Thread by @gabrielmalor

For folks wondering what the Florida "don't say gay" law controversy is about, I have screengrabbed the two operative provisions.

They have the potential to create many problems for school districts, and—on their face—encourage anti-gay discrimination.
flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2…

First, the prohibition section: school districts may not encourage classroom discussion about sexual orientation in primary grade levels OR (in any grade level) in a manner that is not age-appropriate.

Problem: there are no definitions for what "encourage classroom discussion" means or what is "age-appropriate" in older grades.

This is a big problem if you're a school district trying to comply, but not run afoul of the First Amendment rights of LGBT students and teachers.

I'll give you an example from several years ago. A school encouraged teachers early in the school year to do a "Get To Know Your Teacher" presentation. Poster-board and photos, stuff about the teacher.

An art teacher included a photo of herself with her fiancée. She got fired.

The problem: she revealed to her students that she was gay and getting married.

(She later sued for her job and back pay, and won.)

With this law in place the school district could be sued for encouraging such a "Meet Your Teacher" presentation in grade school.

Second, the enforcement mechanism is a cause of action by parents to get state judges to find the school district procedure or practice violates the law.

Several more problems: (1) presumably the drafters mean paragraph 3, not "this paragraph"; (2) either way, we're back to the lack of definitions—there's no guidance for judges to make the determination, it's just up in the air;

More problems: (3) mandatory award of attorneys fees means this is a trial lawyer's dream—it means lots and lots of lawsuits against school districts;

And finally (4) it does not do what its proponents say it does.

The defense of this bill is conspicuously out of line with the actual text of bill. For example, Ben Shapiro says this is about preventing indoctrination from the Left.

https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1491451724871073796

But the bill is about whether there can be classroom discussion about sexual orientation, which is not a right or left issue at all. This is pure discrimination against gay people, and these cowards can't even admit it.

Someone else I respect greatly complained that in her school district, grade school kids get taught about masturbation.

Guess what? This bill doesn't prevent that either. It says nothing about masturbation in sex ed.

It simply prevents the discussion of sexual orientation and authorizes parental lawsuits for the purpose of preventing their children from learning about the existence of gay people during grade school.

It is, by its own terms a "don't say gay" law. And anyone telling you otherwise is not being truthful with you.

You're telling me your ma has never mentioned she's married in class? No photo of hubs?

This is a great example of how when gay people mention their spouses, it's "wearing identity on their sleeve," but for straight people, that's just not about sexual orientation.

https://twitter.com/tchandler2/status/1491527826390097920

Yes, the most generous interpretation could do that—after all "straight" is a sexual orientation—but, again, the law leaves its terms undefined, and we'll just have to wait and see how random judges are feeling when the lawsuits start.

https://twitter.com/MayhewMayhem/status/1491528709328695300

To sum up, it's a bad law for reasons: (1) poorly defined; (2) trial lawyer bonanza; (3) wastes taxpayer money; and (4) encourages discrimination on its face.

But what really annoys me is how its defenders try to pretend it is something other than what it is. Just be honest.

And I hear the folks that say they want to reform sex education. They don't like the stuff the children are learning.

Okay. Have you considered a law that actually addresses that issue? Because this ain't that.

Here's the story of the teacher I talked about up-thread. BUT: she wasn't fired as I erroneously remembered.

She was placed on administrative leave after a parent complained that showing a photo of her fiancée was "promoting the homosexual agenda." cnn.com/2020/02/27/us/…

Didn't include when I discussed this bill yesterday, but the phrase "district procedure or practice" is going to get a LOT of scrutiny if this becomes law.

Districts are going to be under enormous pressure to have official "don't say gay" policies to avoid mandatory fee awards.