By Sam Frescoe
#SamFrescoe
Okay, Americans! – Is the Constitution and Bill of Rights
authoritative across and within the several States of the United States? Are
American rights, Constitutional rights, commonly applicable to all Americans? If
either answer is YES, then I invite you to turn your attention to California
and Senate
Bill 219 (SB-219). Why? Because the State of California is about to trounce
your liberty to speak, worship, and associate as you please.
BLUF – Bottom Line Up Front
Enactment of California SB-219 will nullify the
Constitutional rights of all Americans located within the State of California. –
This article examines SB-219 because I want to show you how this bill, if
enacted, will nullify your Constitutional rights; and to explain how such nullification
will erode the Constitutional rights of every American.
So What?
Simply stated, if you need, want, or desire to live in, visit,
or conduct business in California while expressing your thoughts, honoring your
faith, or associating by contract as you please, then defeating C SB-219 is mandatory.
More specifically, if SB-219 is enacted, then everyone standing on California
soil that is deemed hostile to a segment of the LGBT community will be at risk
of a criminal conviction, a $1,000 fine, and one year in prison.[1]
– In other words, if you value Constitutional rights, then the possible passage
of SB-219 is a clear and present threat that must be defeated.
On its face, SB-219 is a bill concerning issues regarding “Long-term
care facilities: rights of residents.” Within the bill there is language that
indicates the same and specifically limits the reach of the bill to long-term
care facilities, nursing homes, etc. Additionally, on 6 April 2017, the
California Senate Judiciary Committee reviewing the proposed legislation and recorded
minutes saying that “this bill would create additional privacy protections for
all long-term care facility residents…by focusing on the needs of a
particularly vulnerable community.”[2]
Unfortunately, all of this is a smoke screen designed to cloak this bill in false
virtue.
A quick read of the bill quickly reveals this legislation
for what it actually is: an instrument of coercive activism. – The judicial
reviews published by the California Senate and Assembly clearly demonstrate the
intentions and motivations of the bill’s sponsor and its supporters.
“The purpose of this act is to
accelerate the process of freeing LGBT residents and patients from
discrimination.”[3] – Translation:
SB-219 is a legislative instrument in direct support of highly-specialized social
activists.
“This bill makes a number of
legislative findings and declarations related to the vulnerability of
California’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) seniors and the
risks they face because of this.”[4]
– Translation: LGBT persons are too weak to stand up for themselves because
they are LGBT persons.
“This bill would make a Legislative
finding: those LGBT seniors have a heightened need for care, but often lack the
family support networks available to non-LGBT seniors.”[5]
– Translation: The government wants you to believe that the State must provide
for the care of LGBT persons because they might “lack family support.”
“This bill would make it unlawful,
except as provided, for a long term care facility or facility staff to take any
of the following actions wholly or partially on the basis of a SB 219 person’s
actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or
HIV status.” [6]
– Translation: Regardless of conscience, if you own/operate or work at a
long-term care facility, then you may not exercise your conscience with LGBT
persons.
“Willfully and repeatedly fail to
use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the
preferred name or pronouns” is unlawful (SB-219, 1439.51). – Translation:
Regardless of any other consideration, failing to speak according to the
government script with an LGBT person is a criminal act.
This bill is an instrument of coercive activism exclusively beneficial
to LGBT persons. Judicial reviews make the following claims:
“…empirical evidence shows that
discrimination against LGBT people is a serious problem in California’s
long-term care facilities”[7] –
Translation: The government wants you to believe that LGBT-discrimination is
out of control across the whole of California because 39 testimonies supporting
the bill, and the 8 testimonies opposing, represents a balanced presentation of
evidence.
“…this bill is supported by a broad
coalition of senior, LGBT, labor and civil liberties groups, and government
organizations, who are concerned that LGBT individuals and particularly
transgender individuals are especially likely to experience discrimination and
harassment in long-term care facilities.”[8] – Translation: The
government wants you to believe that the supporting the bill is good and
virtuous because multiple lobbies (that will directly benefit from enactment of
such a law) claim that “discrimination and harassment” might occur.
Regarding California civil rights, Civil
Code Section 51, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, “The true scope of protection
under the Unruh Act is actually even more broad than these categories because
the California Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Unruh Act in an
expansive way, holding that it is meant to cover all arbitrary and intentional
discrimination by business establishments.”[9]
– Translation: Because the legislature believes California courts will not stop
them, the legislature is free to recast existing law for their own purposes
regardless of what is actually stated within the law.
The opposition raised concerns about religious liberty. They
claimed that the bill did not provide an exemption for religious institutions
that provide long-term care.[10]
Particular concern was expressed about the rights of those long-term care
facilities that are run by religious organizations.[11]
The bill’s author, state Sen. Scott Weiner, countered as follows: “Everyone is
entitled to their religious view. But when you enter the public space, when you
are running an institution, you are in a workplace, you are in a civil setting,
and you have to follow the law.”[12] –
Translation: The government believes all First Amendment rights are trivial.
The opposition raised concerns about free speech. How can
you believe in free speech, but think the government can compel people to use
certain pronouns when talking to others?” said Greg Burt of the California
Family Council.[13] This
concern was addressed by claiming the misuse of names and/or pronouns was a
form of discrimination; therefore, unlawful.[14] – Translation: The
government believes your First Amendment rights are trivial.
The opposition raised concerns about the just reach of
government. A legal expert warned that it is “pretty unlikely that, if this law is enacted, such prohibitions would be
limited just to this [nursing home] scenario,” UCLA First Amendment scholar
Eugene Volokh. [15]
This concern was addressed by stating the bill only pertained to long-term care
facilities. – Volokh teaches free speech law, religious freedom law,
church-state relations law, and several other areas of law at UCLA School of
Law. Additionally, he clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S.
Supreme Court and for Judge Alex Kozinski on the Ninth Circuit.[16]
– Translation: The government believes it is unbounded.
Going Forward – An American Solution
American Rights are all the rights any American needs. – All
American citizens have identical and coequal rights to speak, believe,
associate, and contract as they need, want, or desire. If this is false for any
citizen (LGBT or otherwise), then the just course of government action is to
nullify the hostility of the aggressor; thereby, restoring the just rights of
the defender.
The ability to choose the course of your own life according
to your justly possessed capacities is a key characteristic of the American
Dream. – If a citizen, or community of citizens, needs, wants, or desires their
interests to be peaceably acknowledged by others, then according the same peaceable
acknowledgement to those others supports the interests of the individual or
group and vice-versa. In this way, everyone is free to pursue their preferences
as long as that exercise of freedom does not detract from another’s exercise of
freedom.
Extend the benefit of doubt – Jerks are everywhere, and
nowhere, whether we know it or not. Thus, because we cannot know the “jerk”
status of everyone we encounter, this principle is applicable to all human
endeavors. If a particular population needs, wants, or desires a just recourse
for wrong-doing, then the activation of that recourse must be just as well. Thus,
the benefit hedges against precedent that will continue to unjustly harm
others.
Sticks and stones – Insults and slights are just that (and
nothing more). You are singularly responsible for your thoughts, feelings,
behaviors, and circumstances that you create. Master your tongue and accord the
same to others.
A human being cannot be forced to respect another; they can
only be forced into submission in the name of the other. – Regardless of the
people-group you incline toward, if you want to be respected as an American
citizen and human-being, then it’s incumbent on you to be a respectful American
citizen and human-being. Respect cannot be taken; it must be earned by
according respect to others.
SB-219 is profoundly un-American and must be stopped.
Your View
Your thoughts and perspectives are important. I invite you
to tell me what you believe with the comment section.
© 2017 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com
– All Rights Reserved
See through the Subterfuge – This is what’s Happening
SB-219 is a textbook case of Regressive Activism
(Regressivism).
The regressive political philosophy puts forth the following
beliefs: human nature is fluid; there are no absolute standards; anything
goes…except claims of the contrary; and government does not have natural
limits. – In the SB-219 case, the government wants you to believe the LGBT
orientation is normal despite the evidence at hand, that everyone can be
suppressed in favor of other considerations, and they have inherent authority
to force compliant behavior.
Decide for yourself; is the
elective, unique behavior of 3.3% of Californians, and 0.4% of all Americans,
normal? – Relative to the Constitution, does this matter?
323.1M persons reside in the USA,
overall (2016 US Census)
39.3M persons reside in California,
overall (2016 US Census)
1.3M LGBT persons reside in
California (The Williams Institute, 2015)
The regressive political philosophy operates according to
the following principles: 1) reject founding principles; 2) human inequality is
not a foundation for opportunity; 3) equal outcomes hold primacy over all other
concerns. – In the SB-2019 case, the government wants to suppress your speech,
your religious expression, your choice of association, your choice to contract,
and your conscience. The government wants you to believe that the LGBT person
must be protected because they are too weak to do it themselves. – The
government wants you to believe that because non-LGBT persons could oppress an
LGBT person, then that non-LGBT person will oppress an LGBT person. Therefore,
non-LGBT persons are inherently evil and aggressive; and LGBT persons are
inherently weak and victimized. Therefore, the government must oppress non-LGBT
persons in order to bring them down to the level of LGBT persons.
The strategy of the regressive political philosophy is to
act in the name of “doing for the greater good.” In other words, the intent of
the regressive activist is all that matters. – In the SB-219 case, the intent
of the government was made crystal clear.
While the government claims to be acting in an
anti-discrimination capacity (a liberating ideal) they are in fact acting in a
highly discriminatory manner (an oppressive ideal). – In this case, the
government believes that outcomes (feelings) trump opportunities (behavior choices).
But, they have a dilemma: their beliefs do not match reality because individual
persons naturally make individual choices; thus, a spectrum of outcomes results.
Therefore, the government must declare that oppression exists and is a defacto
truth. In turn, the government feels justified in compelling a preferred
outcome: outlawing the offense, subduing known offenders, and coercing
potential offenders into submission. The end result is that government
oppresses everyone in the name of those deemed oppressed; and, because those
deemed oppressed receive unearned benefit from being “victimized” there is an incentive
to create more “oppression” (real or otherwise).
Night Watchmen – Raise the Alarm
Do not be deceived, SB-219 is an attempt by the California
political class to leverage a revolutionary social movement (the LGBT/LGBTQ
Movement) to secure more power onto themselves. As a result, the political
class is using government functions and institutions to enlarge, entrench, and
enrich itself while viewing citizens only as parts of tribes and voting blocs
resulting in diminished individual rights and freedoms.
PROTECT the Rights of All Americans
The Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land
(Constitution, Art-5, Para-2 & Art-7, Para-1). – In order to prevent
misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and
restrictive clauses should be added (Preamble, Bill of Rights): Congress shall
make no law abridging the freedom of speech (1A); Congress shall make no law
prohibiting the free exercise of religion (1A); Congress shall make no law
abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble (1A). – In all cases,
the Government is prohibited from taking action against the citizenry.
PROTECT Liberating Ideals
Liberalism seeks to actualize the harmony of interests among
individuals by insuring that the freedom of each is compatible with the freedom
of all.
PROTECT American Ideals
In a freedom-loving society of republican governance with
democratic processes, to realize harmony, each individual must be allowed to
follow his or her own preferences as long as they do not detract from another's
freedom. People thus need to cooperate by tolerating one another and forgoing
coercion and violence.
PROTECT Practical Logic
Just because an actor could do something, does NOT mean that
the actor actually did that something. – The position or prowess of the
government, however informed, does not make the government the defacto subject
matter expert. – If 23 specialized lobbies testify in support of government
reach, with 1 similarly specialized lobby in opposition, then the evidence is
stacked.
DENY Government Reach
Where in the Constitution does it authorize any State to
criminalize speech, religious expression, or association? – How was the power to
criminalize speech, religious expression, or association bestowed to the State
of California? – If this is adopted, then what is the remedy available to the
citizen for settling unjust losses or harms? – Explain why the need of any
State government to protect LGBT persons as a protected class supersedes the
need of the LGBT individual to do that for themselves?
RESIST the Nature of Governments
The fallacy of SB-219 is the assumption that the population
being “protected” is small and will remain small. This does not hold because when
the government subsidizes the solution to a problem (“protecting” an abused
minority), then more of that problem (the abused minority) will develop. The
nature of all governments is coercive; meaning, once power is secured, more
power is sought.
[1] Anders Hagstrom.
“California Could Start Jailing People Who Don’t Use Transgender Pronouns” The
Daily Caller. Posted 170825-1454
[2] SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair. 2017-2018 Regular
Session. SB 219 (Wiener). Version: April 6, 2017. Hearing Date: April 25, 2017
[3] SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair. 2017-2018 Regular
Session. SB 219 (Wiener). Version: April 6, 2017. Hearing Date: April 25, 2017
[4] SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair. 2017-2018 Regular
Session. SB 219 (Wiener). Version: April 6, 2017. Hearing Date: April 25, 2017
[5] SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair. 2017-2018 Regular
Session. SB 219 (Wiener). Version: April 6, 2017. Hearing Date: April 25, 2017
[6] SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair. 2017-2018 Regular
Session. SB 219 (Wiener). Version: April 6, 2017. Hearing Date: April 25, 2017
[7] SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair. 2017-2018 Regular Session.
SB 219 (Wiener). Version: April 6, 2017. Hearing Date: April 25, 2017
[8] SB 219.
Date of Hearing: July 11, 2017. ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY. Mark Stone,
Chair. SB 219 (Wiener) – As Amended July 5, 2017.
[9] SB 219.
Date of Hearing: July 11, 2017. ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY. Mark Stone,
Chair. SB 219 (Wiener) – As Amended July 5, 2017.
[10] SB 219.
Date of Hearing: July 11, 2017. ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY. Mark Stone,
Chair. SB 219 (Wiener) – As Amended July 5, 2017.
[11] SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair. 2017-2018 Regular
Session. SB 219 (Wiener). Version: April 6, 2017. Hearing Date: April 25, 2017
[12] Anders
Hagstrom. “California Could Start Jailing People Who Don’t Use Transgender
Pronouns” The Daily Caller. Posted 170825-1454
[13] Anders
Hagstrom. “California Could Start Jailing People Who Don’t Use Transgender
Pronouns” The Daily Caller. Posted 170825-1454
[14] SB 219.
Date of Hearing: July 11, 2017. ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY. Mark Stone,
Chair. SB 219 (Wiener) – As Amended July 5, 2017.
[15] Anders
Hagstrom. “California Could Start Jailing People Who Don’t Use Transgender
Pronouns” The Daily Caller. Posted 170825-1454
[16] http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/
(accessed 170827)
