New California Law Would Ban the Bible

[Call me Nic]

https://godfatherpolitics.com/new-california-bill-would-mean-banning-the-bible/

"The bill in question is California Assembly Bill 2943. It would treat as a criminal violation of the state’s consumer fraud act “the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer” that consists of “advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual.” Don’t be misled into thinking that this bill bans only professional counselors from trying to alter same-sex attractions. It goes well beyond that.

The new law would outlaw anything that states that same-sex sexuality is not innate. It would deny anyone from saying or counseling that people choose their sexual actions. This would include counseling someone who wants to leave the same-sex lifestyle or offering them literature to that effect.

Is this an exaggeration? Not according to what the bill proposes:"

___________________________________________________________________________

This would be outrageous!

 

[Christie insb]

No it doesn't. Why am I even bothering to say this? It specifically does not include preachers and priests and ministers. But you feel it is important to view California as the "bad" state, and I am sure you will not let facts get in the way. Also the law only applies to minors

 

[Call me Nic]

No it doesn't. Why am I even bothering to say this? It specifically does not include preachers and priests and ministers. But you feel it is important to view California as the "bad" state, and I am sure you will not let facts get in the way. Also the law only applies to minors

Give any government an inch, and they will take a mile. It would be better to not pass it, thereby not risking the infringement of free speech, than to pass it and try to surrender to a minority of people, but of course California would be the state to try something like this first.

It may not start out that way, but like any law, the rules can be bent and stretched.

 

[JackRT]

Seems reasonable to me.

 

[Christie insb]

Give any government an inch, and they will take a mile. It would be better to not pass it, thereby not risking the infringement of free speech, than to pass it and try to surrender to a minority of people, but of course California would be the state to try something like this first.

It may not start out that way, but like any law, the rules can be bent and stretched.

So you acknowledge that the title of your thread is misleading at best and deliberately misrepresenting facts at worst.

 

[MarleneJ]

Wow! Babylon Bee did a satire piece on having to get a concealed carry permit for a Bible in California today. Everyone thought it was funny, and might happen "one day!" in the comments section.

It seems like the piece was a lot more pointed, and is happening right now. Because, in essence, this bill seems to be saying that you will have to rip out portions of your Bible to be able to not only carry it, but read it. So, does that mean it will be illegal to buy a Bible? What about ordering one on-line? Would the couriers be charged with a crime?

Of course, it is all speculation at this point! But seriously, has the USA moved this far, that it is now legislating this kind of nonsense!?

No wait, I live in Canada, where Trudeau is far, far ahead of California. Already, he put a "values" test on the Summer Jobs Creation application. If you don't tick the box, agreeing to be "for" abortion, and "for" gender identity politics, no grant. Some Christian organizations didn't apply. Others applied manually, since the on-line application will not allow the form to submit without ticking the box. Those that did not tick the paper copy, and attached an explanation were all rejected.

So, no summer camp for underprivileged kids, no help for the poor and homeless. Just waiting to see how many atheist foundations fill in the gap! Ooops! NONE!

And meanwhile, the University of Alberta gives David Suzuki, the nutso environmentalist/evolutionist with multimillion dollar homes all over the globe that he jets to, an honourary degree for his work in environmentalism, including stopping the very needed pipelines for Alberta's gas and oil.

Well, only a year left till we see if we can kick at least the socialist NDP government out of Alberta, the Liberals out of Ottawa, and hoping the NDP government in BC will fall when the 3 hippie Gulf Island Greens bring down the minority government.

Sorry, this turned into a rant. I just see the world wandering so far from God.So tragic, what is happening in California. I have Christian cousins in California, I wonder what they are thinking and doing about this? They are all extremely conservative. Time to make a stand, for everyone, I guess!

 

[akaDaScribe]

Wow! Read the proposed bill. It really does say that you can't sell anything that has the purpose of changing sexual orientation.

Does that mean that they will stop promoting experimentation in the public schools?
Does that mean no more hormone pills?

Yeah, I don't think so

 

[JackRT]

Homosexual "reparative therapy" has been thoroughly proven to be ineffective and frequently harmful. This law is similar to other laws protecting the public against fraudulent medical practices or medications.

 

[akaDaScribe]

Homosexual "reparative therapy" has been thoroughly proven to be ineffective and frequently harmful. This law is similar to other laws protecting the public against fraudulent medical practices or medications.

Did you read the bill? It's talking about anything consumer products, goods, or services. That would mean you could not write a book about anything deemed sexual orientation that discourages sexual behaviors and sell it in California.

Sounds like government imposed censorship to me.

 

[redleghunter]

Homosexual "reparative therapy" has been thoroughly proven to be ineffective and frequently harmful. This law is similar to other laws protecting the public against fraudulent medical practices or medications.

Yes I agree with fraudulent medical practices there is a degree of protection needed. However, there are ministries that do provide counselling to those who want to identify with their biological gender and those who no longer identify as homosexual. Over 70% of people who want to change do in fact change without the specious medical practices of the past.

What this law does, is now prohibit ministries to even discuss such issues with people struggling with same-sex attraction and gender confusion.

LGBT Activists Vow to Shut Down Christian Ministry, 'Your Faith be Damned' - Christian Newswire

 

[miamited]

Hi nicholaus,

You wrote:

It would treat as a criminal violation of the state’s consumer fraud act “the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer” that consists of “advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual.”

I'm not sure I understand how this law would challenge the sale of bibles. None of the translations I've read have anything in them that would be considered, “advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual.”

Actually seems to me that such a law should be feared more by those who perform sexual orientation surgeries. I mean honestly, what surgeon who performs a sexual orientation procedure is not “advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual"?

Then you wrote this:

The new law would outlaw anything that states that same-sex sexuality is not innate.

But that apparently isn't any quote of the law. That seems to be someone's opinion as to how the law might be twisted to mean that it outlaws anything that states that same-sex sexuality is not innate.

Does the law say that or doesn't it? Does it say that it will be unlawful for anyone to offer for sale or lease any goods that state that same-sex sexuality is not innate? Further, the part of this law that you've copied and pasted doesn't really have anything whatsoever to do with the 'same sex' issue. It's referencing 'sexual orientation change efforts'.

In this age there are a lot of conspiracy theorists that like to twist everything into some conspiracy against some group. Most of the time, what the conspiracy theorist attempts to twist into some statement isn't really what the statement infers or intends. Personally, I like to stand well clear of conspiracy theorists based on my understanding that I should have nothing to do with liars and fools.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[akaDaScribe]

Hi nicholaus,

You wrote:


I'm not sure I understand how this law would challenge the sale of bibles. None of the translations I've read have anything in them that would be considered, “advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual.”

Actually seems to me that such a law should be feared more by those who perform sexual orientation surgeries.

Then you wrote this:


But that apparently isn't any quote of the law. That seems to be someone's opinion as to how the law might be twisted to mean that it outlaws anything that states that same-sex sexuality is not innate.

Does the law say that or doesn't it? Does it say that it will be unlawful for anyone to offer for sale or lease any goods that state that same-sex sexuality is not innate?

In this age there are a lot of conspiracy theorists that like to twist everything into some conspiracy against some group. Most of the time, what the conspiracy theorist attempts to twist into some statement isn't really what the statement infers or intends. Personally, I like to stand well clear of conspiracy theorists based on my understanding that I should have nothing to do with liars and fools.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

straight from the actual proposed amendment

(i) (1) “Sexual orientation change efforts” means 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.

(2) “Sexual orientation change efforts” does not include psychotherapies that: (A) provide acceptance, support, and understanding of clients or the facilitation of clients’ coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, including sexual orientation-neutral interventions to prevent or address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices; and (B) do not seek to change sexual orientation.

(28) Advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual.

 

[redleghunter]

Wow! Babylon Bee did a satire piece on having to get a concealed carry permit for a Bible in California today. Everyone thought it was funny, and might happen "one day!" in the comments section.

Yes that article was a hoot!

Californian Arrested For Concealed Carrying Bible Without Permit

 

[redleghunter]

(2) “Sexual orientation change efforts” does not include psychotherapies that: (A) provide acceptance, support, and understanding of clients or the facilitation of clients’ coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, including sexual orientation-neutral interventions to prevent or address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices; and (B) do not seek to change sexual orientation.

Wow are they going to try to arrest the Holy Spirit when He changes lives like He has always done by God's Grace?

1 Corinthians 6: NKJV
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God

 

[miamited]

Hi again nicolaus,

Now after reading your link, it also is pretty clear that this bill is only going after those who would perform any of these services for some fee or as a sale. Here's how your link presents the law:

The bill in question is California Assembly Bill 2943. It would treat as a criminal violation of the state’s consumer fraud act “the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer”. Seems to me that christian ministries could get a break from any accusations under this law so long as they don't charge for such a service. So, I could go into a gay bar and proclaim their sin as much as I'd care to so long as I don't try to sell them a pamphlet or book about it. I can give them any pamphlet or book, but I can't ask them to pay for it.

God bless.
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

straight from the actual proposed amendment

(i) (1) “Sexual orientation change efforts” means 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.

(2) “Sexual orientation change efforts” does not include psychotherapies that: (A) provide acceptance, support, and understanding of clients or the facilitation of clients’ coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, including sexual orientation-neutral interventions to prevent or address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices; and (B) do not seek to change sexual orientation.

(28) Advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual.

Hi akadascribe,

I get all that!!! But it only applies to those who sell or lease goods or services that would do such a thing. So, those groups that want to run group homes to treat same sex issues and charge for such a service will have to do it in Arizona. So, before the law would apply in either of these issues that you post, the services would have to be paid services. That, according to the link provided, would be the first hurdle to be crossed. So it would appear that before we even get to your (1), (2) or (28) part there first has to be a request for money to change hands for the service.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Halbhh]

https://godfatherpolitics.com/new-california-bill-would-mean-banning-the-bible/

"The bill in question is California Assembly Bill 2943. It would treat as a criminal violation of the state’s consumer fraud act “the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer” that consists of “advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual.” Don’t be misled into thinking that this bill bans only professional counselors from trying to alter same-sex attractions. It goes well beyond that.

The new law would outlaw anything that states that same-sex sexuality is not innate. It would deny anyone from saying or counseling that people choose their sexual actions. This would include counseling someone who wants to leave the same-sex lifestyle or offering them literature to that effect.

Is this an exaggeration? Not according to what the bill proposes:"

___________________________________________________________________________

This would be outrageous!

China has just done a Real Bible Sales Ban!

Actual ban, not figurative at all.

 

[akaDaScribe]

Hi akadascribe,

I get all that!!! But it only applies to those who sell or lease goods or services that would do such a thing. So, those groups that want to run group homes to treat same sex issues and charge for such a service will have to do it in Arizona. So, before the law would apply in either of these issues that you post, the services would have to be paid services. That, according to the link provided, would be the first hurdle to be crossed. So it would appear that before we even get to your (1), (2) or (28) part there first has to be a request for money to change hands for the service.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Right, but because it says any practices, that encompasses, books, videos, etc. and the way it is worded it could mean anyone who even discourages the behavior. Very slippery slope.

 

[miamited]

Right, but because it says any practices, that encompasses, books, videos, etc. and the way it is worded it could mean anyone who even discourages the behavior. Very slippery slope.

Hi akadascribe,

I would agree that the law could be used against any author or producer of material that would attempt to 'correct' immoral sexual behavior regarding gender issues.

Now we just have to see if it passes. Any one can bring up a bill, but whether or not it gets passed will let us know if a majority of the California legislature also agrees with the author of the bill and what the bill is attempting to stop. I agree that it is a sad state of affairs that California would even be considering such a law. My only dog in this fight was the contention that this bill was somehow going to bring about a ban of the Scriptures.

As I said, I honestly can't see that the Scriptures make any attempt to 'change' anyone. We find the claim that God made them man and woman and we find that it speaks against a man lying with another man and also against women who commit indecent acts. But it never says that anyone must change. That only becomes an issue when one is born again but has such activity in their life.

Anyway, we'll see how this all plays out. My mother and sister live in California and I imagine that they'd both vote for it.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

duplicate post

 

[akaDaScribe]

Hi akadascribe,

I would agree that the law could be used against any author or producer of material that would attempt to 'correct' immoral sexual behavior regarding gender issues.

Now we just have to see if it passes. Any one can bring up a bill, but whether or not it gets passed will let us know if a majority of the California legislature also agrees with the author of the bill and what the bill is attempting to stop. I agree that it is a sad state of affairs that California would even be considering such a law. My only dog in this fight was the contention that this bill was somehow going to bring about a ban of the Scriptures.

As I said, I honestly can't see that the Scriptures make any attempt to 'change' anyone. We find the claim that God made them man and woman and we find that it speaks against a man lying with another man and also against women who commit indecent acts. But it never says that anyone must change. That only becomes an issue when one is born again but has such activity in their life.

Anyway, we'll see how this all plays out. My mother and sister live in California and I imagine that they'd both vote for it.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Well even just as Americans, this is an indirect attack on freedom of speech. This is very bad if it passes.