CA bill would dictate to churches what can be preached about LGBTQ ideology. Calling it sin is ‘har

[Bill Cipher]

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,368395.msg2009823.html#msg2009823

Even better.  Although I am jaundiced enough to believe that, were it solely up to the California courts and the California state constitution, somehow this infringement on religion would pass muster.

[sneakypete]

Actually, no. In this case, even though it is a state making the law, the First Amendment has been applied against the states, through the penumbra of the 14th Amendment, with the result that CA also cannot enact a law that infringed on religious practice in this way. 

My comment was only directed at the specific inference that this was a federal law.

@Bill Cipher

I am going to have to take your word for that. Right now I am just not up to figuring out what you wrote and responding to it.

[Bill Cipher]

@Bill Cipher

I am going to have to take your word for that. Right now I am just not up to figuring out what you wrote and responding to it.

No worries.  Basically, under both the state constitution and the federal constitution, this law should be DOA.

[Applewood]

http://solano.networkofcare.org/mh/legislate/state-bill-detail.aspx?bill=ACR%2099

So I am looking at this supposed "bill" at the above link (ACR 99).  It is indeed a resolution, not a bill to be passed into law.  As I read the text of this thing it appears that no one is being ordered or forced to do or not do anything.  This piece of paper has no legal effect on anyone. 

Looks to me like Evan Low, the principal author of this resolution, is pandering to his LGBTQRSTUV constituents -- making it look like he has put together a bill that, if passed, will address their supposed grievances.  But this piece of paper won't do squat.  It won't be a law that can be enforced.  It's just show --nothing more. 

[sneakypete]

No worries.  Basically, under both the state constitution and the federal constitution, this law should be DOA.

@Bill Cipher

Excellent news! Thank you!

And here I was suspecting the opposite!

[Smokin Joe]

Any church that bends to this is not a church.

Imho, there has been a bunch of bending out there already, and I don't see any of those churches as True Churches.

[Smokin Joe]

http://solano.networkofcare.org/mh/legislate/state-bill-detail.aspx?bill=ACR%2099

So I am looking at this supposed "bill" at the above link (ACR 99).  It is indeed a resolution, not a bill to be passed into law.  As I read the text of this thing it appears that no one is being ordered or forced to do or not do anything.  This piece of paper has no legal effect on anyone. 

Looks to me like Evan Low, the principal author of this resolution, is pandering to his LGBTQRSTUV constituents -- making it look like he has put together a bill that, if passed, will address their supposed grievances.  But this piece of paper won't do squat.  It won't be a law that can be enforced.  It's just show --nothing more.

Oh, sin signalling (well, it isn't virtue, imho).

[Hoodat]

@Hoodat

I have chemo brain. Do NOT expect me to sort though a bunch of legal brain farts and figure out what it says. Can't do it.

Can you just dumb it down and post it using plain words?

@sneakypete

California State Constitution


Article 1, Section 2(a)

Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.

https://ballotpedia.org/Article_I,_California_Constitution


This is purely a free speech issue, not a religious one.  California government cannot restrict speech regardless of whether it is spoken from a church pulpit or a public park.

[roamer_1]

Imho, there has been a bunch of bending out there already, and I don't see any of those churches as True Churches.

That's right. You can argue all day long about what ain't in the Good Book. But when you go against what is plainly there, in the Book, You're doing it wrong. And if you are calling yourself a church, and plainly doing it wrong, well, that ain't a church.

[roamer_1]

Oh, sin signalling (well, it isn't virtue, imho).

There's a fine point there - one accusing another of virtue signaling is arguing for sin.
Funny it is that simple, and I never really saw it that way before.

 

[Fishrrman]

Hoodat wrote:
"California government cannot restrict speech regardless of whether it is spoken from a church pulpit or a public park."

Does the California Legislature have the power to amend the state constitution?

If so, watch for the portion you quoted to be amended at sometime in the future.

And don't be surprised if the good citizens of the state vote to APPROVE of such amendments...

[Bill Cipher]

Hoodat wrote:
"California government cannot restrict speech regardless of whether it is spoken from a church pulpit or a public park."

Does the California Legislature have the power to amend the state constitution?

If so, watch for the portion you quoted to be amended at sometime in the future.

And don't be surprised if the good citizens of the state vote to APPROVE of such amendments...

They still don’t have the power to amend the federal constitution, which also applies in this case.

[sneakypete]

@sneakypete

California State Constitution


Article 1, Section 2(a)

Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.

https://ballotpedia.org/Article_I,_California_Constitution


This is purely a free speech issue, not a religious one.  California government cannot restrict speech regardless of whether it is spoken from a church pulpit or a public park.

@Hoodat

Thanks! You can count me as a fan of free speech.

[sneakypete]

They still don’t have the power to amend the federal constitution, which also applies in this case.

@Bill Cipher

YET! They are working hard on it,though. Their biggest enemy and target is "Free Speech",which they love to claim they are in favor of,and they will continue to claim it is their number 1 concern. Right up to the day they seize uncontested power,and then Free Speech becomes a prison sentence or death sentence.

[Hoodat]

They still don’t have the power to amend the federal constitution, which also applies in this case.

They don't need to amend the US Constitution.  They simply ignore it.