Posted on 05/11/2018 1:45:01 PM PDT by Kaslin
California has a hallowed but questionable reputation as being the birthplace of the radical Free Speech Movement on the University of California, Berkeley campus. Today, they're not just shutting down conservative speakers on the campus. The state's Democrats may pass a law to shut down religious speech and create a statewide LGBT "safe space."
There's a new legislative proposal banning all conversion therapy as a fraudulent business practice -- by not just mental health providers but anyone. Since the "independent fact-checkers" are quick to swarm around conservative "misinformation," FactCheck.org, PolitiFact and Snopes have all cried "False" at the idea that this bill is a threat to the sale of the Bible.
They declared that a threat against Bible sales is nowhere in the text of California Assembly Bill 2943, offered by gay assembly member Evan Low. That is correct ... on its face. It doesn't mention the Bible.
However, the bill would amend the state Consumer Legal Remedies Act, adding the ability to sue for damages for "advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual." Any efforts to change someone's sexual orientation "in a transaction intended to result or that results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer are unlawful." That's more than therapy. It's any kind of an argument.
Conservative and Christian lawyers see this proposal as dangerously broad. In National Review, David French called it a "dramatic infringement on First Amendment rights." He was alarmed at the language that defines newly unlawful "sexual orientation change efforts" as including "efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex."
We know whose expression this bill is designed to curtail. Leftist legislators were not subtle. One assembly member spouted that it is time for legislation to nudge the "faith community" to "evolve with the times."
In rating the claim of a threat against Bible sales "Mostly False," PolitiFact dismissively said: "If the law had any impact at all, it would be on those occasions when a Bible is sold in conjunction with a program to change someone's sexual orientation ... with millions of Bibles sold in California, the weight of evidence suggests the bill might only touch a fraction of them."
So if a "fraction" of conservative Christians get sued for selling the Bible or similar books, will the "fact-checkers" apologize ... after the bill gets signed and becomes law?
It's risky for "fact-checkers" to make bold claims of True or False when people make predictions during policy debates. Their crystal ball evaluations seem largely designed to "correct" (read: intimidate) conservatives from making predictions about the future. What happens when predictions come true?
This one-sided "fact-checking" goes back to 1992, when liberal journalists suggested then-President George H.W. Bush was lying when he predicted that Bill Clinton would raise taxes. Clinton was elected, and the next year he signed the largest tax hike in American history.
"Fact-checkers" also threw flags when conservatives charged that insurance premiums were "skyrocketing" under Obamacare. PolitiFact decided that the 2013 "Lie of the Year" was then-President Obama's proclamation that "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it" under Obamacare. But in 2009 and 2012, it rated the statement "Half True." Oops.
Now imagine that instead of California allowing gay activists to sue for damages over any echo of conversion therapy, it allows consumers who lost their insurance plan under Obamacare to sue it for fraudulent fact-checking. It's unlikely the fact-checkers would rush to defend it. They would see it as ... "a dramatic infringement on First Amendment rights."
Evolve! Put down your Bibles and pick up a crystal!
It all happened in steps. We used to not regard cohabitation without wedlock very highly. Same thing with premarital sex, no fault divorce, etc. It went one step at a time until today.
Why do they keep it out if the media? That sounds like a bad thing to deny.
“I just don’t understand how a tiny minority of people, who engage in an activity that goes against moral, natural and even Darwinian law can dictate to the Christian majority what they will think, believe, encourage and celebrate. How did we get here?”
Go to a schoolboard or county council meeting and count how many so-called “conservatives” showed up to object to taxes or what’s taught in public schools.
There’s your answer.
Conservatives are too busy working or barbecuing ribs to be bothered about the future of their children or their community.
commies will be commies.
destroying institutions is their path to power.
Cant wait for the sane parts of that state to break away into their own states and avoid this progressive poison
To me this is a straight up property rights issue. To limit ones rights because it falls under a “commercial transaction” is comical. If one is not free to trade ones property for a another’s property then we have no rights. when the government is free to ban the trading of ideas one special interest group wants banned, property rights are lost.
If someone wants to trade one own property, for information dealing with one considers a subject of interest, so be it.
Those who want to stop the exercise of property rights, under the guise of regulating commercial transactions, or consumer affairs, are enemies of freedom.
And by the way, Progressives, you will see the Son of God coming in power. You WILL bow before Him.
One of my favorite books of all time.
People who defend their evil by saying, “Only a fraction will be affected”, need to have 999/1000 of everything they own confiscated. After all it’s “only a fraction”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.