State-sponsored anti-discriminatory discrimination? Way to fight “discriminatory” laws by discriminating against other states, California.

 

Image may be subject to copyright.When California deems other states’ laws as discriminatory, what do they do? They pass discriminatory laws to fight these discriminatory laws.

“Our country has made great strides in dismantling prejudicial laws that have deprived too many of our fellow Americans of their precious rights,” trumpets California Attorney General Xavier Becerra.

So in the spirit of prejudicial law dismantling, California has assembled a prejudicial law (AB 1887) that restricts state-funded travel to Tennessee, North Carolina, Mississippi, Kansas, Alabama, Kentucky, South Dakota and Texas.

“While the California DOJ works to protect the rights of all our people, discriminatory laws in any part of our country send all of us several steps back,” says Becerra. “That’s why when California said we would not tolerate discrimination against LGBTQ members of our community, we meant it.”

Make no mistake—California is committed to the intolerance of intolerance. Especially with beliefs they cannot tolerate.

It seems that California lawmakers considers any community in any state as their community and will not tolerate discrimination against any LGBTQ member in any community…because they’re part of California’s (global) LGBTQ community, you see. Wait…what?

We are the world. Or at least the nation. Or maybe just the state.

Which discriminatory laws of other states prompted heroic measures like AB 1887? Here’s one:

Mississippi’s “Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act” (House Bill 1523) prohibits the state from discriminating against churches and businesses that believe marriage should be between one man and one woman and who decline to provide services to facilitate same sex marriages because doing so would violate “a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction.”

Here’s another:

South Dakota’s Senate Bill 149 shields faith-based and private child placement agencies from state-sponsored discriminatory measures. This means that if these agencies refuse to provide any service, including adoption or foster care services, on the basis of their religious convictions, the state will not retaliate against them.

So rather than “opening the door to discrimination” as opponents claim, the bills actually close the door on state-sponsored discrimination against the free exercise of religion—in theses cases—the violation of religious entities sincerely held beliefs.

Chucking the discriminatory First Amendment

State retaliation against religious entities, which violates the First Amendment separation of church and state, is an unconstitutional practice California champions and demands that other states employ…or…dun dun DUN! They’ll wield the incredibly intimidating travel ban.

It seems that Texas and the other pariah states are shaking in their boots. Here’s a response from the Texas Governor’s office: “California may be able to stop their state employees, but they can’t stop all the businesses that are fleeing over taxation and regulation and relocating to Texas.”

Snark attacks and giggles aside, the crux of this debate is this:

California considers faith-based entities sincerely held beliefs concerning gender, marriage and sexuality backward and discriminatory. They will not tolerate discrimination in any form, but don’t seem to realize that using state power to discriminate against entities they deem discriminatory is a form of discrimination. And so is their silly travel ban.

Or worse—they know very well that they’re doing the very thing they decry, but justify it based on their sincerely held beliefs. Beliefs that run counter to theirs “send all of us several steps back,” as California Attorney General Xavier Becerra so sanctimoniously pronounced.

According to Becerra, California will not tolerate people being “deprived” of their “precious” rights—except those people whom California seeks to deprive of their constitutional religious liberty rights.

Dear Governor Brown and California lawmakers,

If your voters allow you to abuse the power of your state to discriminate against citizens and private businesses, that’s their failure. Why would you expect other states to believe as you do and jettison the constitutional separation of church and state? Do you truly believe that your beliefs about gender, marriage and sexuality trump others’ beliefs?

A travel ban? Really? AB 1887 makes you look arrogant, small-minded and silly. Sorry, but your bill is as impotent as it is self-important.

Here’s a time-tested truth: Your sincerely held beliefs about marriage and gender are the product of a relatively recent zeitgeist and are shared by a minority. Notwithstanding, the Constitution protects your right to hold them.

Vast majorities in societies worldwide for centuries have embraced sincerely held beliefs regarding marriage and gender. Don’t they deserve the same protection?

10 Replies to “State-sponsored anti-discriminatory discrimination? Way to fight “discriminatory” laws by discriminating against other states, California.”

  1. Uber, I seem to have upset you and I am sorry for that. Maybe I just don’t understand. Those states have made laws to separate a certain group from rights other citizens have. I thought we were to love our neighbor as ourself. I don’t happen to understand why that group is different than, let’s say adulterers or those who bare false witness. As matter of fact I would think in the case of adoption or foster care adulterers or liars would not be a good choice. Just my opinion.

    California, as an employer, has a right to do their business how they want.

    What I don’t understand is how any of this affects your personal relationship with God. You are still free to worship and believe as you wish. Others are still free to not believe as you do or not believe at all.

    You are still free to visit or live in any state you want to. You are even free to never say one good thing about California.

    If you think it is ok to just single out one certain group if you own a business why pick just homosexuals or same sex marriage? Adultery is mentioned over 80 times in the Bible. Someone must have thought that sin was pretty important.

    We can agree to disagree here.

    Peace Uber




    0



    0
    1. You didn’t upset me. I’m passionate about this issue. Sorry if my reply made you think I was upset. No worries. I’ll reply properly soon. More to come 🙂




      0



      0
    2. I’m still not upset, Joanne ;-). We just disagree. One thing I disagree with is your assessment that “those states have made laws to separate a certain group from rights other citizens have.” This seems like a talking point that requires a leap or two of logic. It is patently untrue.

      What rights have these laws separated anyone from? Is it anyone’s right to have a state force a religious entity or private business owner to service them? If I were a baker who’s a Christian, would it be a lack of love that compelled me to pass on baking a wedding cake for a same-sex couple? Is following one’s faith or belief in declining service unloving? Do liars and adulterers announce themselves as such and then ask bakers to make their wedding cakes? I agree with you about adulterers and liars not being good choices for adoption or foster care. That’s where references would come in handy. If an adulterous couple can’t provide good character references, this seems like solid grounds for rejection.

      I don’t begrudge California their right to do business as they want. It’s not about their silly travel ban. It’s about their arrogant, shortsighted attempts to interference and demonize with the ways other states’ do their business.

      Let’s say I ran a faith-based adoption agency and my biblical beliefs led me to reject a same-sex couple based on what I believe is common sense and what’s best for the child AND information that’s based on studies that overwhelmingly show that children do much better with a traditional father and mother. And let’s say the same-sex couple lodged a complaint with the California DOJ and filed a lawsuit against me, what would happen?

      The DOJ under Becerra would bring enormous pressure on my adoption agency and me. And let’s say they instructed other state agencies to revoke my license and began an investigation. I’d have to procure expensive legal counsel, deal with negative press and my business would be ruined. All because I tried to run my agency in a way that I believe is part of my worship of God and is according to my religious freedom and beliefs.

      How would my actions be an attack on others’ freedom to believe as they wish? It’s California that would be on the attack. If a couple came to me wanting to adopt and I knew about their habitual lying and/or adultery and knew they would make poor parents, I’d reject them in a heartbeat. A lack of character should be grounds for rejection for anyone seeking the adoption of a child.

      The truth is we discriminate every day based on morality. We do it as citizens and our local, state and federal governments do it. So do our courts.

      Discrimination is not always a bad thing even though our culture has turned it into a dirty word.

      Thanks for your comments.




      0



      0
      1. Uber,

        Well I am fine with agreeing to disagree with you on this one. If I am going to rank another’s sins I would be more upset with those that actually harm someone. I actualIy need to spend time on my own soul. I stumble, I fall, I get back up – now that I am months away from turning 70 it seems to take me longer to get back up. Growing old is quite humbling.

        I just read that Texas has the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world at 35.8 per 100,000 live births. California’s is 7 so if you are planning on having more children your wife should be ok. That is one plus for California isn’t it?

        Anyway, I hope you and your family are doing well. I am ready for the heat to ease off although today is a good one.

        Peace Uber




        0



        0
  2. Uber, Seriously?
    You are welcome to visit, enjoy or live in any state you want. Because the state put restrictions on where money is spent for state employees’ travel affects the rest of us in no way whatsoever. Do you work for the state? Every employee, if traveling on their employer’s dime, only goes where their employer wants to send them.

    This change does not affect any laws of those states. They are welcome to discriminate to their hearts’ desires, being on the righteous side of God and all. And here, I have always thought God was about love. Silly me.

    If you want church in your state government, California is probably not your happy space. Church in our government speaks more to discrimination than anything California has done. Our government forces us to endure those who claim to be Christians and brag about being Christians, lie, excuse lies, and repeat lies on a daily basis. As you can see I have a bias against liars. Isn’t it a sin to lie? Yes, politicians have always lied but it is like a cancer now oozing blackness. I am so afraid we will become so used to this putridness we will never recognize truth when we see it. With all the churches with so much power they certainly are not working for find the light. Maybe they have learned that darkness gives them more power and wealth.

    Speaking of your Texas, another of your Representatives made the news.




    1



    1
    1. Hi, Joanne

      I couldn’t care less about state employees traveling to other states on or off California’s dime. The mechanics of the travel ban don’t concern me in the least. The spirit of the travel ban and its discriminatory and arrogant nature is what I find troubling.

      Do you think God is merely love? If he created us, did he not design us according to his plan in terms of how we function? How we love and live and the choices we make? Is California welcome to discriminate as well as these other states?

      I don’t want church in my state or local or federal government. Nor do I want any form of government in my church. I don’t need a happy space because my happiness does not depend on where I live or in how I’m governed.

      Sinners lie. And I believe we’re all sinners. However, people in government who you say lie, excuse lies, repeat them, etc. are probably not Christians. Christ teaches that we can know his followers by their fruit (words and actions).

      If you’re looking for light in this present dark age, don’t look to politicians or televangelists. (I know you don’t. ;-)) Look to God’s humble servants who are living like Christ and following his words.

      Health, wealth and power do not make the Christian. Rather, they often unmake him or her. Acceptance of God’s love, obedience to his words and embracing and telling truth is what I strive for as a believer.

      And the truth and point of my post is this: Government in any form has no business discriminating against people or groups who refuse to provide services for same-sex weddings and adoptions or to participate in events or perform actions that violate what they believe runs counter to God’s plan.

      If a Christian baker declines to provide a cake for a same-sex wedding, that is his or her constitutional and First Amendment right. And more importantly, it’s his or her expression of obedience to God rather than a conforming to the spirit of this age. The same-sex couple has the right to take their business elsewhere. It’s a freedom and a function of the free market.

      Thanks for commenting, and it’s nice to hear from you.




      0



      0
      1. Uber, I am with you in everything you say about Christians – it is the path I try to follow. I stumble, I get up and keep trying. Do you ever get worn down by those who claim to be Christian and claim to live by Christian values and do not and have the power and wealth to hurt others?

        So your issue is that California is discriminating against states who discriminate? Do we go back to when signs were posted – like the past – marked bathrooms or businesses that used to say – no blacks allowed should now say – we do not serve blacks, homosexuals, or other people we deem as lesser or sinners – or maybe even – we don’t serve Christian who lie here or adulterers here or child abusers or rapists. There must be some better way to bridge this gap. I do not have answers – just questions.

        Peace Uber




        0



        0
        1. I get more worn down by people who seem to think they’ve cornered the market on compassion yet imprison people with soul-crushing government programs that keep them down while stripping them of their confidence and dignity. Instead of helping them make the most of life, they excuse and enable them with the dole, which deep down inside makes them feel worthless. We weren’t made to be coddled and complacent. And I’m not referring to mentally ill people.

          I don’t get worn down by fake Christians. God knows who are his children, so ultimately, no one will get away with faking it—or oppressing others by abusing their wealth and power. God is God, which means he’s perfect, powerful and good. I trust him to set things right.

          But speaking of the rich and powerful hurting others…how is it okay for elected California lawmakers to sic their justice department on people and private businesses and non-profits who simply refuse to provide services that violate their consciences and beliefs?

          Are you really comparing the Christian baker passing on providing a cake for a same-sex wedding to an abusive governmental and societal belief that blacks are inferior to whites and therefore must use segregated restrooms and can be refused service based on their color? Do you think private Christian business and faith-based entities refuse service because they think homosexuals are inferior? Really?

          How did passing on baking a cake based on a sincerely held faith belief become equal to a systematic and immoral discrimination and segregation based on race or sexuality?

          As a Christian who believes that God designed marriage for one man and one woman, I too would respectfully pass on baking a cake for a gay wedding. It would violate my beliefs and conscience. I would be contributing/participating/condoning something that I believe is wrong. Why should I be punished and discriminated against by a local, state or federal government for standing by my conscience and beliefs AND exercising my First Amendment freedom of religion?

          This is my only point of this post. I can’t understand how people approve of governmental abuse of power based on those in charge pushing their belief system on others. Namely, the California Attorney General forcing his belief that the new definition of marriage (foisted upon us by Supreme Court justices who conjured a constitutional right out of thin air) is progressive.

          And the arrogant notion that anyone who thinks the centuries-old definition of Biblical marriage is correct is backward, regressive and discriminatory and must be corrected by the force of law. AND that any state who thinks their government has no right to abuse their power is also backward and discriminatory and must be shamed with a silly travel ban.

          Do you see how discriminatory and arrogant the California Attorney General is based on his two quotes in my post? He and his cohorts show no respect for faith beliefs about gender, sexuality and marriage. And even less for those who embrace those beliefs. Worse, they’re willing to bring the power of the state to bear on those who don’t believe as they do. Shameful.




          2



          0
          1. Respectfully, we don’t live in a theocratic nation. We have laws that have a Christian tradition but we are NOT a Christian nation. The founders had opportunity to set up the United States as a Christian nation, they didn’t. That is what they fled. That supports your argument to keep the government out of your first amendment rights BUT it also supports the arguments of those who support gay marriage.

            Your core beliefs are that marriage is between one woman and one man. That’s fine. That’s not what was decided by several states AND The Supreme Court of the United States. Gay Marriage is legal. No one is forcing YOU to marry a gay couple. I am gay and a Christian. I have a difficult time with the cake baker situation. I would go find a baker within the gay community to bake my wedding cake. I don’t want to force someone to do it. The problem as Joanne did point out is the counters from the 1950s. Many folks used biblical passages to support their bigotry. We believe they were wrong, you believe they are wrong. How is this exclusion any different?

            You oppose government intervention, that’s a noble stand but sometimes the underdog does need help. A question- do you feel that way about the numerous freedom of religion laws making their way through state legislatures or Congress?

            I appreciate your desire to have dialogue. We are brothers who it appears fundamentally disagrees, but we will end up being next door neighbors in God’s Heaven.




            0



            0
          2. I would argue that we DO live in a pseudo theocratic nation. Its a religion practiced by progressives and based on political correctness and what I call the “Fairness Doctrine.” Its “crusade” is marked by state-sponsored anti-discriminatory discrimination and is spearheaded by states like California.

            Our laws are based on more than a Christian tradition; they’re based on Judeo-Christian theology and derive from God’s moral and ethical laws. The founders structured our nation on these laws and guidelines. And yes, many of the founders weren’t necessarily Christian, but they valued the order, rightness and morality of the Bible and Christianity enough to create a framework of rights and documents that reflect scripture’s guidelines.

            They fled? If you mean the pilgrims who sought freedom from state-controlled religion, I agree with you. Our founders came for opportunity, for freedom, for the promise of a better form of government. I don’t think “flee” or “fled” are accurate as to how our nation’s founders came to these shores.

            I don’t question the LEGALITY of same-sex marriage. I do question the convoluted manner in which the four liberal justices created a constitutional “right” where none exists. There is no constitutional right for any of us to marry anyone.

            You truly don’t see a difference between racism and freedom of religion? No difference between a Christian baker passing on baking a cake for a same-sex wedding and the baker putting up a sign, “White Customers Only”? If you don’t, I suspect nothing I write will change your mind.

            I haven’t read many of the freedom of religion laws, so I can’t give an educated opinion of them. However, any law that protects citizens—religious or secular—from states’ abuse of power seems to me like a step toward freedom—religious or otherwise.

            Thanks for engaging.




            0



            0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.