Again...at the very least, a gay teacher will be extremely wary about mentioning their same sex partner while a straight teacher won't have that worry. Can't you see that?
Explain how you don't see how that scenario can cause issues. Here is a quote from an actual gay teacher. "Moreover, he says, the bill is unclear on what language would be acceptable. "What if a kid has two dads? They can't bring that up," Lee questioned. "When they ask me, 'Hey, Mr. Lee, are you married?' Am I supposed to lie? So it's confusing, because where is the line?"
And again.... that's the problem with the vagueness of the law. Assume a typical Floridian's second grade student comes home and says "Dad, My teacher Mr. Smith says he's married to a man". How do you think that will go over?
To prevent people other than the parents from deciding when to talk to very young children about sex.
First off you can talk about same sex relationships without talking about sex. I find it more revealing that people who support this law and don't want teachers talking about non hetero relationships as jumping to that we are talking about sex. Yet again though you said discussion of same sex relationships will still be as it was. So in other words this is a law without a purpose under the reasoning you're laying out.
Today the school and/or teacher cannot be sued. Once the law becomes official, that possibility exists
Does the law allow books to be read with a husband and wife to children? Does the law prevent books with two mothers or two fathers from being read? That makes it discriminatory. Does the law prevent teachers from addressing homiphobic bullying by explaining why the himiphobic language is bigoted? That makes it discriminatory. Does the law allow a heterosexual teacher to speak of their spouse? Does it prevent a homosexual teacher from speaking of their spouse? That makes it discriminatory.
I’m disappointed. Your responses in this thread are pretty weak. There is no answer for the fact that the law omits heterosexual discussion.
Then why doesn't the law specifically say that. Why does it instead use such vague language that even the mention of a same sex marriage would violate the law. And since you believe it protects children from having teachers talk to "very young children" about sex... why doesn't it include such conversations about heterosexual sex instead of focusing on same sex?
Last question* Why didn't this law exist in the past? Why is it just now being created? *(I reserve the right to not have this be my last question)
https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2022/1557/billtext/er/pdf That's because it doesn't. This wording does not specify a particular sexual orientation. Clearly, many of you never read the actual law, but prefer to be outraged anyway.
