13 2. The prepared remarks of the student are not altered before delivery,

14 except in a viewpoint-neutral manner, unless requested by the student.

15 However, student speakers shall not engage in speech that is obscene,

16 vulgar, offensively lewd, or indecent; and

17 3. If the content of the student's speech is such that a reasonable

18 observer may perceive affirmative school sponsorship or endorsement

19 of the student speaker's religious or political viewpoint, the school

20 shall communicate, in writing, orally, or both, that the student's

21 speech does not reflect the endorsement, sponsorship, position, or

22 expression of the school;

 

Maybe I'm looking at the wrong thing.

[mcpapa]

Can you post the link you found that in? I looked through the link I presented and did not see wording as you posted or really anything close to saying that.

 

Section 3 (a) 3 looks to be...

(3) Consistent with its obligations to respect the rights secured by the Constitutions

9 of the United States of America and the Commonwealth of Kentucky, a local

10 board of education shall ensure that:

11 (a) 1. The selection of students to speak at official events is made without

12 regard to the religious or political viewpoint of the student speaker;

13 2. The prepared remarks of the student are not altered before delivery,

14 except in a viewpoint-neutral manner, unless requested by the student.

15 However, student speakers shall not engage in speech that is obscene,

16 vulgar, offensively lewd, or indecent; and

17 3. If the content of the student's speech is such that a reasonable

18 observer may perceive affirmative school sponsorship or endorsement

19 of the student speaker's religious or political viewpoint, the school

20 shall communicate, in writing, orally, or both, that the student's

21 speech does not reflect the endorsement, sponsorship, position, or

22 expression of the school;

 

Maybe I'm looking at the wrong thing.

 

© No recognized religious or political student organization is hindered or discriminated against in the ordering of its internal affairs, selection of leaders and members, defining of doctrines and principles, and resolving of organizational disputes in the furtherance of its mission, or in its determination that only persons committed to its mission should conduct these activities.

[Jumper_Dad]

© No recognized religious or political student organization is hindered or discriminated against in the ordering of its internal affairs, selection of leaders and members, defining of doctrines and principles, and resolving of organizational disputes in the furtherance of its mission, or in its determination that only persons committed to its mission should conduct these activities.

 

Thanks for clearing that up, your original quote wasn't from the actual bill and I was wondering where it came from.

 

So this wording would keep a bunch of "Hunting Students" from joining the local schools "PETA Club" and voting themselves in as officers through shear numbers and hosting a "PETA BBQ"...right?

 

Should the Schools LGBT Club with say 15 members be forced to allow 20 crazy right wingers in that could then take charge of the group and their activities by voting majority?

 

What if someone joins the Islamic Student union for no reason except to harangue and ridicule the members, should they be forced to allow that person to stay?

 

 

I understand what some of the concerns would be, but there is equal protection for all groups to organize and practice what ever beliefs they have without worry of outside interference. Should all students be able to join whichever group they want, absolutely. But those same groups should have some protection as well from those that seek to do them harm by becoming members.

[mcpapa]

Intolerance and exclusion under the guise of religious freedom. Pure and simple.

[Hellcats]

Thanks for clearing that up, your original quote wasn't from the actual bill and I was wondering where it came from.

 

So this wording would keep a bunch of "Hunting Students" from joining the local schools "PETA Club" and voting themselves in as officers through shear numbers and hosting a "PETA BBQ"...right?

 

Should the Schools LGBT Club with say 15 members be forced to allow 20 crazy right wingers in that could then take charge of the group and their activities by voting majority?

 

What if someone joins the Islamic Student union for no reason except to harangue and ridicule the members, should they be forced to allow that person to stay?

 

 

I understand what some of the concerns would be, but there is equal protection for all groups to organize and practice what ever beliefs they have without worry of outside interference. Should all students be able to join whichever group they want, absolutely. But those same groups should have some protection as well from those that seek to do them harm by becoming members.

 

What was the inspiration? Any real life issues or was this just another one of those bathroom boogeyman-like stories?

[Jumper_Dad]

What was the inspiration? Any real life issues or was this just another one of those bathroom boogeyman-like stories?

 

None, I'm not seeing boogeymen...it's everyone that's worried about this law that's worried about the boogeyman it seems.

[Jumper_Dad]

Intolerance and exclusion under the guise of religious freedom. Pure and simple.

 

No different intolerance and exclusion under the guise of separation of church and state that has been going on. Pure and Simple.

[Jumper_Dad]

I'll add one more thing, if Administrators that are afraid of their shadows and law makers coddling constituents for votes would get out of the way, in 99.9% of the cases the students would work issues out without and problems or hurt feelings.

 

Many years ago there was an FCA chapter at the local HS. A LGBT Club wanted to form but the Administration wouldn't allow it to be added to Club Day in the middle of the school year. At that point FCA was told that they no longer could meet during designated club time. A few of the FCA leaders went to the administration on behalf of the LGBT club and at least one offered to join the club if the Administrators would allow them meet during club time. The kids were willing to work together and work it out, but the Principal (an Idiot in my opinion) was too afraid of blow back to allow either.

[Hellcats]

None, I'm not seeing boogeymen...it's everyone that's worried about this law that's worried about the boogeyman it seems.

 

Someone did because we now have a law that enables discrimination of sexual orientation.