October 17, 2021

October 17, 2021

Your Source for Free Speech,
Talk Radio, Podcasts, and News.

First Amendment Challenge: Taking Offense v. State of California

by | Oct 11, 2021 |

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Justice is supposed to be blind. But what happens when certain groups are treated differently before the law? A recent case out of the Court of Appeals in California gives us an example of what happens when sexual opinion trumps facts and evidence. If those in the LGBT+ community are allowed to bully you into compliance, then they have truly earned the nickname “The Rainbow Mafia”. And with the assistance of the courts, they are making America an offer you can’t refuse. 

A recent case out of the Court of Appeals of the State of California brings up some interesting questions. First, does someone have the legal right to tell you how to refer to them? Second, does a mental disorder give someone the legal authority to infringe on the rights of others? The opinion, in this case, shows the irrationality of both the transgender activists and the judicial branch. Which leads me to another question: Is the mental confusion we call transgenderism contagious?

The case in question, Taking Offense v. State of California, stems from California Senate Bill 219 (2017-2018 Reg. Session), which added code to the states Health and Safety Code called the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Long-Term Care Facility ResidentsBill of Rights. Taking Offense challenged two provisions of this law:

1439.51.  (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), it shall be unlawful for a long-term care facility or facility staff to take any of the following actions wholly or partially on the basis of a persons actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status:

(3) Where rooms are assigned by gender, assigning, reassigning, or refusing to assign a room to a transgender resident other than in accordance with the transgender residents gender identity, unless at the transgender residents request.

(5) Willfully and repeatedly fail to use a residents preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns.

California Senate Bill 219

First heard in state Superior Court, the decision was appealed to the states Court of Appeals. The appeals court started with the First Amendment Challenge” in subsection 5.

First Amendment Challenge

Taking Offense listed four specific problems with the speech requirements of the law.

(1) a prior restraint on speech; (2) a violation of the freedom of thought, comparing transgender residents of long-term care facilities to kings and masters over the rest of the people” and employees of long-term care facilities to their virtual subjects and slaves”; (3) a violation of the freedom of conscience, religion and belief”; and (4) a violation of the right to free exercise of religion.

Taking Offense v. State of California

The court agreed that subsection 5 of the law is a content-based restriction on freedom of speech. The court went on to explain:

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states: Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . .” This fundamental right to free speech applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendments due process clause.

As Ive stated more times than I care to remember, this cannot be a First Amendment issue since Congress did not make this law. The legal fiction that the First Amendment applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendments Due Process Clause was made up out of thin air by the Supreme Court to federalize cases that the Constitution does not treat as federal issues. While this court focuses on the First Amendment, it does note that the protections of freedom of speech in California comes from the California Constitution.

Similarly, article I, section 2, subdivision (a) of the California Constitution provides: 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.” Article Is free speech clause enjoys existence and force independent of the First Amendment to the federal Constitution.

While we are free to speak, write, and publish on all subjects, what is stated in the California Constitution applies to the federal one as well: We are responsible for the abuse of this right. Often erroneously called the prohibition on yelling fire in a crowded theater”, we see this most often in libel, slander, and perjury laws. You cannot lie under oath or slander someone, then claim exemption from punishment because of free speech.

The State of California claims its compelling interest in preventing misgendering” is sufficient for them to regulate free speech. The court agrees:

We agree with the Attorney General that the state has a compelling interest in eliminating discrimination on the basis of sex. … The high court has recognized that discrimination on the basis of sex” includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status.

While the high court” may recognize that a persons belief is equivalent to the physical properties of sex, the Constitution of the United States does not. The Bostock v. Clayton County decision the court refers to is simply another example of the oligarchs on the Supreme Court placing their opinions above the supreme law of the land. Thankfully, in this case, government interest alone is not considered sufficient to infringe on your rights. The court found that alternatives to restricting speech showed that the governments case was insufficient to allow it to criminalize speech.

In regards to free speech though, we have a final question: Does the use of a pronoun other than the one preferred rise to a level of injury as to require state sanction? The court rightly found that it does not.

The pronoun provision at issue here tests the limits of the governments authority to restrict pure speech that, while potentially offensive or harassing to the listener, does not necessarily create a hostile environment. As the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized, “ ‘[w]here pure expression is involved,anti-discrimination law steers into the territory of the First Amendment.’ ”

WATCH THE VIDEO AND SUBSCRIBE ON RUMBLE

Equal Protection Challenge

Now lets take a look at the challenge to the room assignment requirements based on the Equal Protection Clause.

Taking Offense contends the room assignment provision violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution,8 article I, section 7 of the California Constitution, and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. It makes two implicit assumptions about the room assignment provision: (1) the provision requires a facility to accommodate a transgender residents request to be assigned to a room other than in accordance with the residents gender identity; and (2) a residents request to be assigned a room other than in accordance with the residents gender identity is equivalent to dictating the gender or gender identity of the residents roommate. Based on those assumptions, Taking Offense asserts the provision grants transgender residents special rights” to choose whether to be assigned a roommate according to the transgender persons gender identity or the persons assigned sex at birth, while failing to recognize the same right of non-transgender residents. We disagree.

The question at hand is if Californias room assignment provision of SB 219 unlawfully requires people to be treated differently under the law. A quick look at the language should make this perfectly obvious since the roommate request of two residents are treated differently depending on whether one of them claims to be transgendered”.

Consider this example: In any room sharing situation, there are at least two people who will be sharing a room. If the room assignments are made according to sex, then the facility has a physical basis for making those assignments. However, if the room assignments are made based on gender identity”, the decision is made based on an arbitrary decision of only one of the residents. Now consider the situation where a woman is required to share a room with a man because he claims he is a woman. Not only is the roommate request of only one of the residents considered, but only the transgendered” person is allowed to make such a request. This is not to be done based on a physical or medical condition, or even based on a legal relationship between the residents, but solely on the subjective assertion of one of the residents. Sounds pretty unequal to me. Apparently though, this obvious discriminatory practice is not so obvious to the court.

The equal protection clause requires the state to treat all persons similarly situated alike or, conversely, to avoid all classifications that are arbitrary or irrational” and those that reflect “ ‘a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group.

Arent two or more residents in a long-term care facility who will be sharing a room similarly situated”? Is the determination of sexual orientation” arbitrary or irrational? Does the denial of the right to request a roommate of a specific sex to anyone not currently identifying with a group currently politically favored in California, show a desire to harm a politically unpopular group”? I would say the answer to all three questions is yes. Apparently, this is too difficult for the members of the court to understand.

This provision creates a general rule and an exception to the rule. The general rule makes it unlawful for a long-term care facility or facility staff to assign, reassign, or refuse to assign a room to a transgender resident other than in accordance with the residents gender identity. This requirement provides no special rights to transgender residents; rather, it only clarifies that gender-based room assignment decisions involving transgender residents must be made according to the residents gender identity rather than their biological sex at birth.

According to the members of the court, the fact that only the transgendered” resident gets to decide the sex of their roommate does not make that a special right. However, I must ask if what they want or desire rises to unequal treatment in this courts eyes? Not only do they not see the unequal treatment of forcing a female resident to live with a male resident against her will, but the gross abuse of her rights? Somehow, I think only a lawyer or a judge could be so deluded. Perhaps we should not be surprised that this opinion came out of California. Based on other recent cases, I fear this elevation of a mental disorder above the supreme law of the land will be with us for quite some time.

So in this split decision”, we have one part which follows the law and protects the legitimate rights of everyone, while the other only cares about a politically favored group. Apparently, justice is not so blind as one would assume from looking at her statue.

While staff at long-term facilities in California will not be forced to keep a running track of who wants to be called what, the residents there are being forced to bow to the god of transgenderism”. It seems weve thrown reason, logic, and evidence out the window when a man can claim to be a woman or vice versa, and everyone is expected to act as if it were true. If a man with this disorder wants to share a room with a woman, I dont think the state should be involved. That means the state should not deny the request, but neither should it force a woman to comply against her will.

This opinion not only elevates those who suffer from the transgender” disorder, but it also dehumanizes the vast majority of people who do not. In California, if you are not transgendered,” you are a second-class citizen and your rights only matter if the transgendered” allow it. This disease is spreading across the nation. Are you prepared to defend yourself, your rights, and those of your family, against these attacks?

Paul Engel

Author and speaker Paul Engel has spent more than 20 years studying and teaching about both the Bible and the U.S. Constitution. That experience helps Paul explain difficult concepts in a way most people can understand. As one manager described, “Paul can take the most complex idea and explain it in a way my grandmother can understand.” Freely admitting that he “learned more about our Constitution from School House Rock (a Saturday morning cartoon) than in 12 years of school,” he says that anyone can be a constitutional scholar. Since 2014 I have been helping everyday Americans read and study the Constitution of their country and teaching the rising generation to be free. Using news and current events as a springboard, I explain the Constitution and encourage others to stand up and secure the blessings of liberty for themselves, their children, and the nation.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Use Promo Code VOICE To Get 10% Off Your COVID CON Registration, in-person & virtual.

COVID CON '21

Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is for educational, general information, and entertainment purposes only and is never intended to constitute medical or legal advice or to replace the personalized care of a primary care practitioner or legal expert.

While we endeavor to keep this information up to date and correct, the information provided by America Out Loud, its website(s), and any properties (including its radio shows and podcasts) makes no representations, or warranties of any kind, expressed, or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability with respect to its website(s) or the information, products, services or related graphics and images contained on the website(s) for any purpose.

The opinions expressed on the website(s), and the opinions expressed on the radio shows and podcasts, are the opinions of the show hosts and do not necessarily represent the opinions, beliefs, or policies of anyone or any entity we may endorse. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

At no time, nor in any event, will we be liable for any loss, or damage, including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss of data or profits arising out of, in an association of, or connection with the use of this website.

Through this website, users can link to other websites that may be listed. Those websites are not under the control of America Out Loud or its brands. We have no control over the nature, content, or availability of those sites. America Out Loud has no control over what the sites do with the information they collect. The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation, nor does it endorse the views expressed with or by them.

Every effort is made to keep the website up and running smoothly. However, America Out Loud takes no responsibility for, nor are we, and will not be liable for being temporarily unavailable due to technical difficulties beyond our control. America Out Loud does not sell, trade, nor market email addresses or other personal data.

Use the code ‘OUTLOUD’ and receive your 20% discount on your first order.

Rosh Hashanah is a Time to Remember Tradition

Rosh Hashanah is a Time to Remember Tradition

The Jews fearful of Moses’ demise abandoned G-d and made false idols aka the golden calf and began worshiping the golden calf. When Moses returned with the Ten Commandments, G-d told Moses the people must pay for their sins of worshiping a false idol. So for forty more years, the Jews were forced to roam the desert…

Strength Forged Through Sacrifice – America Remembers

Strength Forged Through Sacrifice – America Remembers

Like the phoenix rising from the ashes, three warships were constructed and emerged from the very materials of the buildings, and civilians attacked on sovereign territory the morning of September 11, 2001. Through the years, the transformation of steel and grit, reformed and reshaped into the three Navy warships, serving as a symbol of…

We Need Complete Transparency in Data on the Need for COVID Booster Shots

We Need Complete Transparency in Data on the Need for COVID Booster Shots

“It’s very risky to issue a booster without the proper scientific understanding of the virus and its variants,” says Dr. Li-Meng Yan. The lack of data concerning vaccine safety, as well as its efficacy against the ever-emerging variants, could lead to serious consequences with this booster. Americans are asking questions and demanding answers before considering a shot that can change their lives…

The Collusion of Big Biz and Big Pharma’s Experimental Vaccine

The Collusion of Big Biz and Big Pharma’s Experimental Vaccine

Regarding the FDA’s fastest in history fake FDA vax approval, do you really think amoral, money-grubbing big biz/big tech didn’t collude with the revolving door FDA/Big Pharma camora? The average time it takes to get an approval of a new medicine with the FDA is 12 years… but of course here, with corruptocrats like Bill Gates funding the scam, it got through in a jiffy…

COVID Q & A with Dr. Peter McCullough, Part 2

COVID Q & A with Dr. Peter McCullough, Part 2

People are relying on what were once very reliable health agencies, and even more so their doctors in the medical community who have also fallen victim to the campaign of untruths. Life and death decisions are being made on faulty agenda-driven soundbites from people who have not a clue of what is going on…

Your News is Being Weaponized for Political Purposes

Your News is Being Weaponized for Political Purposes

Today’s left and right live in completely separate universes, with exposure to completely different sets of information – all of it biased. The current state of American ‘news’ would be funny were it not such a serious problem. It is time for the American public to realize that we have no news, and are completely blind in terms of what is actually going on in the world…

RINOs and America Firsters Wage War over GOP Control

RINOs and America Firsters Wage War over GOP Control

RINOs want to do what RINOs do best: avoid conflict, cower, surrender, and attack fellow Patriots at the expense of the Party. America has only one option to win this war against Communism that we are perilously close to losing. It’s time to stand up and fight. If RINOs can’t stomach the final battle America Firsters are about to wage, the RNC will have a choice to make…

The AMA’s Misinformation Media Campaign on Ivermectin is Harming Americans

The AMA’s Misinformation Media Campaign on Ivermectin is Harming Americans

After Dr. McCullough’s public statement with Dan Ball, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons came out with a letter directly to the American Medical Association calling out their irresponsible statements to Americans. The AMA does not produce evidence reviews of guidelines panels, and thus is far beyond the guardrails of their mission in trying to…

Header

Your Source for Free Speech, Talk Radio, Podcasts, and News.

Here we take on the challenges of our generation so that we can preserve future generations.

Help Support Our Mission

iHeartRadio

The APPS are free; the mission is priceless!

Free APP

Podcast Networks

Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
Pandora
Tunein
iHeart
Stitcher

Subscribe and Listen on Your Favorite APP

Our Columnists and Show Hosts

COVID Solution Summit

Apple Podcasts

Evacuating Americans & fully-vetted Afghan's at Risk - Help Us!

Apple Podcasts

Empowering and mentoring conservative trailblazers from Generation Z to win!

Apple Podcasts

Turning Point Action is Recruiting Precinct Chairs - Become a Grassroots Warrior Today!

Apple Podcasts

URGENT - KEEP NINE
Please join us to protect the Supreme Court:
Sign the Petition!

Apple Podcasts

The LATINO USA EXIT from the Democrat Party, click for details...

Apple Podcasts

Fighting corporate censorship and ensuring voter integrity...

Apple Podcasts

Support wounded and fallen police officers. The Wounded Blue.

Wounded Blue
Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap