California legislature introduces bill that would ban books that teach orthodox Christian beliefs on sexuality

[TitanTiger 20,511]

From National Review:

 

Quote

Assembly Bill 2943 would make it an “unlawful business practice” to engage in “a transaction intended to result or that results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer” that advertise, offer to engage in, or do engage in “sexual orientation change efforts with an individual.”

The bill then defines “sexual orientations change efforts” as “any practices that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.” (Emphasis added.)

This is extraordinarily radical. Christian orthodoxy is simple — regardless of a person’s desires (their “orientation”), the standard of right conduct is crystal clear. Sex is reserved for marriage between a man and a woman. When it comes to “gender expression,” there is no difference between “sex” and “gender,” and the Christian response to gender dysphoria is compassion and treatment, not indulgence and surgical mutilation.

Put another way, there is a fundamental difference between temptation and sin. California law would intrude directly on this teaching by prohibiting even the argument that regardless of sexual desire, a person’s sexual behavior should conform to Biblical standards.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/california-progressives-launch-another-attack-on-free-speech/

On the surface it seem to take aim at reparation therapy (therapy that seeks to change a person's sexual orientation), but the language is so broad - "efforts to change behaviors" and "reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex" -  it would essentially outlaw basic Christian approaches to dealing with sexual temptation at all, but especially temptations of a same sex nature.  

There are across the country many individuals who are same-sex attracted yet affirm the historical teachings of the Bible on sexual conduct and thus have chosen to remain celibate.  Under the vague wording of this law, even counseling someone on pursuing such a life an giving them tools, strategies, and other psychotherapeutic guidance on how to reduce sexual attractions or exercise self-control of them could be a violation.

Aside from that, I generally have a problem with the government broadly and clumsily dictating to people what sort of psychological help they can be offered.  A grown adult who wishes to explore whether they could experience opposite-sex attractions should be able to do so without Big Brother stepping in to tell them they know what's best.  

Put aside whether you believe sexual orientation can be altered for a second and imagine an individual who because they experienced sexual attraction early on to their own sex just assumed they were gay but in actuality is bisexual.  But they've more or less suppressed that aspect of their sexuality but would now like to consider exploring that and developing it more, perhaps even preferring to pursue opposite sex relationships in the future.  Would any therapy that seeks to help them foster that and perhaps see if they could live happily in opposite sex sexual relationships be off limits because it seeks to alter or change their supposed "in concrete" sexual orientation?  Nevermind why they wish to do this.  Maybe they want to have biological children with an opposite sex partner.  Maybe they have religious reasons.  Maybe they just think it would be easier.  None of these reasons are the business of the State of California.

I suspect this law would get struck down eventually as a violation of free speech, but you never know.  If California sneezes the rest of us get a cold.  This law needs to be severely reworded, in my opinion.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

8 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

From National Review:

 

On the surface it seem to take aim at reparation therapy (therapy that seeks to change a person's sexual orientation), but the language is so broad - "efforts to change behaviors" and "reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex" -  it would essentially outlaw basic Christian approaches to dealing with sexual temptation at all, but especially temptations of a same sex nature.  

There are across the country many individuals who are same-sex attracted yet affirm the historical teachings of the Bible on sexual conduct and thus have chosen to remain celibate.  Under the vague wording of this law, even counseling someone on pursuing such a life an giving them tools, strategies, and other psychotherapeutic guidance on how to reduce sexual attractions or exercise self-control of them could be a violation.

Aside from that, I generally have a problem with the government broadly and clumsily dictating to people what sort of psychological help they can be offered.  A grown adult who wishes to explore whether they could experience opposite-sex attractions should be able to do so without Big Brother stepping in to tell them they know what's best.  

Put aside whether you believe sexual orientation can be altered for a second and imagine an individual who because they experienced sexual attraction early on to their own sex just assumed they were gay but in actuality is bisexual.  But they've more or less suppressed that aspect of their sexuality but would now like to consider exploring that and developing it more, perhaps even preferring to pursue opposite sex relationships in the future.  Would any therapy that seeks to help them foster that and perhaps see if they could live happily in opposite sex sexual relationships be off limits because it seeks to alter or change their supposed "in concrete" sexual orientation?  Nevermind why they wish to do this.  Maybe they want to have biological children with an opposite sex partner.  Maybe they have religious reasons.  Maybe they just think it would be easier.  None of these reasons are the business of the State of California.

I suspect this law would get struck down eventually as a violation of free speech, but you never know.  If California sneezes the rest of us get a cold.  This law needs to be severely reworded, in my opinion.

Could also be a Dormant Commerce Clause (State is essentially preempted under Commerce Clause) issue as well. 

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Maybe this is an extreme example of the sort of thing that gets snared by a poorly worded law like this, but part of the work of crafting good laws means following language and ideas presented in them to their logical conclusions.  What else could one be allowing or forbidding based on the chosen language?  

So in that light, could the Bible itself withstand the scrutiny this law would put on sexual orientation language?  It's not that hard to find in the pages of the Bible not only the belief that sexual conduct between members of the same sex is sin, but that such conduct is included among the sinful conditions mentioned in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Would the idea that a person used to be this way but is no longer not fall under "efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex?"  And thus, any Christian counselor who utilized this framework in therapy with a client seeking some change in their orientation or at least how to change their behavior would be violating this law.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

 

Quote

Snopes Is a Sneaky Liar About California’s Bill To Ban Christian LGBT Talk

Read the bill. There is no religious exemption. There is no restriction to mental health professionals. This is not simply a ‘gay conversion ban.’

Robert Gagnon

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 2943would 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.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/24/snopes-sneaky-liar-californias-bill-ban-christian-lgbt-talk/