Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't like this idea at all if this is true in the article. One thing that struck me from the article is that it said this:
'Pedophilia has already been granted protected status by the federal government in a way.'
I didn't know this. Is what the California congresswoman doing a smart agenda? I can't see pedophiles who prey on children being considered a 'Protected Class' of people. I believe there will be harsh opposition to this move. They need to define specifically what the language means in this bill.
They are saying that the language is so broad and generic that pedophiles "could" get themselves included and thus protected. If that's the case then so can rapists.
Valid concerns there. You don't want something so broad that sexual predators of any nature use that law to get themselves protected. They are NOT the ones needing protection.
They are saying that the language is so broad and generic that pedophiles "could" get themselves included and thus protected.
No, they couldn't. "Pedophilia" is not a sexual orientation, despite the deranged insistence of WorldNutDaily to the contrary.
Can you point to even one instance of "pedophiles" finding themselves protected under anti-discimination laws that currently cover sexual orientation in any of the numerous jurisdictions where such laws exist?
No, you can't. So your premise -- like that of the OP -- is a lie.
I don't like this idea at all if this is true in the article. One thing that struck me from the article is that it said this:
'Pedophilia has already been granted protected status by the federal government in a way.'
I didn't know this. Is what the California congresswoman doing a smart agenda? I can't see pedophiles who prey on children being considered a 'Protected Class' of people. I believe there will be harsh opposition to this move. They need to define specifically what the language means in this bill.
No, they couldn't. "Pedophilia" is not a sexual orientation, despite the deranged insistence of WorldNutDaily to the contrary.
Can you point to even one instance of "pedophiles" finding themselves protected under anti-discimination laws that currently cover sexual orientation in any of the numerous jurisdictions where such laws exist?
No, you can't. So your premise -- like that of the OP -- is a lie.
From that article..what if they claim that as their way to "getting better" ?
However, the term “sexual orientation” is not defined in either the California bill or Speier’s resolution.
..
The resolution and SB 1172 define sexual orientation change efforts as attempts to change the “behavior” associated with a person’s sexual orientation.
However, the term “sexual orientation” is not defined in either the California bill or Speier’s resolution.
Can you point to even one instance of "pedophiles" finding themselves protected under anti-discimination laws that currently cover sexual orientation in any of the numerous jurisdictions where such laws exist?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
