Michigan's "license to bully" -- (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

LillyBoPeep -> Michigan's "license to bully" -- (11/4/2011 12:57:18 PM)

-- as long as you can provide sufficient religious or moral reason for bullying, it's a-okay, according to Michigan republicans.

wow.

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/michigan-gop-pass-bullying-bill-giving-license-to-bully/politics/2011/11/03/29580



MasterG2kTR -> RE: Michigan's "license to bully" -- (11/4/2011 1:37:36 PM)

First if anyone is outraged by this they should take it out on the state's senate democrats
quote:

the bill, which passed 26 – 11, with zero Democratic votes


Second it's not a law yet
quote:

The legislation passed 26 – 11. It now moves to the Republican-​controlled House.


Just the same....glad I don't live in Michigan!



LillyBoPeep -> RE: Michigan's "license to bully" -- (11/4/2011 1:41:03 PM)

i'm confused about why the democrats didn't vote. that's definitely laying down on the job. gah what a horrible piece of legislation. 



LadyHibiscus -> RE: Michigan's "license to bully" -- (11/4/2011 1:42:55 PM)

I am still sorry that I DO.



Marc2b -> RE: Michigan's "license to bully" -- (11/4/2011 1:49:34 PM)

You'd be hard pressed to find someone other than me who gets more incensed over bullying but I don't see enough info here to really understand what's going on. I'm dubious over the notion that the bill actually says something like "go ahead and bully if your religion says its okay."

What I'm wondering is: does the bill protect a religious person from being accused of bullying simply because they state an opinion that being gay is immoral because the Bible says so? There is a hell of a difference between telling someone that "God disapproves of homosexuality" and shouting "FAGS BURN IN HELL" at them. The former is not bullying, the latter is. The former, even if you disagree with it (which I do) is protected by religious freedom and freedom of speech, the latter is not.

We are also told that the bill addresses cyber-bullying but only when school district owned devices are used. Again, we're not being given enough details. Are they saying that a school can't be held liable for cyber-bullying occuring amongst kids on their home computers? If so, I'd have to agree (how can they stop kids from doing things in their home). Does it say they don't have to discipline students in such case? Again, on what basis would they have jurisdiction? On the other hand I do think schools have a moral obligation (at least) to report such instances they find out about to the parents and possibly the police and they certainly should have the authority (along with the liability) for anything that happens on school grounds (e.g. kids uploading nasty text messages from their cell phones while on school grounds).

In short, I see some nasty partisan political shit going on here and I need more info before I decide to join with the mob.



slvemike4u -> RE: Michigan's "license to bully" -- (11/4/2011 1:49:39 PM)

Perhaps not voting was an attempt to show contempt for this legislation....in the sure knowledge that it will never,as is ,become law.



SternSkipper -> RE: Michigan's "license to bully" -- (11/4/2011 2:03:20 PM)

quote:

i'm confused about why the democrats didn't vote. that's definitely laying down on the job. gah what a horrible piece of legislation.


I don't know what the breakdown in the house and senate is in Michigan, but it could be that there is insufficient votes in either legislative branch to vote the measure down, so therefore abstention would show more dissent in the congressional record because they'd also be reading speeches  regarding their dissent into the record.
   Just a guess as to what's ACTUALLY Going on there. Maybe Hibicus has more to offer?
  With state law, local eyes and ears are the best ones.





SternSkipper -> RE: Michigan's "license to bully" -- (11/4/2011 2:05:08 PM)

quote:

I'm dubious over the notion that the bill actually says something like "go ahead and bully if your religion says its okay."


Marc ... it's commandment 11 "Thou shalt bully the fuck out of the guy in the Yugo"[:D]



slvemike4u -> RE: Michigan's "license to bully" -- (11/4/2011 2:30:52 PM)

Well shit Stern,if the guy is driving a yugo.....



Masta808 -> RE: Michigan's "license to bully" -- (11/4/2011 3:00:07 PM)

Finally we will legally be able to bully those we find inferior. It will be like before the civil rights era all over again except that they cant cal us racist.



Kirata -> RE: Michigan's "license to bully" -- (11/4/2011 3:17:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

In short, I see some nasty partisan political shit going on here and I need more info before I decide to join with the mob.

The full language of the insert is: “This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian....”

Glenn says that the new legislation does not allow bullying based on religious beliefs or values. “It does no such thing,” Glenn said in response to a series of email questions from Michigan Messenger. “The religious free speech protections included in the bill, consistent with the First Amendment, simply ensure that students won’t be bullied or punished — as occurred last year at a high school in Howell — for daring to say they believe a certain behavior is wrong as a matter of sincerely held religious or moral conviction. The First Amendment and other free speech protections do just that, protect free speech, not bullying. And students, like all other Americans, are free to verbally express their opinions — including religious and moral views — without fear of government repression or persecution, including under anti-bullying or harrassment laws.”

http://www.americanindependent.com/202799/michigan-gop-led-senate-passes-bill-that-many-think-will-encourage-bullying

Democrats want a more detailed measure that specifically outlines reasons students can't be bullied such as sexual orientation, race and weight. The Republican-passed bill doesn't include such a detailed list, often called "enumeration." Sen. Glenn Anderson, D-Westland, said an anti-bullying law should include enumeration so schools can be on the lookout for bias-based harassment. Without it, Anderson said, the legislation "cannot claim" to protect students. But some Republicans said listing specific motivations for bullying in the state law could exclude some students from protection. "A policy that does not enumerate is the only one that protects everybody," said Sen. Tory Rocca, R-Sterling Heights.

http://www.macombdaily.com/articles/2011/11/02/news/politics/doc4eb1ee9f61316415147605.txt?viewmode=2

K.



Kirata -> RE: Michigan's "license to bully" -- (11/4/2011 3:22:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LillyBoPeep

i'm confused about why the democrats didn't vote. that's definitely laying down on the job. gah what a horrible piece of legislation.

"Matt's Safe School Law" passed 26-11 with all Democrats voting against it.

http://detnews.com/article/20111103/POLITICS02/111030376/Michigan-Senate-OKs-anti-bullying-bill-despite-protests#ixzz1cmIEWhU2

K.



DomKen -> RE: Michigan's "license to bully" -- (11/4/2011 4:21:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterG2kTR

First if anyone is outraged by this they should take it out on the state's senate democrats
quote:

the bill, which passed 26 – 11, with zero Democratic votes


Second it's not a law yet
quote:

The legislation passed 26 – 11. It now moves to the Republican-​controlled House.


Just the same....glad I don't live in Michigan!


The Senate Democrats did vote. The Michigan Senate only has 38 Senators and 12 are Democrats and 26 are Republicans. Looks like the GOP voted as a block for and the Democrats voted against as a block (with one absent).

The language permits verbal bullying as long as the bully sincerely believes it is his moral or religious duty, i.e. God says to hate teh gays.



Kirata -> RE: Michigan's "license to bully" -- (11/4/2011 4:25:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The Senate Democrats did vote. The Michigan Senate only has 38 Senators and 12 are Democrats and 26 are Republicans. Looks like the GOP voted as a block for and the Democrats voted against as a block (with one absent).

The language permits verbal bullying as long as the bully sincerely believes it is his moral or religious duty, i.e. God says to hate teh gays.

Thanks, Ken.

It's always nice to have people who didn't read the thread repeat things for people who didn't read the thread. [:D]

K.



DomKen -> RE: Michigan's "license to bully" -- (11/4/2011 4:30:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The Senate Democrats did vote. The Michigan Senate only has 38 Senators and 12 are Democrats and 26 are Republicans. Looks like the GOP voted as a block for and the Democrats voted against as a block (with one absent).

The language permits verbal bullying as long as the bully sincerely believes it is his moral or religious duty, i.e. God says to hate teh gays.

Thanks, Ken.

It's always nice to have people who didn't read the thread repeat things for people who didn't read the thread. [:D]

K.

Snark is unnecessary. I saw the post and several confused followups and simply responded. Your twist on the bullying is ok exception needed to be corrected anyway.



tazzygirl -> RE: Michigan's "license to bully" -- (11/4/2011 4:30:41 PM)

Wont this fly in the face of federal law?



DomKen -> RE: Michigan's "license to bully" -- (11/4/2011 4:39:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Wont this fly in the face of federal law?

You mean the first amendment? It could. Certainly punishing someone for "bullying" when all they say is the equivalent of "homosexuality is a sin" would certainly violate free speech rights. However something like "You're gay so I think you should be killed" is on the borderline of assault and might be actionable.

Physical bullying is of course not protected by the Constitution, your rights end where my nose begins.



tazzygirl -> RE: Michigan's "license to bully" -- (11/4/2011 4:40:37 PM)

Not the 1st.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_Act



Kirata -> RE: Michigan's "license to bully" -- (11/4/2011 4:40:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Your twist on the bullying is ok exception needed to be corrected anyway.

My twist on the bullying?

Okay, fuckwit, listen up: I neither expressed an opinion nor twisted anything. I responded to Marc2b's interest in seeing more information by posting the wording of the insert and the reported positions of the two sides with respect to it. We done here?

K.



slvemike4u -> RE: Michigan's "license to bully" -- (11/4/2011 5:32:32 PM)

So you two going out for a drink later [:)] ?



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875