California Can Now Jail People for Misusing Gender Pronouns

California gender pronounsCalifornia can now start jailing people that refuse to use the preferred gender pronouns of nursing home residents after Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown signed the bill Thursday.

The law’s effect is limited to nursing homes and other long-term care facilities, but mandates that those who “willfully and repeatedly” refuse “to use a transgender resident’s preferred name or pronouns” can be slapped with a $1,000 fine and up to one year in prison, according to the California Health and Safety Code.

Known as the “LGBT Senior Bill Of Rights,” the legislation also requires nursing homes and care facilities to allow residents to use the bathroom of their choice, regardless of biological sex. The bill’s author, state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, argues that religious views don’t hold weight in public areas.

“Everyone is entitled to their religious view,” Wiener said. “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.”

Wiener also released a statement thanking Brown for signing the bill.

“Our LGBT seniors built the modern LGBT community and led the fight for so many of the rights our community takes for granted today. It is our duty to make sure they can age with the dignity and respect they deserve,” Wiener wrote. “I want to thank Governor Brown for joining our coalition in supporting this bill, which will make a real difference in people’s lives. The LGBT Senior Bill of Rights is an important step in our fight to ensure all people are treated equally regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email [email protected].

From - The Daily Signal - by Anders Hagstrom

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter
and Download the AMAC News App

Sign Up Today Download

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!

Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Arnreich
4 years ago

Any law that forces people against their personal choices, is counter to freedom of expression and choice. I therefor think such are illegal.

5 years ago

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. Thomas Jefferson.

5 years ago

It will end up in the supreme court and they will lose to the first amendment .

Ivan Berry
5 years ago
Reply to  Joe

Joe, the VIth Article of the Constitution states, ” This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Nowhere in the Constitution does it include rulings of the supreme Court as the supreme Law. Should the Justicies take on this issue (original jurisdiction when a State is a party–see: Art. III, Sec.2), their obligation would be to determine Rights based on those alluded to in the IXth Amendment and not specified. This would involve determining whose rights were to prevail.
So far as deciding whether California’s Law is actually Lawful, I would rely on the 1st Amendment, the 9th and 10th and the concept of freedom of assembly, whereby we get to choose with whom we will associate. But as things have gone in this lost Republic, some inferior Court, like Circuit, Appellate, or District Court will likely get involved and the rights of the people to decide with whom they will share toilets, showers, how they will be addressed, etc. will be given to the Rulers of that State.
The proper solution would be a Referendum of the voting public. You know, that old Community Standards concept. This issue does not fall within the powers and duties of the general government, but should be resolved at the State level.
But we all know, the publics’ votes have been ignored in past refereda in that not-so-great State.

5 years ago
Reply to  Ivan Berry

I doubt this issue will ever get to the Supreme Court. For one thing, the Supreme Court would likely refuse to hear the case, since the law is currently limited to only one state: California. Unlike the transgender bathroom issue that came out under the Obama administration from Washington, which involved creating a new, nation-wide standard with the threat of withholding federal funds as a stick to force compliance, this is state law. Thus any legal challenge could only go up as far as the California State Supreme Court. Not even the notoriously liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals would get involved, as has nothing to do with federal law or federal action. Given how the California State Supreme Court has a history of upholding “progressive’ legislation and even over-ruling referendums the public has voted on in order to promote more progressive values, no one in California should expect relief from that court.

This is simply an example of what happens when the legal residents of a state allow the total control of that state government to be dominated by one party that has a history of repeatedly pushing the state farther and farther to the left. Eventually you end up with these kinds of politically correct and oppressive laws being enacted. This actually kind of reminds me of some of the anti-hate speech laws that have been enacted in western European countries over the last decade. Hate speech over there is defined as anything either critical of the government or not conforming to the accepted ideals being prmoted by the government pr its officials as “the correct attutude to have” concerning a number of things. They also carry fines and jail time as well for violations. The EU courts over there have all ruled that this is perfectly legal. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Democrats decided this was something they should try to adopt in California as a test for how much, if any resistance, the general public displays to it.

Ivan Berry
5 years ago
Reply to  PaulE

You may be right about the inferior Courts avoiding the law as it is State generated. However it goes it will probably stick.
Your ref to the EU and hate speech laws was a good example of how central progressives operate both here and also there.

5 years ago

We are all Americans first, but Californians keep putting these idiots back in power. Problem is then they flee their stupidity! Move some where else to change it to mirror where they fled from. And then the cycle repeats it self.

Bob N
5 years ago
Reply to  Wylie

Send all the idiots west of the Mississippi River back to California and all those east of the Mississippi River to New York and keep them there. That way the rest of the country can run right. A man is a man, a woman is a woman and that is what facility they should use. Marriage is between a man and a woman and a pediphile belongs in prison.

5 years ago

LGBT which means what? … Liberal Garbage Before Thinking? … CaliMexico is now going back to the Dark Ages where Lords and Queens decide what’s best for everyone such as: “Off with their heads!” … and they dare to call this “Progressive”??? … Even Karl Marx is rolling over in his grave!

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x