Posted on 04/28/2018 11:47:13 AM PDT by ReformationFan
Read the bill. There is no religious exemption. There is no restriction to mental health professionals. This is not simply a ‘gay conversion ban.’
By Robert Gagnon APRIL 24, 2018
If you haven’t already lost significant respect for Snopes as an impartial fact-checker, its analysis of a bill that bans all transactions involved in stating Christian beliefs about homosexual behavior should. That bill passed 50-18 on April 19 and is being considered in the state senate. Snopes’ insistence that California Assembly Bill 2943 would not result in the Bible being banned in California is akin to Snopes calling “demonstrably and clearly false” the claim that Joseph Stalin killed everyone around him.
True, Stalin did not kill “all” around him. Indeed, so far as we know he never personally killed anyone. But he did have a great many people killed (estimates indicate that he was responsible for the deaths of 20 to 25 million people), sent many others to the Gulag, and generally terrorized both his own country and Eastern Europe for decades.
Sure, it is virtually impossible that California will immediately attempt to ban the sale of the Bible itself. Not even the hard Left in California has that kind of chutzpah. But citations of Bible verses in the context of declaring homosexual practice and transgenderism to be morally debased could indeed get one into serious trouble with the law if it comes in the context of selling or advertising a product or service. Here are the problems with Snopes’s case.
Have You Ever Read a Bill Before? First, Snopes states that since “California Assembly Bill 2943 does not mention the Bible, Christianity, or religion at all,” any claim that “the legislation would ‘literally’ prohibit the sale of the Bible, … is demonstrably and clearly false.” Yet the fact that the bill doesn’t explicitly mention these things is irrelevant if the wording of the bill is broad enough to encompass them.
Second, Snopes stresses that, based on a 2011 bill outlawing “sexual orientation change efforts” (SOCE) on persons under the age of 18, the new bill outlawing it for adults should also be restricted to “mental health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation.”
However, even Snopes has to admit that AB 2943 “also appears to prohibit SOCE from being performed by any individual, not just by mental health providers.” So you could be a pastor, Bible study or house church leader, member of a parachurch organization working to help people afflicted by same-sex attractions, or indeed anybody who attempts change if goods or services involve an exchange of funds.
Snopes adds: “The Assembly Judiciary Committee’s analysis notes it is not clear whether the text of A.B. 2943 would amount to a blanket prohibition on any and all SOCE. We contacted Low’s office for clarification on this point but did not receive a response in time for publication.” Given the track record of zealous LGBTQ advocacy in this country, where coercive affirmations of “gay marriage” have been found in the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) that grants full citizenship rights to ex-slaves and in interpreting the Title IX ban of “sex discrimination” in schools and colleges (1972) to include discrimination based on homosexual practice and transgender identity, “unclear” means: We will use this law against you.
Outlawing Politically Disfavored Religious Instruction Third, Snopes then heavily shades the truth: “What is clear is that Low’s bill does not seek to outlaw all religious or moral instruction regarding sexuality and sexual orientation.” How much stress is being placed on the “all”? Even Snopes cannot say that it will not outlaw “some or most religious or moral instruction regarding sexuality and sexual orientation.”
Yet Snopes is not willing to highlight that as a point in its discussion. The emphasis is on the narrative: Keep walking, nothing disturbing here for religious folk. The salient point is that nothing in the bill would prevent the state from outlawing all religious or moral instruction that seeks to change homosexual behavior and transgender identity. The only limitation on the state is its own self-policed chutzpah regarding “LGBTQ” coercion.
Read the bill. There is no religious exemption. There is no restriction to mental health professionals. There is not even a restriction to claims about changing a person’s sexual orientation or transgender feelings in whole or part. The bill is quite clear that any “efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions” are included in the ban on attempts to change a person’s “sexual orientation.”
So you would be violating the law if you advertise that Christ can empower people not to engage in homosexual practice or not to identify as “gay” or “transgender” because such behaviors and self-identities are morally wrong, or if you offer to engage or actually engage in efforts to persuade people of Christ’s power to transform in this area, you will be in violation of California AB 2943, at least so long as your advertising or efforts involved in any way an exchange of money for goods or services.
Consequently, selling religious or secular books (pamphlets, videos, audios, etc.), holding conferences, teaching courses in a college or seminary where tuition is paid, giving a speech at a paid venue, counseling people for a fee, or perhaps even posting online articles in a site that requires a paid subscription, in which it is asserted (in whole or part) that it is morally wrong for people to engage in homosexual practice or identify as “gay” or “transgender,” all could be treated as a violation of California Assembly Bill 2943.
There is certainly nothing in the bill that exempts such practices from prosecution by the state. We have learned on LGBTQ matters what is exempted is not exempted for long and what is not exempted has no exemption. If you haven’t figured this out by now, you haven’t been paying attention.
Only Promoting LGBT Behavior Is Allowed Am I alone in this view? Religious liberties lawyer David French has referred to this as “a bill that would actually — among other things — ban the sale of books expressing orthodox Christian beliefs about sexual morality.” Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Matt Sharp states: “It would be a violation if a pastor encourages a congregant to visit the church book store to purchase books that help people address sexual issues, perhaps including the Bible itself, which teaches about the importance of sexual purity within the confines of marriage between a man and a woman.”
Matt Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a public interest religious freedom law firm, told me I could print this comment from him: “The breadth of this bill is staggering and represents the worst kinds of censoring because books and educational resources along with scientific research will be banned. The First Amendment provides not space for this kind of censorship.”
Constitutional law attorney Jenna Ellis concludes: “A Christian bookstore could be sued for carrying a book such as Ryan T. Anderson’s latest, When Harry Became Sally, solely because the message is in conflict with the LGBT agenda…. Thus, this law is not viewpoint neutral and specifically targets psychotherapists, counselors, pastors, lay counselors, authors, speakers, and any other speakers from promoting a message of heterosexuality, and instead allows only a message affirming the LGBT viewpoint.”
The Snopes articles makes it sound like Christians have nothing to fear from this bill, that the bill won’t have the effect of chilling all speech and inhibiting the sale and use of all texts that indicate that homosexual practice and transgender identity are morally wrong. Don’t you believe it for a moment.
Robert A. J. Gagnon, PhD, is the author of "The Bible and Homosexual Practice" (Abingdon) and co-author of "Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views" (Fortress). For 24 years he was a professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.
Snoops is two fat liberals, sitting on a couch, who have zero training in any kind of formal research, carrying out their liberal agenda in any and every way they can.
Calling them a hoax is untrue, they are bold faced political propagandists and liars.
Snoops does not put out the objective truth, they push the subjective truth that always manages to support the liberal/socialist viewpoint and agenda.
This time they have been caught a a bold faced lie.
Snopes is about as authoritative as asking a pet animal what they think
A couple and a Cat is who they were, how people still see them and quote them as a reliable source is beyond me...
THIS!!!
Unconstitutional. Whatever California wants to call it, it violates the first amendment to two ways.
They seek to normalize their behavior to achieve easier access to MOLEST YOUR CHILDREN!
This law would ban RAPE THERAPY!!!!!!
>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2009/06/05/a-major-study-of-child-abuse-and-homosexuality-revisited/<
On page 37, the other relevant result relates to men.
The 13th research question addressed, of homosexual men who have been molested, what percentage were molested before self-identification as homosexual men, and what percentage were molested after self-identification as homosexual? Of homosexual men who were molested, 68% were molested before self-identification as homosexual, and 32% were molested after self-identification as homosexual.
Snopes is not reliable period.
The California bill is an ABOMINATION.
.
Snopes has never offered truth nor fact.
They are all about destroying truth.
.
Snopes is a Democrat lib/commie narrative site — not a truth or fiction site.
.
Snopes is Soros’ facebook page.
.
Wouldnt it be easy to test by going to a mosque and confessing to the Imam thay you are homosexual and Record his answers as he quotes from the hadith and koran then Demand criminal prosecution very publicly
This is like my state’s gay “marriage” bill. In the first version, to protect “religious freedom” it granted an “exemption” for churches not to have to perform gay weddings, but to qualify for the exemption (1) the marriage had to be between two members of the congregation, and (2) the church could not be open to the public in its religious services, but all services could only be attended by members. In other words, if you ran ads inviting people to services, or even if your congregation members gave cards away inviting people to say Easter or Christmas, that made you a “public accommodation” and you would have to follow all the anti-discrimination laws, including allowing gay weddings. That one was beyond even the ACLU and so they watered it down in the final version (you don’t have to allow gay weddings in your church unless it is public available for weddings for a fee, but it still shows how far they will go if you let them.
I would mention that because we opposed the gay “marriage” bill, we have been classified as a “hate” group by the local version of the SPLC. We have had our signs vandalized multiple times.
Isn’t it strange that “gay conversion” is not illegal when it comes to converting children to gays in government schools.
I suspect we are at war for the foundation of our nation and in the end much blood will flow. Perhaps it is not wise to wait till we are all riding to a place of “safety” in train cars before we discuss rebellion from judicial tyrany.
Yes it is.
The people who advocate this and who are pushing it are treading on very dangerous ground spiritually speaking.
If they do not repent, their judgment will NOT be pleasant.
Sin angers the Lord on general principle, but there are certain sins that He especially hates: hindering people from coming to Him, hindering people from following Him, hindering the proclamation of His Word and the sin of corrupting children is expressly singled out for an exceptionally severe judgment.
Read Matt. 18:6 and Luke 17:2.
The two fat liberals divorced after the Husband was caught spending company money on Hookers. Look up how many times the Snopes couple have been sued - they will be in court the rest of their lives.
Snopes is a sneaky liar ,,,,,,,
How long has it taken to discover Snopes never lets facts get in the way of the liberal agenda . Second clue ,,, Fact Check is also very loose with the facts .
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.