0
0

[–] czmead ago 

Oh well, if Cali passes this crap then let them have it. Cali will fall apart faster than Rome fell to a horde of naked screaming German Barbarians!

0
0

[–] Javik2186 ago 

Great. California's version of Bill C-16. Its not going to pass because people will realize that it goes against the First Amendment. After watching more of Jordan Peterson's videos on this, it made me think.

A bill like this might be passed, but worded in such a way so it gets around the First Amendment such as the PATRIOT ACT. Instead of jail time, it would be a fine for thought crime. SB 219 is originally used to help the elderly, but they put this "gender pronoun" clause in it to prevent "discrimination"

SB 219

Part of the bill I found interesting:

"This bill would enact the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Long-Term Care Facility Resident’s Bill of Rights. Among other things, the bill would make it unlawful, except as specified, for any long-term care facility to take specified actions wholly or partially on the basis of a person’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status, including, among others, willfully and repeatedly failing to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name and pronouns and or pronouns, or denying admission to a long-term care facility, transferring or refusing to transfer a resident within a facility or to another facility, or discharging or evicting a resident from a facility. The bill would also provide certain protections to all residents of long-term care facilities during, among others, other things, physical examinations or treatments, relating to bodily privacy. The bill would define long-term care facility for purposes of these provisions to include skilled nursing facilities, intermediate care facilities, and residential care facilities for the elderly. The bill would also, among other things, require each facility to post a specified notice regarding discrimination alongside its current non-discrimination policy in all places and on all materials where the non-discrimination policy is posted. The bill would require a violation of these provisions to be treated as a violation under the Long-Term Care, Health, Safety, and Security Act of 1973, the California Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly Act, or specified provisions providing for the licensure and regulation of health facilities, which may include the imposition of civil penalties. By expanding the definition of existing crimes, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program."

0
0

[–] DasNincompoop ago 

Won't stand up to Supreme Court scrutiny. Whoever wrote this law should be tarred and feathered and banned from politics for seven lifetimes.

0
1

[–] czmead 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

You mean the same supreme court that made gay marriage legal, or that made baby murder legal? SCOTUS corruption is one of the biggest national problems we face in all this insanity.

0
0

[–] DasNincompoop ago 

Agree but those things are not written in the Bill of Rights. Then again the right to keep and bear arms....shall not be infringed sure seems to have gone the way of the buggy whip.

0
0

[–] Norm ago 

Wouldn't you be protected under free speech?

0
1

[–] DasNincompoop 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Yes. This is virtue signaling at its most disgusting.

0
0

[–] czmead ago 

Free speech? Don't you get it, you only get free speech now if it passes the scrutiny of social justice warriors and Antifa. Free speech is gone in this country; Charlottsville was the grave of free speech.

0
0

[–] Subtenko ago 

so...what happens when someone says "hah, I fooled you. Im calling the police..."? (to the person who approved the bill)