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
3 months 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.

Why Intelligence Agencies Thrive – Because They Hold Secrets

Why Intelligence Agencies Thrive – Because They Hold Secrets

The black book(s) of Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffery Epstein’s partner in predatory sex services for influential people in and out of government, are the gifts that keep on giving, exposing the sexual predators, pedophiles, and rapists in the seats of power who command our patronage and pass our laws. Epstein and Maxwell’s purpose was to use these names to blackmail important politicians for money and influence…

Antifa Extremists Working for the FBI

Antifa Extremists Working for the FBI

For the past year, the DHS and FBI have been releasing incremental bulletins and training manuals defining who domestic terrorists are. The documents’ written words cannot be misinterpreted: it’s the US. Literally, anyone who has complained about COVID restrictions, the 2020 elections, the presidential transition, and now CRT, is a domestic terrorist…

Common Sense Addressed to the Inhabitants of America

Common Sense Addressed to the Inhabitants of America

It is not just time to stop the Joe Biden Administration either, as with but a few exceptions the Republicans are not doing anything to try and save our country. We need to stop the Republicans too. Let me be very clear⏤I am condemning the entire Federal Government of the United States. I’m condemning both Democrats and Republicans – moderates and extremists. I’m condemning the whole damned thing…

Biden’s COVID Speech; 2020 or 2022?

Biden’s COVID Speech; 2020 or 2022?

The next three years scares the heck out of me because of the weak and pathetic person we have in the Oval Office right now. And unfortunately, the fact is that there is no one in the long line of the current presidential succession who can step forward to lead this country in the normal day-to-day governing, much less in an emergency…

Purging Patriots From the Military: The Proof

Purging Patriots From the Military: The Proof

Whistleblowers have confirmed that military commanders have punished unvaccinated soldiers with extra physical activities, shamed them with humiliating acts, and denied them medical treatment as a matter of “shadow” policy across several military installations in acts of coercion to get troops vaccinated. Truth for Health Foundation gives our military a platform to expose…

Claiming Necessity to Infringe on Your Rights

Claiming Necessity to Infringe on Your Rights

Like most Americans, I think operating a two-ton machine while impaired is dangerous and irresponsible. Does that mean it’s within the power of the federal government to impose their opinion of how best to deal with this problem on the American people? It’s not a question of whether the technology is good or bad or even if this is a viable method of reducing drunk driving…

Why Are Democrats Weaponizing 06 January? 

Why Are Democrats Weaponizing 06 January? 

The Deep State quakes in fear of the return of Donald Trump, so he must be destroyed. But, try as they might to do so, we see the Democrats face of Socialism revealed for the dangerous nonsense it really is as their facade of legitimacy, i.e., WOKE, CRT, defunding police, rising crime and murder rates in our Blue cities, etc., collapses around them in piles of…

Will China’s Dream of a World Empire Collapse Before it Begins?

Will China’s Dream of a World Empire Collapse Before it Begins?

Herein lies Xi Jinping’s greatest weakness. His hubris. Like many famous leaders before him, he has over-reached beyond his ability to control the outcome – in policy, in the building of his military, in his over-reach to control so many parts of the world, in the disregard of his own people, in the disrespect towards the other members of the CCP, and of his overall underestimation of the many enemies he…

Are the PCR Test Swabs Dangerous?

Are the PCR Test Swabs Dangerous?

Millions of people are tested daily, and this is part of a rush and panic to get massive testing done. I suppose rushing into anything in a panic is not a very sound principle. To underscore the seriousness of this potential problem, I’d like to provide the background of the researcher who tested the swabs for possible toxicity. Dr. Antonietta M Gatti, Ph.D., is a heavyweight…

Masking can’t hurt, Right? How about Experimental Vaccines?

Masking can’t hurt, Right? How about Experimental Vaccines?

Intuitively, our degree of compromise is directly proportional to the severity of “punishment” or reprisal we expect to receive if we opt to do the right, good, or even logical thing. That’s why so many people wear masks in public; not from conviction, but from fear of repercussions. Some of us have been conditioned to believe that all viruses are psychopathic killers. Not so. Many still believe the gene-manipulating shot is an experimental vaccine…

Follow the COVID Money Along With the ‘Science’

Follow the COVID Money Along With the ‘Science’

Fauci certainly wasn’t exhibiting an exemplary high standard of scientific integrity when he lied repeatedly to Congress last May that NIAID has “unequivocally” never funded gain-of-function research at the Chinese Wuhan laboratory. About $600,000 in NIH funding had been funneled to Wuhan through a New York-based nonprofit…

This Was No 9/11 or Pearl Harbor!

This Was No 9/11 or Pearl Harbor!

It’s pretty obvious that what the Democrats are up to is a blatant attempt to fire up their base for the 2022 midterm elections where Democrats are predicted to take a drubbing, and to gin up support for their unconstitutional attempts to change how Americans select their leaders by federalizing elections across the country…

No Surprise, Everyone is Getting COVID-19

No Surprise, Everyone is Getting COVID-19

Low rates of hospitalization and death are expected, particularly with early treatment. Most patients now get through the illness with simple over-the-counter measures and without the need for prescription medications or monoclonal antibodies. By now, everyone should know the most effective initial treatment to handle the rapidly replicating…

Institutionalized Racism Determines Who Lives and Who Dies in New York

Institutionalized Racism Determines Who Lives and Who Dies in New York

New York is now first in the country to prioritize race as it relates to fighting Covid-19. It seems crazy to even say in 2022 that the color of one’s skin might literally mean the difference between who lives and who dies, but it’s true. This can be seen in the document recently released by the New York State Department of Health which lays out a plan on how they will distribute Covid 19 treatments…

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!

Header

“My concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right.” - Abraham Lincoln

iHeartRadio

The APPS are free; the mission is priceless!

Free APP
Healthycell Telomere

Podcast Networks

Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
Pandora
Tunein
iHeart
Stitcher

Subscribe and Listen on Your Favorite APP

Our Columnists and Show Hosts

Truth For Health

Apple Podcasts

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