how is this not a get-out-of-jail-free card for kids who commit abuse by saying "this kid is a fag, I had to assault him because Jesus told me so" ?
Because it isn't. There is a difference between some asshole kid expressing his asshole beliefs, and some asshole kid physically assaulting someone. You can't assault anyone. And I think what it comes down to is what the child in question said, and how they said it. Should a child be disciplined for saying "I think homosexuality is a sin"? Is that the same thing as some kid saying "I'm going to kick your ass because you're a fag"? I think this is something that would have to be dealt with on a case by case basis.
I was going to reply to this yesterday, but my computer betrayed me
I looked more thoroughly at the wording of the legislation, I can't quote the text right now because I am at one of the computers at my university and they have blocked the Youtube video where I found the link for the wording of the website. Also I'm lazy, give me a break !
Anyways, once you look at the wording more clearly, it doesn't seem like it's really allowing abuse by religious or morally-inspired motives, it's just saying, as it is written, that statements of religious or moral quality, are protected by the first ammendment. I can't really say I find anything wrong with the wording of the law.
But that begs the question, how does the legislation protect against some kid saying to the other "You're going to hell because you're gay", I mean, after all, it's still his opinion.
That said, I'm still on the fence, why the emotional response from Senator Whitmer ? Why did the bill receive zero democrat votes ? Why is the father also denouncing this law ? Is this just a misunderstanding of the legislation ? Is this just mass hysteria ?
I would bet for misunderstanding, after all, that questionable paragraph was introduced (apparently) at "the last minute", and some people might be inclined to think there was an agenda involved.