When I received a call today, letting me know that the Governor had signed SB 1441, I was stunned. I don’t think that I could have summed up my feeling better than what Mike Der Manouel says below.
I called Karen England with the Capitol Resource Institute, who has been a point person for conservatives, keeping an eye on this legislation. I asked Karen if she would pen something for FR readers to help everyone understand exactly what Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed into law.
Mike Spence’s note below, where he talks about how every single GOPer in the State Assembly (conservative and moderate alike) voted against this bill, was very sobering. I cannot express my disappointment in this bill-signing…
Here’s Karen’s piece…
What the Founding Fathers Gave, Arnold Takes Away…
By Karen England
Over 200 years ago our Founding Fathers changed history when they, with the stroke of their pens, declared that the United States would not only recognize, but protect citizens’ freedoms of religion and speech.
Yesterday, with the stroke of his pen, Governor Schwarzenegger declared that such freedoms are subject to the approval of a politically correct government. By signing SB 1441 (Kuehl-D) into law, the Governor decided that certain Constitutional freedoms will not be protected in the state of California.
SB 1441 adds sexual orientation (actual or perceived) and gender identity (actual or perceived) to the list of protected classes under California law prohibiting discrimination. According to the State Senate’s legislative analysis, “This clarification would greatly expand the effect this bill would have on programs and services provided or paid for by the state or a state agency.”
To enforce these new protections, the state may withhold funding from any organization that “discriminates” against homosexuals, transgenders, bisexuals, or anyone’s gender (actual or perceived). Now, under California law, simply living out your faith is considered discriminatory.
As applied, this legislation would prevent parochial schools, private schools, Christian, Catholic, Jewish, Mormon, and many other religious universities, from receiving student financial assistance if they also maintain a student code of conduct preventing behavior deemed immoral by their religious beliefs.
In order to receive a CalGrant for your child’s education, you may no longer send your child to a religious school. This will put an unbelievable strain on California families as they will be forced to choose between their deeply-held religious beliefs and affording a college education for their children. If legislators truly desire diversity in California, religious institutions should receive the same equal protections sought by radical homosexual activists. Instead, with the signing of SB 1441, religious rights are secondary to the special rights created by this new law.
Instead of using their resources to educate future leaders, these schools will now be forced to defend themselves in discrimination lawsuits brought by the male teacher who perceives himself as female and wears a dress to school.
For those who still don’t believe that there is a radical homosexual agenda, keep in mind that the characteristics added to the protected list are designed to target people of faith alone. After all, who will be most directly affected by this legislation? Private schools, religious institutions, and faith-based businesses.
According to the State Senate’s legislative analysis, “the impact of this bill is both wide-ranging and deep.” Government services affected by this new law include police and fire protection, recreational programs, social services, health care clinics, and, of course, public schools.
This bill is yet another step towards discriminating against citizens with moral and religious principles who desire to express their beliefs and educate their children according to those beliefs. SB 1441 will inevitably result in reverse discrimination where individuals, organizations and businesses are discriminated against because of their bona fide religious convictions.
In creating special rights for a few, Arnold denies fundamental rights for the rest of us.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:00 am
That sound you hear is the wheels coming off the Arnold bandwagon. He’s doing his best to push me away from him. This is a question I throw out to fellow conservatives…at what point do you reach your pain threshold and just call it quits on the Governor?
August 29th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Hopefully now, Republicans will think twice about the “victory at any cost” strategy. Look where it got us.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:00 am
At least Phil will stab us in the front.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:00 am
I don’t think even Gray Davis would have signed SB 1441.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:00 am
As I responded to Steve Frank earlier today, The key to this is “receiving State funds”.
In the same way that we should insist that government funds don’t go to artists who produce works that are offensive to community standards, we should insist that those who receive government funds don’t offend the community’s standards against discrimination.
I think the CRI’s response was a bit histrionic (are they taking lessons from Geoff Kors over at Equality California?). The legislation doesn’t force anyone to “condone” anyone else – no one is forced to speak affirmatively of any particular person or group.
I’m sure you don’t think that it would be appropriate to give government (our!) money to an Islamist school where they were to be taught to hate Jews, Christians, and Hindus or to praise Osama bin Laden. I would assert (and, to date, the court has agreed – allowing our military services to recruit on campuses receiving public money when the campuses tried to bar the recruiters for violating their non-discrimination policies, asserting free-speech) that when you accept public money, you are self-imposing limits on your freedoms, including speech.
If the bill would have sought to limit speech, in general, without the direct linkage to government funds, I’d agree completely. As a student, I actively opposed vague “speech codes” that were proposed for the law school at my university arguing that it would inhibit the free exchange of ideas, even those some might find offensive. We were successful in persuading the university president to overturn the law school dean’s speech restrictions.
Bottom line – if you don’t want “strings” attached, don’t take government funds. As we limited-government conservatives well know, it’s just the nature of the beast that more government involvement = less freedom.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Hey, look at the bright side – at least California textbooks can’t legally say anything bad about J. Edgar Hoover anymore.
All kidding aside, I’m staying HOME.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:00 am
I believe Shane Connelly makes a big mistake when he assumes that this law will simply affect those who are directly funded by the State. It is quite obvious, for example, that if a school district allows a ministry group or the Boy Scouts to meet on campus after hours, that school district, NOT THE MINISTRY, will be threatened with the cut-off of all, or some portion, of state funds for allowing that activity on their grounds. Likewise, it is also conceivable, per the insanity of the ACLU, that a religious institution, or other organization that does not recognize homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle,or hire open homosexuals for its ministry or other jobs, could be denied CHP or CDF fire protection because that would constitute receipt of ‘state funding’. There is no doubt that traditional-values organizations will be cut from all student loans, or provision of housing or welfare programs for the needy.
This opens such a can of worms, that Shane Connelly’s ‘caveat’ about ‘receiving’ government funds seems quite inane, and rather meaningless.
I can already foresee that my church will be forced from the city-owned theater it rents, since the city most assuredly receives a variety of state funds, and in order not to risk those funds, the city, every other city and county, as well as every school district in the state, will soon institute a blanket policy of refusing to have any business with or provide any services to any traditional-values organization. The Boy Scouts, already under heavy assault, will most assuredly vanish from the public square, and much of the private square, as clubs or groups that sponsor troops, but also do business with the State in some way, will soon also cut all ties and support for the Scouts. This could include Lions Clubs, Rotary, Chambers of Commerce, and other service groups, which might be involved in providing state-funded services, such as food share programs, job training and educational services, you name it. The effect will be vast, powerful and chilling. It was bad enough with just the threat of an ACLU lawsuit and some nutty federal judge dangling over our heads. Now that funding can be cut off, without any trial or hearing, with simply a bureaucratic decision by some anonymous functionary in Sacramento, just imagine the effect! Any group which holds to traditional values will soon find itself anathema throughout the State. It is coming. Just watch and see, unless this Orwellian law is somehow reversed.
August 30th, 2006 at 12:00 am
The effect of this bill is terrible. If the Boy Scouts of America holds its meetings at a church that receives some state funding, they will no longer be able to do so. The ramifications of where this can lead is awful.
How the Governor can support this kind of legislation, especially during a campaign when he wants the support of his Republican base, is beyond me.
August 30th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Liberals do all they can to make us all to pay higher taxes to create slush funds so they can hand out favors for votes. Then, they load up the requirements for accessing the funds with liberal conditions that make it impossible for conservative organizations to comply in good conscience. Then, liberals come along and blithely say to the conservative organizations, “just don’t take the money”. (Our money, by the way). Fair enough. But how about the government stays out of my wallet in the first place so I can send my kid to any school I want on my own dime, not the government’s laundered and string-laden funds.
But really, in the case of education, it is not middle class constituents that suffer the most. It is the poorest of our society, whose side the liberals profess to be on, who are denied choices. If an underperforming neighborhood public school is all that is left because a top flight private school cannot accept State grant funds given to the poor, then a third rate education for the poor is essentially mandated by the State. Liberals know how to keep their constituents in their place.
August 30th, 2006 at 12:00 am
This is appalling!!!!
If Lieberman can do it, why can’t Wesley? At least then we would have a choice.
August 30th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Maybe we should just abstain and not vote for governor at all.