Let’s take a break from the primary battles and check in on the latest antics unfolding out in California. This month, having solved all other problems plaguing their state, the California legislature has taken up a new measure which would ban government funded travel to states which they deem to be insufficiently supportive of LGBT rights. The author of the bill, Evan Lowe, seems to feel that such a move will be a way to take a stand for the little guy, I suppose. (Time)

A California lawmaker has introduced a bill that would ban government-funded travel to states with laws that he says discriminate on sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.

“No one wants to send employees into an environment where they would be uncomfortable,” said Democrat Evan Low, Jon Ortiz, a reporter for the Sacramento Bee, reported this week.

Low said he decided to introduce the bill after Indiana signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law in March 2015.

Without even getting into the specifics of this proposal, isn’t there something oddly familiar about the tone Low is taking in describing his legislation? We wouldn’t want to send employees into an environment where they would be uncomfortable. Are the state employees a group of workers with a job to do or are they hot house orchids? That’s language taken in whole cloth from the current plague of protests on our nation’s campuses where addled students complain of microagressions which make them feel either uncomfortable or unsafe and demand safe spaces to shield them from the world. Congratulations, California! You’ve now become a full scale demonstration of life imitating very bad art.

As for travel to Indiana (and more than twenty other states at last count) by Golden State employees, does Low have any idea how many agencies that will affect? The states all work together on a multitude of projects, many of which demand reciprocal travel arrangements. Will he simply pull California out of all of those organizations and efforts with half the nation? Granted, there are probably more than a few of them we could likely do without, or at least some which could benefit with less left coast influence, but the principle remains the same.

Oh, wait… Low doesn’t plan on allowing the bill to impact his own travel plans.

Low said he doesn’t know which states his bill would apply to yet. He said it would not cover lawmakers and political trips but would affect administrative travel.

So the people at the top of the government food chain wouldn’t be affected. And, of course, political trips could still be covered. You’d just be shutting off the spigot for the drones who ostensibly do some actual work in the halls of government. And to top it all off, you don’t even know what states it applies to but you’re ready to move forward with the legislation anyway, eh?

This idea is a bit too California to exist even in California.