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

[rangerrebew]

CA bill would dictate to churches what can be preached about LGBTQ ideology. Calling it sin is ‘harmful.’
June 29, 2019 | Sierra Marlee | Print Article
 

With “Pride Month” coming to an end, California is pushing a resolution that seeks to control the language churches use surrounding the LGBTQ community. ACR 99 would encourage “counselors, Pastors, religious workers, educators, and institutions to stop labeling homosexuality and transgenderism a ‘sin’ saying it’s ‘harmful’ and ‘unethical.'”

Opponents to the resolution are citing First Amendment freedom of religion violations, with others – like California Pastor Shane Idleman – protesting the state’s mandatory interpretation of the Bible and God’s Word.

“When I read the actual statement it was alarming because California is now telling us what is best and what does God’s Word say and what God’s Word doesn’t say, and as a pastor, though that’s what we have to look at,” Idleman said in an interview. “That’s what going on as the foundation of God’s truth, what was true thousands of years ago is true today.”

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/06/29/ca-bill-would-dictate-to-churches-what-can-be-preached-about-lgbtq-ideology-calling-it-sin-is-harmful-769811?utm_source=IdealMedia&utm_medium=IdealMedia

[sneakypete]

Hmmmm,am I the only one thinking this ain't going to go over so well with all those new His and Her Panic Catholic illegal aliens the left is rushing to register to vote?

[skeeter]

Thanks to a totally captive local media and a whole bunch of voters who are illiterate in English as well as in US history the CA legislature has gone over the edge.

If the GOP does not use them as a prop in an ad campaign for the rest of the nation their consignment to the political dumpster is well deserved.

[austingirl]

Caifornia establishing a state religion?

[mountaineer]

Caifornia establishing a state religion?

Pretty much.

[Applewood]

The title calls this  action a "bill."  But the body of the article calls it a "resolution."  Which is it?  Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the legislature can compel an action by a resolution; it has to be by a bill that becomes law.  In fact, the article uses the word "encourage."  Doesn't say religious entities and individuals would be compelled to do anything.

[Hoodat]

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


Liberals are straight-up fascists.

[jafo2010]

So much for separation of church and state.

Frankly, I hope they pass it, and every legal and illegal alien votes Republican, realizing the Democommies are fruitloops!

[DCPatriot]

Uh-huh....

Get back to us AFTER you tell all the mosques in your State it's against the law to threaten the lives of any 'Infidels'.

[Smokin Joe]

Uh-huh....

Get back to us AFTER you tell all the mosques in your State it's against the law to threaten the lives of any 'Infidels'.

Actually, you hit on something there. Their prophet didn't think so much of homosexuals, either, iirc.

I wonder how the Muslims will react to this crap?

[sneakypete]

So much for separation of church and state.

Frankly, I hope they pass it, and every legal and illegal alien votes Republican, realizing the Democommies are fruitloops!

@jafo2010

First there would have someone they trust tell them about it,because you can believe none of the Spanish language newspapers will report it.

[sneakypete]

Actually, you hit on something there. Their prophet didn't think so much of homosexuals, either, iirc.

I wonder how the Muslims will react to this crap?

@Smokin Joe

When you consider that it still seems to be perfectly acceptable for grown men to hump little boys in their culture,it's hard to say.

[txradioguy]

Actually, you hit on something there. Their prophet didn't think so much of homosexuals, either, iirc.

I wonder how the Muslims will react to this crap?

We'll never know because the media won't dare shot their outrage.  It would mess up the narrative.

[rustynail]

A 'jobs bill', there will need to be minders at every Christian church function.

[Bill Cipher]

This bill would most definitely be a government-based establishment of religion, and would be unconstitutional. 

[240B]

I wonder how the Muslims will react to this crap?

Muslims always get an exemption from religious persecution by the Left. The Left is only interested in Christians. That's all they care about. While Mecca Worshippers worldwide are imprisoning, torturing, and murdering homosexuals, the Left is concerned about Christians calling it a 'sin'. As if this is somehow worse than killing them.

No sarcasm, no snark, just plain actual fact. Somehow, someway, Muslims will not have to abide by this. Muslims are never held to one-tenth the scrutiny the Left constantly throws at Christianity. Muslims are always given a free pass, no matter how horrible, vile, despicable, their religion and actions are. They are never held to take responsibility for their violent murderous cult.

While Muslims are broadcasting "Allah is the only God" from loudspeakers across city blocks, Christians are banned from saying 'Jesus' in a public prayer. There is no question that Christians are held to a completely utterly entirely different standard than Islam is, by the Global Left.

[txradioguy]

Congress shall make no law...

[Bill Cipher]

Congress shall make no law...

It’s California, not Congress. 

[sneakypete]

We'll never know because the media won't dare shot their outrage.  It would mess up the narrative.

@txradioguy

I am sure that is a part of it,but I THINK the major reason is the left sees Muslims as their personal "revolutionary warriors",and they need them to start the revolution they need in order to be able to declare a national emergency so they can "suspend the Bill of Rights for the duration of the emergency".

Once the emergency is declared,guess who gets to establish WITHOUT OUTSIDE INFLUENCE what the emergence ends,and more importantly WHEN it ends.

And,of course,once they are in the "Stalin Seat" in DC,they can just declare all Muslims to be enemies of the people,and have the army start gunning them down in the streets in order to make sure the Muslims don't bother THEM.

[sneakypete]

Muslims always get an exemption from religious persecution by the Left. The Left is only interested in Christians. That's all they care about.

@240B

In MY NSHO that is 100 percent correct FOR THE TIME BEING. Only because the left see Christians are Right Wingers,and the Muslims as their Storm Troopers.

Make no mistake about it,though. The only Gods the globalists worship are the twin Gods of Power and Wealth. The INSTANT they have the Christians under control,they are going to come for the Muslims.

[sneakypete]

It’s California, not Congress.

@Bill Cipher

Good point. I guess it all depends on what the CA constitution has to say about that issue.

[roamer_1]

Any church that bends to this is not a church.

[Hoodat]

@Bill Cipher

Good point. I guess it all depends on what the CA constitution has to say about that issue.

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

[sneakypete]

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

@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?

[Bill Cipher]

@Bill Cipher

Good point. I guess it all depends on what the CA constitution has to say about that issue.

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.