Prof. Larry Bell’s Op-Ed In Offense Against the Progressive War On Patriotism‘ is a must-read.   Our free APPS on Apple, Android, or Alexa give you 24/7 access to the best talk radio in America on the iHeart Radio Network.   

November 29, 2021

November 29, 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
1 Comment
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Pat Frank
Pat Frank
1 month ago

Is there a time limit on transgender decisions? Suppose a biological woman is required to share a room with a male who identifies as a woman. Can the biological woman then decide to self-identify as a male? Can the newly minted ‘he’ then ask that the (biologically male) transgender woman be roomed elsewhere?

Once the transgender pseudo-she moves out, the biological woman can re-identify as female. A change of gender like a change of clothes. Why not? It appears the court has sanctioned it.

And if the court claims such decisions are whimsical, then how is anyone’s transgender decision to be differentiated? They’re all indistinguishable from whim (except for those who have locked in the change through surgery).

One could see residents creating havoc by switching their gender back and forth as need required, making large problems for care facilities. There’s plenty of entertainment value in the vision.

Some lawyer ought to get involved to facilitate this. Recruit some willing elders. A whole series of lawsuits to sustain defensive gender switching may earn a firm substantial income from court-mandated penalties.

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.

Reagan Warned America:  Freedom…One Generation Away From Extinction

Reagan Warned America: Freedom…One Generation Away From Extinction

Freedom of speech, press, and religion are all being suppressed in America today. A recent Gallup poll found that 57% of Americans support requiring proof of vaccination to board an airplane, and 55% for attending events like concerts, shows, or live sports. So it is not just governments that are coming for your liberty, it appears half of the American people are as well…

Biden’s $6 Trillion Pork Bomb Proves Pigs Can Fly

Biden’s $6 Trillion Pork Bomb Proves Pigs Can Fly

Whereas only two years ago, in 2019, federal debt held by the public as a share of GDP was 79.2%. In 2021 it is expected to reach 109%, higher than it was after World War II. Democrat-proposed entitlements for federal nanny state child care, paid family leave, free community college … and much more, bring new meaning to cradle-to-grave coverage. Children in cradles today will be stuck with paying off parents’ debts throughout their lives.

“The greatest fraud in Israeli history,” Bibi Netanyahu

“The greatest fraud in Israeli history,” Bibi Netanyahu

This is the most cobbled Israeli government ever in the last 73 years, whose primary purpose is to remove Bibi Netanyahu from office with the governance of the state being second because its members are comprised from the extreme Right to the extreme Left. Personally, I dare to forecast two to six months, if not less. If and when this will happen, Israel will have to go for another election, and most probably, Bibi will again be elected Prime Minister with a good majority…

Early Treatment, Immunity and Vaccine Safety: McCullough and Risch on Next Steps

Early Treatment, Immunity and Vaccine Safety: McCullough and Risch on Next Steps

Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Harvey Risch appear on The Ingraham Angle with strong support for early multidrug treatment for COVID-19 which reduces the spread of disease, hospitalization, and death. Dr. McCullough indicated this has giant implications for groups that are illegally mandating the vaccine in this age group where there is no possibility of benefit and only harm such as in these cases of myocarditis…

Test Results on Pfizer Vaccines Show 86% Adverse Effects for Kids

Test Results on Pfizer Vaccines Show 86% Adverse Effects for Kids

Looking at the data in Tables 5 and 6, we make an astonishing discovery. In the “safety” trials by Pfizer on children 12 to 15 years of age, which are supposedly the basis for securing FDA approval, the total adverse effects, mild to serious, were 86%. The Marxist media attempts to further the lies, like this report by CBS News: “Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine found safe and 100% effective in 12-to-15-year-olds.”

Your Freedom Can be Won Back at the End of a Hypodermic Needle

Your Freedom Can be Won Back at the End of a Hypodermic Needle

This sounds like a science fiction movie, but it is happening in real life before our very eyes. The line of truth appears to be the vaccine, who will succumb and take it, and who will not. The first wave of either intentional or accidental bioterrorism was with the COVID-19 respiratory illness. The second wave is more insidious and broadly applied to a population prepared by months of fear and isolation…

Mothers Against Experimental Vaccines

Mothers Against Experimental Vaccines

The Covid-19 vaccine has been the cause of more deaths than all vaccines in the 15 year period between 1997-2013 combined. In a four-month period, the experimental jab reported 3,362 deaths (averaging 30 deaths a day), and that’s only a fraction of what’s being reported. In just three days in 2021, more deaths were caused by…

Trading US Energy Independence for China Rare Earth Dependence Benefits Only Beijing

Trading US Energy Independence for China Rare Earth Dependence Benefits Only Beijing

Biden and his handlers have re-upped the U.S. in the Paris Climate Accord and called for slashing our greenhouse emissions by 50% or more by 2030 over the 2005 level, China, the largest CO2-emitter, gets a free pass to continue ramping up its coal development until 2030. We can also but imagine that Biden Family Inc. isn’t anxious to risk ugly Beijing extortion blowback regarding legendary foreign influence-peddling demons known to be residing in Hunter’s laptop from Hell…

Following the ‘Real Science’ of Medicine: McCullough and Risch

Following the ‘Real Science’ of Medicine: McCullough and Risch

Fauci has ties to the gain-of-function research that developed the dangerous Wuhan spike protein, which is the primary protein produced in the bodies of those who are seduced into vaccination with Pfizer, Moderna, and JNJ products. These vaccines have led to record-setting ~300,000 CDC-certified safety reports, including >5000 tragic and unnecessary American deaths…

The Mutiny of Medicine Is Almost Complete

The Mutiny of Medicine Is Almost Complete

Both the Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine faced severe criticism for publishing “controversial COVID-19 papers,” the controversy involving misinformation, fraud, and lack of scientific integrity. So harsh was the backlash that both journals retracted the articles. The Lancet also retracted a false study stating the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine was dangerous and of no benefit in treating COVID-19. Wrong!

Al Sisi’s Resurgent Egypt

Al Sisi’s Resurgent Egypt

It was al Sisi who mediated directly between Israel and Hamas because Egypt is the only Arab country adjoining and controlling the flow of life to Gaza, not Biden from 5900 miles away. To help the people of Gaza, al Sisi opened the crossings to allow urgent food and medical supplies to go through and allow the injured to be taken care of in Egyptian hospitals…

Who Pays for AOC’s ‘Abuela-Care?’

Who Pays for AOC’s ‘Abuela-Care?’

AOC blames others for her grandmother’s roof but does nothing herself. Matt Walsh does something himself. AOC wants taxpayer coercively funded government action. Matt Walsh took direct action with his own money. Which one is more compassionate? Which one cares more about family?

The War of the Red Dragon

The War of the Red Dragon

China believes in three forms of warfare: informational, economic, and kinetic (aka ‘guns blazing’). China determined that the United States would win a kinetic war, so while they saw war with the United States as necessary, they decided to use information warfare, and economic warfare, avoiding a kinetic war until China was in a position to win…

China’s Future in the Balance

China’s Future in the Balance

When we look at China today, the brutal purge and genocide of the Uyghurs, the persecution of the Falun Gong, the brutal suppression of the Chinese people throughout the COVID-19 crisis which the Chinese government itself caused, we should now understand that if Xi is willing to do this to his own people, what will he not be willing to do to us?

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. Please consider making a contribution in the fight for liberty!

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