California Bill Would Criminalize Skilled Nursing Workers Who ‘Repeatedly, Willfully’ Fail to Use Preferred Pronouns

Photo Credit: Ginny Austin

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A proposed bill in California is raising concern as it would criminalize skilled nursing workers who “repeatedly and willfully” fail to use the preferred to pronoun for patients who identify as transgender or don’t allow them to use their desired restroom “regardless of whether the resident is making a gender transition or appears to be gender-nonconforming.”

S.B. 219, also known as the “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Long-Term Care Facility Resident’s Bill of Rights,” was written by Sen. Scott Wiener in an effort to combat perceived discrimination against homosexuals and transgenders in long-term care facilities.

He cites a 2011 study in which 43 percent of those questioned stated that they had personally experienced discrimination or witnessed a homosexual or transgender person being mistreated, including being verbally or physically harassed, denied recognition of the medical power of attorney of their significant other, or not being called by the person’s preferred name or pronoun.

Therefore, the proposed law would prohibit skilled nursing employees from “refusing to assign a room to a transgender resident other than in accordance with the transgender resident’s gender identity,” “prohibit[ing] a resident from using … a restroom available to other persons of the same gender identity,” “deny[ing] a resident the right to wear or be dressed in clothing, accessories, or cosmetics that are permitted for any other resident,” and “willfully and repeatedly fail[ing] to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns,” among other aspects.

The bill has been met with opposition, including from the California Family Council, which testified against the measure in the Assembly Judiciary Committee in July.

“How can you believe in free speech, but think the government can compel people to use certain pronouns when talking to others?” Greg Burt, the director of capitol engagement, asked. “This is not tolerance. This is not love. This is not mutual respect. True tolerance tolerates people with different views.”

“People have sincerely-held religious views about about gender that are not based on malice or hatred. But this bill seeks to make their view of gender illegal,” he lamented. “Compelled speech is not free speech. Can the government compel a newspaper to use certain pronouns that aren’t even in the dictionary? Of course not. What is coming next?”

  • Connect with Christian News

But according to the California Family Council, Wiener outlined during the same hearing that if the bill becomes law, people of faith still must follow the requirement.

“The argument that religious views can create an exemption for civil rights laws or complying with civil rights laws is a highly radical notion,” he stated. “Everyone is entitled to their religious view, 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.”

Elliot Kaufman of the National Review decried this viewpoint in a Aug. 25 op-ed, writing, “This is essentially the French view, known as laïcité. Wiener will let you be a Jew or Christian in your own home, but as soon as you step out, you ‘enter in the public space’—and there, he believes, there can be no Jews or Christians, only loyal servants of the state. [God’s] Law may flourish in private, but in public it must bow before the law.”

“This misunderstands religion, or more precisely, it redefines religion,” he continued. “The Christian faith, after all, is not merely one part of a man’s life. It cannot be compartmentalized and set aside from nine to five, or in public locations, as secularists wish. Nor does the ‘free exercise of religion’ in the Bill of Rights recognize a right to pray on Sundays; rather, it protects the right to practice a faith that is central to every part of life.”

Burt notes that the legislation attaches itself to existing penalties under section 1569 of the California Health and Safety Code, which include a fine of up to $1,000 or jail time of up to one year, or both.

The bill has already passed the Assembly Committee unanimously and is being considered in the Senate.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • RWH

    If you want to make friends and remain friends, you address that person the way that s/he wants to be addressed. To do anything else is to antagonize the individual. When you work at a job, you follow the rules. If you have a problem, you find another job. You don’t go about creating a hostile workplace, or in this case, a living space, for another individual just because you think it is your God-given right to verbally assault others under cover of the Bible. In my state, assault includes verbally harassing others; it does not need to be physical. Most workplaces today include Title IX training and monitoring for compliance, if the company accepts federal or state funding.

    • bowie1

      Verbally Assault is a bit of an extreme description I would think. Perhaps using dear or honey might not be welcomed.

      • RWH

        The rules at most places are pretty strict. If a member of my staff addresses someone in a way that makes the person uncomfortable, that person is creating a hostile environment. If I look the other way and do nothing when my employee calls people anything but what they prefer, my head will roll as well. In my place of work, people have been demoted or terminated because they created a hostile work environment. In this case, someone calls a patient by a term that makes them ill at ease, the powers that be will consider that bullying. The last thing that management wants is for someone to call the Labor Relations Board. They also don’t like it when someone files a grievance or an official complaint. My state makes a distinction between verbal assault and physical assault. Verbal assault can get an employee put on notice or even fired if the situation persists.

        • bowie1

          My mother is in a nursing home so I understand all should be treated with respect. When it comes to helping with lunch only a family member is allowed to do so. We are not allowed to help others because of liability insurance restrictions no matter how compassionate we might carry it out.

      • meamsane

        Not a bit, a-lot.

    • bwgirl

      When a mental patient continues to proclaim he is from Mars…are we to call him a Martian or help him face reality so that he can be a productive member of society???

      Now, the mentally ill will claim abuse when confronted with the reality that there are no martians on the earth. Should we then fire the mental health professionals that try to work with the person to except reality instead of the delusion the person has chosen to escape reality??

      If on the other hand, those that work in the mental health profession, go along with the mentally ill and call him a martian, then we would also call those that align themselves with that delusion, mentally ill and unfit for their professed medical practice!

      • RWH

        We are not talking about the mentally ill. They require love and concern in ways different than love and concern we give to the elderly. The cardinal rule is that you address people the way that they prefer to be addressed. If you find some sort of religious excuse to antagonize people by addressing them (or referring to them) in ways that they do not wish to be addressed, be prepared to be disciplined and possibly dismissed. It’s common decency.

        • bwgirl

          Oh, yes we are! They sure are NOT well adjusted. They are mal-adjusted.

          Just because people believed the earth was flat, didn’t change the fact that it is indeed round!

          • RWH

            You are free to hold your personal beliefs. However, if you work for a company that has a policy dictating that you address people by their preferred pronoun, you follow that policy. You tell your supervisor that you are refusing because you feel that people are not well adjusted, plan on getting fired that very day. Deliberately antagonizing people constitutes a hostile work environment, and no court will side with you.

    • Brand New Key

      What is your preference?
      Mr.?
      Ms?

      • RWH

        Why is this important and relevant to this conversation other than to start a fight?

    • Reason0verhate

      If I had a friend who believed he was the opposite sex, or suffered from some other delusion, then the loving thing to do would be to bring him back to reality. That’s what love is about.

      If he proved to be so attached to his delusion that he wished to end the friendship, I would say “Good riddance.” I was not put here on earth to be the enabler for psychotics. Historically, people have attempted to cure the insane and bring them back to reality. Now we get called “bigots” for doing so.

      It is NO loss at all to have a crazy person end a friendship.

  • Amos Moses – He>i

    this is CRIMINALIZATION of FREE SPEECH …………..

    • RWH

      The problem is that anyone who takes a job does give up First Amendment rights. One cannot simply get up and take a break at will. Certain times are designated. Rules control speech and confidentiality. Rules prohibit people from playing a radio loudly or smoking in one’s station. Some prohibit food or drink at the work station. They control the titles that people may use. And if the rules state that one must address an individual by his/preferred name and sexual designation, you do it if you want to keep your job. All sorts of rights are subordinated. Companies may choose to work with individuals, but some jobs require people to work on Sunday mornings. If an individual cannot abide, s/he needs to find a job where one can have weekends off.

    • TheKingOfRhye

      “homomarriage wont affect anybody”

      What does this story have to do with homosexual marriage?

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        this is a direct consequence ….. lgbTq has always been part of this malarchy …. and now we see how it is going to play out ….. criminalization of PRONOUNS because peoples “FEELINGS” are more important than the truth ….. but then peoples “FEELINGS”, especially HOMOMARRIAGE people, have always been more important than THE TRUTH …….

        • TheKingOfRhye

          “this is a direct consequence”

          No, it’s not. Transgender people exist, have existed, and will exist. So, people will have to occasionally deal with them, regardless of whether same-sex marriage happens or not.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            HOMOMARRIAGE was the demarcation point from REALITY …..it is a DIRECT results of that ABANDONMENT of truth ……….. the rest of your comment is off topic ………. makes no difference if they “exist” or not …… CRIMINALIZATION of FREE SPEECH and PRONOUNS is …………..

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “HOMOMARRIAGE was the demarcation point from REALITY”

            No. Same-sex marriage, whether you like it or not, is a reality. It exists. You’re the one “off topic” for bringing it up in the first place.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “No. Same-sex marriage, whether you like it or not, is a reality.”

            Freedom of Speech ….. IS A REALITY and it is BEING THREATENED …………

            THE DYNAMIC RELATIONSHIP
            BETWEEN FREEDOM OF SPEECH
            AND EQUALITY
            TIMOTHY ZICK*
            ABSTRACT
            This Article examines the dynamic intersection between freedom of
            speech and equal protection, with a particular focus on the race and
            LGBT equality movements. Unlike other works on expression and/or
            equality, the Article emphasizes the relational and bi-directional
            connections between freedom of speech and equal protection. Freedom
            of speech has played a critical role in terms of advancing constitutional
            equality. However, with regard to both race and LGBT equality, free
            speech rights also failed in important respects to facilitate equality claims
            and movements. Advocacy and agitation on behalf of equality rights
            have also left indelible positive and negative marks on free speech
            doctrines, principles, and rights. The free speech-equality relationship
            underscores several important lessons regarding reliance on speech
            rights to advance constitutional equality. Moreover, through a
            comparative analysis, the Article demonstrates that freedom of speech
            intersects in distinctive ways with different types of equalities. The
            Article’s general lessons and comparative observations carry important
            implications for future equality movements, including the current
            campaign for transgender equality.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Hmm…..okay, and so what? I wouldn’t really deny anything that person said. Maybe the thing you’re missing is that freedom of speech is not and never has been some sort of “absolute right”. In other words, freedom of speech never meant you can say whatever the heck you want and never face any consequences whatsoever. If that were the case, no one could ever be sued for libel or slander, and we’d never be able to have any laws against “hate speech” or anything like that. Or, hey, look at it this way maybe: If freedom of speech was really absolute, then there could never be any laws against ANY sort of pornography, no matter how obscene anyone thinks it is. Is that the way you want things to be?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “Maybe the thing you’re missing is that freedom of speech is not and never has been some sort of “absolute right”.”

            maybe what you are not getting is that freedom of speech as you describe ….. DOES NOT INCLUDE PRONOUNS applied outside of logic and reason of the ENGLISH language …. and it is not a matter of law to fine someone for the MISUSE, intentional or otherwise, of said PRONOUNS …….. or else there IS NO FREE SPEECH and there is only some stupid idea of mentally ill gender politics that trumps all speech as a means of mind control ….. and it is directly related to the insanity that is HOMOMARRIAGE …………..

          • brucewang

            This might seem like an obvious question, but if you’re opposed to homosexual marriage, how about if you just don’t get married to someone of the same gender? Problem solved. Worry about yourself and let other people make their own decisions.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            how about that IS A FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT and a STRAWMAN …… and NO it does not “solve the problem” ……….

          • brucewang

            Why? What is it about your faith that you think gives you the right to control the lives of other people?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            what is it about your faith that makes YOU think YOU have that right ….. to destroy society and language and marriage and free speech and destroy your life and others lives …… because THAT is what you are doing and advocating for ………………

          • brucewang

            I don’t have a faith, and I leave people alone to live their lives. They have the right to do that.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you live by MORE FAITH than any christian …. and … it is BLIND FAITH …………

          • brucewang

            Now you’re just being willfully obtuse. I DEFY you to come up with one SINGLE thing I believe in that’s “blind faith”. That’s the OPPOSITE of what I choose to believe.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            hmmmmmmm ….. ummmmm …. lets see ….. hmmmmm ………..

            SCIENCE …………

          • brucewang

            No, because it’s not faith when it’s something that’s been tested and proven to be true.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            YUUUUPPPP …. because YOU have NEVER confirmed by TESTING ANYTHING from science …. or precious little ….. so it is almost ALL FAITH ……… you read a paper or a study ….. AND THAT IS ALL YOU DID ….. and you ACCEPTED IT …… without any confirmation of your own …….. FAITH ……….. and BLIND FAITH at that …………

          • brucewang

            If it’s in a scientific journal and is not in disputed by anyone in the science field, it’s not faith. It’s accepting facts.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            see ………….. BLIND FAITH …………..

          • brucewang

            Scientific journal = not blind faith.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            believing the words of another without VERIFYING those words ….. = …… BLIND FAITH …….

          • brucewang

            So then you are an expert on brain surgery, quantum mechanics, rocket science? You understand all those things perfectly?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            neither of us do …. i do not make any such claim …. you on the other hand think that you can by reading a paper ……. and i actually know a few brain surgeons ….. and they do not rely on what YOU are relying on …………

          • brucewang

            All I rely on is what has been proven to be true, and I don’t need to be a nuclear scientist as long as the other nuclear scientists are on
            board with it. That’s not blind faith, and that’s what you are claiming
            blind faith is. Blind faith is putting your faith in something that no one knows and has never been proven. As you do.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you have NO WAY to know if it is true or not … proven or not …… as you lack the knowledge to do so ………. you lack truth ……….you rely on your BLIND FAITH and that is all you have …..

          • brucewang

            I have books, knowledge, data, information, tests, papers, and studies, all of which qualify as truth and all of which do NOT qualify as blind faith. You are WRONG.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            and again … ALL of that is accepted … BY YOU ….. as BLIND FAITH …….

          • brucewang

            Accepted by me as I accept all science. No blind faith involved, I base my decision on the fact that the proof is tested and legitimate.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you have no way of determining if it is TRUTH as you REJECT truth and TRUTH is the measure of the science ….. not science the measure of truth ……….

          • brucewang

            I never said anything about rejecting truth. You are the one SAYING I said it, but I didn’t. What I reject is faith. Truth comes out in proof and testing.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope …. your statements reveal that you do not know the truth … because you reject the truth … truth is a person and you reject that person ……..

          • brucewang

            You are in no position to judge, as you don’t even understand what dictionary does.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person’s choice to deny reality, as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth”

            you do not know truth … you are in denial ……..

          • brucewang

            You are the voice of denialism. You deny authoritative sources such as journals and libraries because you say to believe such things is blind faith. You even reject the dictionary. You can’t deny these things, you’ve said them all.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            A peer-reviewed journal said it, I have no reason to doubt it, that settles it ….. Unless new evidence becomes available.

            With science all things are somewhat probable.

            TBBT explains how nothing exploded and random chance created EVERYTHING ….. including YOU …. and then rocks became animate ……….

            you accept science … and in all probability …. you have never personally confirmed even one tenth of what you believe science is ….. BLIND FAITH ……… and that one tenth is a GENEROUS estimation ……..

          • brucewang

            So what I have is tested and accepted science. And you call that blind faith.
            What you have is…blind faith in a 2000 year old book, and you mock ME?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            no …….. YOU tested NOTHING ………… YOU accepted ………. ON FAITH …. and BLIND faith at that ……………

          • brucewang

            I didn’t have to test, other people did it for me. And that isn’t blind faith. Blind faith is what you have.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            again ….. BLIND FAITH ……….

          • brucewang

            The material is contained in universities and libraries. That’s the opposite of “blind”. It’s a very sad person that goes through life denying what’s been shown and proven to be true.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            believing the words of another without VERIFYING those words ….. = …… BLIND FAITH ……. and YOU have NEVER verified even 1 % of ANY of it ….. BLIND FAITH ……….

          • brucewang

            I don’t need to read a manual on how a fire truck works to know that it works. Not blind faith. Do you go through life disbelieving everything you can’t explain? How’s that working out for you?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you do not know how quantum physics works and you are taking anothers word BLINDLY that they DO ……….. and you have no means whatsoever of verifying it as true ….. nor have you ever, in all probability, done so …….and that is FAITH ….. and BLIND FAITH at that ……. when ones knows the truth ……. one then knows what to believe and what NOT to believe …. as TRUTH is the MEASURE of all else ……….. and it is knowable without any other thing …….

          • brucewang

            If it was one single person’s idea on quantum physics, then I wouldn’t follow it. I follow it only when the proofs have all been satisfied by experts in that field. Once again, that isn’t blind faith, because authoritative voices on the subject have been proven correct.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you still have no idea if it is true or not …. you BLINDLY ACCEPT through FAITH …….. and you have no means to verify EVEN BY READING their studies as you are not a, most likely, a quantum physicist ….. and you would have to be to even understand if what they were saying is true or not …….. nope …. your only “understanding” is “A peer-reviewed journal said it, I have no reason to doubt it, that settles it ….. Unless new evidence becomes available.” …….. BLIND FAITH …………

          • brucewang

            I don’t blindly accept through faith. I knowingly accept through science. I don’t accept it because a peer-reviewed journal said it…I accept it because the journal has been thoroughly tested and found to be accurate. Which is NOT “blind faith”.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you knowing WORSHIP science with BLIND FAITH ……… and you REJECT TRUTH and you do not know the truth ………..

          • brucewang

            If it’s worship, tell me who I’m supposedly worshiping. Tell me where I worship and what my prayers are. Since you claim to know so much about me, even though I’ve told you several times now that I don’t worship anyone or anything. And you keep insisting I do.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            mostly … as i have said … you worship a false idol of science and YOURSELF ……….. you do not have to go anywhere to do this ….. and you do it continually …. where ever you are ….

          • brucewang

            I worship nothing. I accept what has been demonstrated and proven to be true. It’s just as simple as that. There is no ulterior motive. And don’t tell me I’m lying, because I’m not.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “I accept it because the journal has been thoroughly tested and found to be accurate. ”

            see …. right there …. the “journal” …. TESTED NOTHING …….. “whether a paper should be published is little better than you’d expect by chance.”

            The Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine

            Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
            Richard Smith

            “Probably the systems of every journal and every grant giving body are different in at least some detail; and some systems are very different. There may even be some journals using the following classic system. The editor looks at the title of the paper and sends it to two friends whom the editor thinks know something about the subject. If both advise publication the editor sends it to the printers. If both advise against publication the editor rejects the paper. If the reviewers disagree the editor sends it to a third reviewer and does whatever he or she advises. This pastiche—which is not far from systems I have seen used—is little better than tossing a coin, because the level of agreement between reviewers on whether a paper should be published is little better than you’d expect by chance.”

            further ……..

            “….. Robbie Fox, the great 20th century editor of the Lancet, who was no admirer of peer review, wondered whether anybody would notice if he were to swap the piles marked `publish’ and `reject’. He also joked that the Lancet had a system of throwing a pile of papers down the stairs and publishing those that reached the bottom. When I was editor of the BMJ I was challenged by two of the cleverest researchers in Britain to publish an issue of the journal comprised only of papers that had failed peer review and see if anybody noticed. I wrote back `How do you know I haven’t already done it?’

          • brucewang

            In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person’s choice to deny reality, as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth. Denialism is an essentially irrational action that withholds the validation of a historical experience or event, by the person refusing to accept an empirically verifiable reality. In the sciences, denialism is the rejection of basic facts and concepts that are undisputed, well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a subject, in favor of radical and controversial ideas.

            Religious beliefs may prompt an individual to deny the validity of the scientific theory of evolution. Evolution is still considered an undisputed fact within the scientific community and in academia, where the level of support for evolution is essentially universal, yet this view is often met with opposition by biblical literalists. The alternative view is often presented as a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis’s creation myth. Many fundamentalist Christians teach creationism as if it were fact under the banners of creation science and intelligent design. Beliefs that typically coincide with creationism include the belief in the global flood myth, geocentrism, and the belief that the Earth is only 6,000-10,000 years old. These beliefs are viewed as pseudoscience in the scientific community and are widely regarded as erroneous.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person’s choice to deny reality, as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth”

            you should take that to heart as you deny God and His existence ……….

          • brucewang

            Prove it to me first. Then I will change my mind.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            prove what to you ……. you do not WANT it proven …. you will deny any proof … as you already do ….. in your denial …… in your rebellion … rebellion cares not about “proof” … it cares about its rebellion ……..

          • brucewang

            If there’s a God, why wouldn’t I want to know about it? What do you think I would fear about it? The point is, you haven’t got PROOF.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “If there’s a God, why wouldn’t I want to know about it?”

            the biggest reason of all ….. for you ….. if it was ever “proven” to you …… then you would be REQUIRED to change what you are ….. and that is not in your selfish self interest ….. it is not in your nature ………

          • brucewang

            So you are an expert at predicting the future too, on top of everything else? Wow.

            No, you’re copping out. Prove there’s a God first, then we’ll talk.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            i made no prediction of any future event ….. do you REALLY want to know what the proof is ….. i mean …. DO YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW ……… because you are not going to like the answer …………

          • brucewang

            Yes, tell me.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you are here arguing …. you are arguing about a thing you say does not exist ….. and IF you truly believed that … you would not have spent the last three days arguing about it ….. here is the thing ….. YOU KNOW He exists ….. or you would not be arguing against it …….. the MERE FACT that you want to argue about it is proof beyond any other evidence …. that YOU ALREADY ACCEPT IT ….. or you would not be arguing about it …….. you would go on your merry way and not give it another thought ……….. and it would not matter to you even one little bit ……..

            BUT YOU KNOW IT ……… and you know you know it ….. so you argue to convince …. not me …. but YOURSELF …………….

          • brucewang

            I know God exists or I would not be arguing against it? Of course I would, because I DON’T believe God exists. If I believed in God, I’d settle down and never discuss it with anyone.

            I mentioned the Ham/Nye debate earlier. This is the single greatest takeaway from that debate: When both were asked what would make them change their minds, here’s how they responded:

            Ken Ham: “Nothing.”
            Bill Nye: “Evidence.”

            So there you have it, one mind as welded shut as your own, and another one who is reasonable enough to make the one request that is necessary.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            if he does not exist …. then walk away and do not think about it …………. what does it matter ……… the proof is you want to argue …. and you KNOW He exists …….

          • brucewang

            The issue is blind faith. You don’t know what it is. If you did, you’re realized that your own entire argument is based on it. And mine, which relies only on things we know to be true, is NOT blind faith. And you keep screaming “BLIND FAITH BLIND FAITH BLIND FAITH” at me like a gleeful child, when your facts are entirely backwards.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope … the issue is does God exist …. and you asked for proof …. and the proof is you want to argue to convince yourself He does not ….. when you KNOW He does ……..

          • brucewang

            No, is “proof” yet another word you don’t understand? Proof is showing that there is a God. Showing that God exists. You can’t do that. But don’t feel bad, because no one in history so far has been able to either. No one expected you NOT to fail.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope … again …. you want to argue about something you say does not exist …. if it does not exist …. then walk away …. it means nothing to you ….. quit pretending it does and walk away ………… YOU CANNOT …. because …… YOU KNOW HE EXISTS …………

          • brucewang

            No, Amos. You don’t know me, and you don’t know my thoughts. You need to accept that there are people in this world who don’t believe in a God simply because they don’t believe in a God. You don’t know better than they do. You aren’t them. You are only you. I refuse to “walk away” when people such as yourself are misrepresenting my beliefs as badly as you are. I don’t believe that there is a God, and certainly not the one you believe in.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            i know what you are doing right now ….. you are arguing to convince yourself of His nonexistence …. because you are not going to change my mind …. you need to convince yourself of that lie ……….

          • brucewang

            Is this really the reputation you want to have, Amos, being the guy who won’t listen to what other people think because he thinks he knows better than THEY do when they think?

            You can make statements like that about yourself, and yourself only. You cannot read minds. If you can you can, you are deluded.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you are the one establishing a reputation here ….. less than 200 comments ….. yeah ….. you just got here …. i have been here ….. you have well established what you think … and you are unable to stand up to the scrutiny …. you can belly ache all you want about God not existing ……… you are only trying to convince yourself of that lie ……….

          • brucewang

            I hadn’t planned to be here for 200 comments, I was passing through, but you’ve said so many unbelievably incredibly bizarre things that I’m still not sure that you’re not putting me on. You’ve shown callous disregard for word definitions, and you’ve claimed to be a mind reader of every atheist that has ever lived and claim you know better than they do what they believe. You think nothing of calling other Christians false when they worship using the exact same Bible you do. You scream BLIND FAITH at me at every opportunity when I’m merely consulting authoritative reference materials and in the meantime you are more guilty than anyone else of blind faith. I just can’t believe the words I’m reading from you. I’m not entirely certain you’re really serious.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            and yet that is what you are doing …. i have no concerns about my reputation … it is already WELL established ….. nor do i give one wit about what anyone thinks of it …….

          • brucewang

            It’s well established all right. You have one zealotish fan, this Checkmate person who never says anything, just mindlessly upvotes you, and you use the same exact arguments against everyone else who is trying to get you to see reason.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            boring ….. you have no reason … or logic … or science ….. or anything else …..

          • brucewang

            Right, except that I do. And all your blind faith is all you’ve got.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            except that you do not …..

          • brucewang

            You’re right, except for all the libraries and universities and schools and mountains of books of proof. You know, all the things you call “lies” despite the fact that they’re iron clad facts and have been for centuries.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored as not relevant to any claim you have made ……….

          • brucewang

            It’s not me making the claims. They were made by others and proven ages ago. You keep wanting to make this a blind faith issue and continue to try even after you’ve been shown over and over why you can’t. This CAN’T be enjoyable for you.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you keep claiming science that you accept without any proof of your personal knowledge it is true ….. that is blind faith ……….. and your continued argumentation is proof you know and accept God exists ….. but you are trying very hard to suppress that truth …. you are trying to hold that beach ball of truth under the water …. and you are struggling to suppress that beach ball of truth under the water and expending great effort to deny that truth …. but it keeps popping up …. and reminding you that He exists ….. but i am uncomfortable …. i expend no effort …. you do …..

          • brucewang

            I don’t need to be the one to obtain proof from it. That’s been done already by people with far greater qualifications than me. You seem to think that because I’m not in Einstein’s face challenging him about the theory of relativity, that I’m “blindly” following it. Well, no, it doesn’t work that way. Just like when I’m asking you for proof of God, I don’t necessarily want YOUR proof, I’m asking you to provide ANYBODY’s. All you have are people’s personal testimonies and statements of faith. NO ONE you can mention has proof of it, and saying that Jesus came to them at 3 am in a glowing vision isn’t proof.

            The mountains and walls of texts and the universities and libraries and halls of knowledge I’m talking about are chock full of PROOF. Do I understand how it works? In most cases, no, but I know that others have sufficiently tested them to know they are accurate. That isn’t blind faith, by the way.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “I don’t need to be the one to obtain proof from it”

            yes … you actually do ….. or else it is just BLIND FAITH on which you accept it ……….

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Blind faith can be practiced by anyone including atheists. Blind faith occurs when someone puts their faith into something without any evidence.

            Atheists have blind faith in naturalism, abiogenesis and the multiverse as well as several other hypothesizes which are evidenceless.

          • WalterRiley

            He GAVE you the evidence, you bonehead. It’s not blind faith when science has proven it.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope …. He accepts that supposed proof WITHOUT QUESTIONING it …. and that is BLIND FAITH ………. and your epithet is noted as a TOS VIOLATION ………

          • WalterRiley

            We don’t need to question it if it’s been proven, you utter DORK. That’s what science IS. That’s what science DOES. When you trust the mechanic to fix your car it’s not “blind faith”. The mechanic is using science. Are you related to that Oboehner twit? He says similar things.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            yes you do …. or it is just taking anothers word for it … and that is blind faith …… and the simple FACT is …. most of it is never proven ….. peer review is not proof …… your car and accepting a published paper on face value is not even close to the samething ……..

          • brucewang

            Obviously you cut and pasted that from somewhere because it doesn’t have trails of periods after every sentence. No matter though, your definition here is quite correct. Only problem is, it says “without any evidence”. And we DO have evidence, so what was the point of posting this quote?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            yup …. SO WHAT ……….

          • brucewang

            I repeat: We DO have evidence, so what was the point of posting this quote?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            your first point … it was cut and pasted … again ….. SO WHAT ……….

          • brucewang

            Normally people who do that cite their sources. Otherwise it looks like you’re passing it off as your own “wisdom”.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            again ….. you know it was not mine for the reasons stated …….. again …. SO WHAT ………

          • brucewang

            There is a little thing called plagiarism, that’s all. I thought you might like to steer clear of it.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            well i do not know who wrote it …. and you know it is not mine …. so no “plagiarism” …. but fine …. it was written by “anonymous” ……….

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you have evidence that God does not exist ….. sure you do ….

          • brucewang

            Which God are you talking about?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you made the claim … and you do not know which one you were talking about …. ok … sure ……. whatever ……….

          • brucewang

            Easy enough for me. I dismiss all of them. What about you? Clearly you dismiss all of them too. Except for one.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “Easy enough for me. I dismiss all of them.”

            okay …. SO WHAT …………

          • brucewang

            All right, well, you dismiss them all except for one. So that means we mostly agree. Tell me what your proof is for your God, which is to say, the God of the Bible, and not Odin.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            my proof is He has revealed it to me …. and you will not believe it until He reveals it to you …. and He may never do so …. has nothing to do with me … AND …. it has nothing to do with you ……. it ALL has to do with Him ….. and His desire to do so ….. or not …….. but the reason you will not accept any evidence and deny His existence is that He has not reveal it to you ……..

          • brucewang

            Ah, your proof was a personal revelation to you that you can’t prove to anyone else. And God chose you rather than the other way around. Very convenient.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope ….. it is REVEALED on a person by person basis ….. as ALL truth is revealed …. “And God chose you rather than the other way around” … God chose everyone that belongs to Him …. and there are those that will never be chosen …. from the foundation of the world …. even before time was created ………

          • brucewang

            So God chose his enemies too, then.
            I really must ask you, what is your denomination? I would bet a large amount of money that it’s “non-denominational”…because it sure sounds to me like you’re making up the rules as you go along.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            YUP …… Reformed Church of America ……. the rules are SCRIPTURE …. and it is PLAINLY WRITTEN there ………..

          • brucewang

            Yeah, as opposed to every other Christian Church in American whom you deem “false”.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            blah, blah, woof, woof …. an A-theist thinks he knows what a christian is ………

          • brucewang

            Yes, because I know Christians. And because I own a dictionary.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            and AGAIN ……. the dictionary is just another “man made and man written book of rules” ….. is that not the standard YOU APPLY to scripture ….. and YOU DO NOT accept it from scripture ….. but now you want to change the standard because WHAT ………..

            you have no consistency to your worldview …… you cannot tell truth from lie as you reject truth and you believe a lie ….. because that is your default setting …….

          • brucewang

            Men wrote the Bible, too. Just man-made words. And who else do you expect to write the dictionary, considering HUMAN BEINGS are the ones who will be bound to it? You seem to think the Bible is in competition with the dictionary. They have entirely different and separate purposes.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope … but that is YOUR STANDARD ….. and you do not apply it CONSISTENTLY ……….

          • brucewang

            Neither do you.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            i absolutely am consistent in my application of my beliefs ….. Gods word, scripture, is above all others ….. including the dictionary …. and the English dictionary …. was first compiled FROM SCRIPTURE ….. by a CHRISTIAN ……….. and men have altered and corrupted it …. because that is the historical evidence …. and scripture has NOT been corrupted …. as attested to by the historical evidence ………..

          • brucewang

            You have only one interpretation of scripture. Other Christians who outnumber you in such huge proportions you couldn’t being to imagine it have many others. The odds yours is the right one are probably six billion to one. Based on the things I read from you, I don’t think you’re in much danger of being right.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            your first error …. is that there are numerous ways to “interpret” scripture …. there is not …. there is Gods way …. there is Christs way who is that God …. and any other way is wrong …..

          • brucewang

            Great, so which of the 6 billion ways people interpret it is God’s way? Were you blessed with the insight to know that?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            we are all blessed with scripture …. Gods word … that you reject ……….

          • brucewang

            More tap dancing. You still refuse to say why you are right and the other Christians are wrong. Same book. Different interpretation.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            i am not right .. God is right …… i just agree with Him …….. and you are wrong …. as you reject God and the truth ….

          • brucewang

            You and every other Christian who disagrees with you. You’re not going to win this one unless you get more in line with your fellow Christians.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored ………..

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            its not mine …. it is Gods ……. second error …. and if the others are in error …. then they are in error ……….

          • brucewang

            Of COURSE it’s God’s, you’re just tap dancing. That’s like me asking you a math question and asking which of three answers is right, and you answering “the correct one”. What makes you think you read things the way God does?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            an accountant walks into an office for an interview ….. the interviewer gives him a page of numbers from a ledger and asks him to give the correct answer …. and the accountant asks .. “what do you want the answer to be” …………..

            “What makes you think you read things the way God does?”

            wrong question ……….. but that is similar to the question asked in the Garden ….. “did God REALLY say that” ………. so i get where you are coming from …. not that it is any surprise ..

          • brucewang

            Still dodging. You claim to follow God 100%. Another Christian also claims to follow God 100%. Yet you believe different things. How do you know which of you is right? Answer: You don’t.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored …………………….

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            no … you do not have any evidence for MUCH of what you have claimed as science …… especially that God does not exist ………

          • brucewang

            We have talked about that, that’s your inability to understand burden of proof again. It’s up to you to prove God, not for me to disprove God. As we saw when I asked you to replace “God” in your statement with “pink unicorn”.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope .,.. you made a CLAIM …. and you CANT BACK IT UP ….. and it is not my “misunderstanding” …. that is your fallacious “logic” …… because you wrote a check your mouth cannot cash ………..

          • brucewang

            Burden of proof is on you, Amos. Try seeing how well that floats when you try it outside of a forum like this one. If I say God doesn’t exist, it’s in response to you saying God exists. You make the claim. You are the one who has to back it up.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            your claim … your burden ………..

          • brucewang

            The claim’s yours. You’re assuming God, and making God a foregone conclusion. God isn’t a foregone conclusion. If you want to get over the bump in the conversation that we can’t get past, simply prove the God you’re talking about. And please be clear, because I would like to know how you’re proving the God of the Bible and DISPROVING Odin and Thor at the same time. Surely this is no match for your superior intellect.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope ….. all the evidence points to God and a creation … evidence you deny and do not accept ….. your counter claim is He does not exist and when queried you said science ….. your burden …….. so put up or take a hike mike …………

          • brucewang

            If all the evidence points to God, it should be easy for you to present some.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you deny any evidence ….. so it is not easy … for you to admit your error ….

          • brucewang

            Your only attempt at giving me evidence so far is to tell me that I’m really a believer in God when I’m not. That was an outright failure, so maybe you’d like to try again.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            no …. i said you KNOW He exists …. not the same thing ………….. and your continued argumentation is proof that you KNOW ….. but you deny the knowledge ….

          • brucewang

            My continued argumentation is because you’re wrong. You can’t read minds and it’s dishonest for you to pretend that you can.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you have no opportunity to convince me you are right …. and the only one being convinced … the only one that wants convincing ….. IS YOU ……….. that God does not exist ….. but every post you make says YOU ALREADY KNOW HE DOES ………

          • brucewang

            Convince you? Amos, if you don’t even believe the dictionary is right about things, what hope has ANYONE got of convincing you of ANYTHING?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            the dictionary is just another “man made and man written book of rules” ….. is that not the standard YOU APPLY to scripture ….. and YOU DO NOT accept it from scripture ….. but now you want to change the standard because WHAT ………..

            you have no consistency to your worldview …… you cannot tell truth from lie as you reject truth and you believe a lie ….. because that is your default setting ………

          • brucewang

            My worldview is straight as an arrow and very easy to understand. I just don’t succumb to faiths that try to disguise hate and intolerance as “love”.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            your worldview cannot account for morality ……… as an a-theist you have no justification to declare anything wrong or evil …… it is just your personal opinion ………. and it is only your opinion it is hate or love ….. you have no basis to make such a claim ….. in science ….. IT IS ALL RELATIVE …………….

          • brucewang

            There is no such thing as an a-theist. And if being a Christian meant I was told I had to hate people for no reason other than this book says so, I’d run the other way.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you run inspite of the fact it does not say that ………. so you are a liar ………. so enjoy your marathon ……..

          • brucewang

            You’re not kidding it doesn’t say that. But to watch how you observe the words of it, there’s a torrential amount of bigotry going on. Perhaps that’s because you’re misunderstanding what it REALLY says.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            the bigotry is from your ignorance of Gods word and His law …………

          • brucewang

            The bigotry is treating people like freaks when Jesus ate with lepers.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Jesus ate with SINNERS ……… Jesus did NOT condone their behavior by eating with them ….. BTW ….. WE ARE ALL SINNERS … so if He did not eat with sinners …. He would never have eaten with anyone ….. and just because he ate with them …. does not make them right with Jesus ………..

          • brucewang

            And you think Jesus would have spoken about homosexuals the way you do?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            and which way is that …. that homo-mirage is a lie …. YUP …. which way is it that you find “objectionable” ……….

          • brucewang

            Mind your own business, Amos. Let people love who they fall in love with. They have the right to live lives free of your religion.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            it is not love … and they are not leaving us alone as they foist their lies on everyone else and want to force them to accept the lies …….. maybe you should take your own advice ….

          • brucewang

            It’s love, and not your place to comment. Leave them alone. They have the right to NOT be the brand of Christian you are.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            if you are going to make a claim like that on a public forum … then yes i do have a place to comment …….

          • brucewang

            And you will always encounter opposition.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored …………

          • brucewang

            Not ignoring. Running away.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored

          • brucewang

            It seems to me last time you posted a string of “ignored” messages they were all deleted and you were pushed that much closer to a permanent ban. What can I say? Keep it up.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored …………

          • Spot on assessment. I’ve noticed the same thing.

            The hypocrisy is tangible. But, God is forever faithful and NOT mocked.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            amen ……..

          • Lee Cumbie

            I wanted to inject some argument into this argument.
            There is a mathematical model essentially proving that gender sexuality is a social construct. There are very specific biological effects from DNA gender (XY) and it is unclear if anyone actually has effects opposed to their DNA gender. If so , it is an exceedingly small percentage.
            In summary, the bell curve demonstrates a tremendous variance in the expression of biological sex with the diversity inversely proportional to the population, i.e. the less ‘typical’ you are, the fewer of you there are.
            In this respect, there will be very ‘male’ looking females and vice versa that would be physically appealing to males in the 1% who find male features attractive; and vice-versa.
            The real issue is whether we view this as being ‘unique’, a positive attibution, or ‘abnormal’, a negative one. The same people who claim to laud diversity are those who blunt it with gender sexuality norming.
            If we view it as a positive, then more effort would be made, for instance, to find males with gynecomastia as potential partners for females who find breasts attractive. It really comes down to the target population of people who possess the features a ‘unique’ person finds attractive. It is going to be much smaller and thus more difficult to find a desired opposite sex mate whereas there is a much larger population in the same sex population. Since most people want sexual companionship and follow the path of least resistance, a choice to act in a homosexual manner occurs while it is obvious that a potential heterosexual match is out there, if they could find it.

          • Bob Johnson

            If you are referring to the work of Michel Foucault, you are misrepresenting his work.

          • Lee Cumbie

            No, I’m not referring to Foucault.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            What Has God Done For Me?

            youtube;com/watch?v=g_TEKKPu_B8

            change the ; to a .

          • brucewang

            Is that supposed to be humorous?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            if you need a couple of bucks to buy a sense of humor i will give it to you ………..

          • brucewang

            All that is is the Argument from Incredulity fallacy.

          • BaronSamedi

            A referendum in 2001 in which 85% of the Dutch population agreed with government legislation re. S-SM.

            The 2013 Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act in Britain.

            A legislation-deciding referendum in Ireland legalising S-SM

            Obergefell vs. Hodges in the US.

            Kim Il-Davis. Fundie Christian bakers in Northern Ireland losing their appeal last year: thus they are now legally forced to serve couples who just happen to be of the same gender.

            Romans 13:1-5.

            Welcome to Planet Reality, A-MESS.

            If thine eye offends thee, Amess: because all you have is Blind FAIL.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            criminalization of free speech is against the first amendment ….. FAIL ……….

          • ppp777

            ” Proven to be true ” , that is an assumption on your part and is not based on reality .

          • TheKingOfRhye

            It’s not a matter of blind faith to NOT believe in something. Why is that so hard to understand?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            not what is being discussed …. FAIL ………….

          • TheKingOfRhye

            It is what is being discussed, by me, now.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            have fun then ……….

          • Cady555

            Society seems pretty much unaffected by gay people getting civil legal recognition of loving relationships.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            then you are blinded by the lie ………

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “maybe what you are not getting is that freedom of speech as you describe ….. DOES NOT INCLUDE PRONOUNS applied outside of logic and reason of the ENGLISH language”

            No, I just think your logic and reason is faulty.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            men are men NOT women …. women are women NOT men …….. pretty LOGICAL AND REASONABLE ……….. and the PRONOUNS are also ….. and your PERSONAL FEELINGS about them …. DO NOT alter that reality one IOTA …………..

          • Garbage Adams

            Can you explain what you mean by “pronouns applied outside of logic and reason of the English language”?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            again …… men are men NOT women …. women are women NOT men …….. pretty LOGICAL AND REASONABLE ……….. and the PRONOUNS are also ….. and your PERSONAL FEELINGS about them …. DO NOT alter that reality even one IOTA …………….

          • ppp777

            Having sex with young children , murder , rape is a reality , what is your point ?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            What’s your point? Do you really equate same-sex marriage with child abuse, rape and murder?

          • ppp777

            Yes I certainly do , they are all evils and all [ as I said ] , reality .

          • ppp777

            A reprobate will always answer the way you do , yes I do equate it with those things .

    • brucewang

      Other people have told you this already, but I’m going to add my voice to the growing choir – this story has ZERO to do with homosexuality OR homosexual marriage. It refers to transgenders and how they are appropriately addressed.

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        and you think YOUR “telling me” ….. is going to ALTER THE REALITY ………… get a grip ……..

        • brucewang

          The reality is homosexuality is one thing and pedophilia is another. That’s not even up for debate. That’s a simple fact. And the definitions of both words makes that fact very clear.

  • bowie1

    I wonder if Yvette Falarca would consider this “preferred pronouns” fascist. I wonder how many variations there are on Mr., Mrs., Ms, or Miss.

    • meamsane

      I would say If the Government compels certain types of speech it favors under threat of law, then yes, it is fascist, considering the definition thereof. And of course, completely contrary to our First Amendment! The Fascists are revealing themselves!

      • Bob Johnson

        This law only covers workplace rules for how a business and its employees deal with clients of the organization. There are many such non-discrimination laws placed on businesses. You are still going to be free to stand out front on the sidewalk and call people names as you wish.

        • meamsane

          Strawman!

  • Reason2012

    Adults continue to permanently turn away from homosexuality, even after decades of believing the lie they were “born that way”, proving it’s not genetic, but the product of indoctrination, confusion, mental instability and/or abuse.

    Homosexual behavior is most literally pointed out as a sin, and God has not changed on that regard. But if a person has those inclinations but does not act upon them, does not dwell in lust upon others, but is instead struggling against them to avoid them, then it’s not a sin. It’s just like sinful inclinations of any kind: it’s acting upon it when it becomes a sin.

    And this is what God says about sin and specifically the behavior of homosexuality:

    Romans 1:26-27 ”For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their_lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

    1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ”Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [men who willingly take on the part of a “woman” with another man], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [s odomites], (10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

    1 Timothy 1:9-10 ”Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, (10) For_whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind [s odomites], for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;”

    Jude 1:7 ”Even as_Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

    Luke 17:29 ”[Jesus said] But the same day that Lot went out of_Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.”

    Matthew 19:4-6 ”And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

    Jesus made it quite clear God made us male and female so that a man will leave his father and mother (not two fathers, not three mothers and so on) and cleave onto his wife (not his husband and so on).

    The Word of God rebukes us all – even if we all try to say we don’t believe the Bible, the very Word of God will be our judge when we face Him. And God is a righteous judge and will judge us all – not turn a blind eye to our sin. Do not be deceived by the world: it’s God we will have to convince that His word was a lie, not men. What happened in Noah’s day when the entire world rejected God? Did God spare them because there were so many? No – they all perished except for Noah and his family!

    Proverbs 9:10 ”The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.”

    God spared not His chosen people – we are kidding ourselves if we think He will spare the United States of America if we choose to blatantly turn away from Him.

    Jeremiah 12:17 ”But if they will not obey, I will utterly pluck up and destroy that nation, saith the LORD.”

    Luke 17:28-30 “So also as it was in the days of Lot: they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; (29) but the day Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from the heaven and destroyed them all. (30) Even so it shall be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.”

    Romans 1:18-32 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold [suppress] the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

    For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

    Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

    For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

    And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, m urder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

    The entire Bible points out men having_sex with men is an abomination. Likewise woman having_sex with women. It’s not just Paul that pointed it out.

    Genesis 19:4-13 “But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of S odom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them [men wanting to have_sex with men].

    And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing [he offers his daughters to be_raped to keep them from having_sex with another man – shows_rape is not the issue but male on male_sex]; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

    And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.

    And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place: For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.”

    These two messengers were sent to destroy that place before the event where they tried to_rape these messengers.

    Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

    Leviticus 20:13 “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination …”

    Even cross-dressing is an abomination:

    Deuteronomy 22:5 “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

    Deuteronomy 23:17 “There shall be no_whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a s odomite of the sons of Israel.”

    1 Kings 22:46 “And the remnant of the s odomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.”

    1 Kings 15:11-12 “And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father. And he took away the s odomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.”

    2 Kings 23:7 “And he brake down the houses of the s odomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.”

    Ezekiel 16:49-50 “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister S odom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.”

    And the “pride” parades about homosexuality are more of the same.

    Even Jesus points out marriage is a man and a woman.

    Matthew 19:4-5 “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?”

    Not father and father. Not mother and mother. Not his husband.

    And only two people of opposite gender can become “one flesh”.

    Live forever, people – not temporarily only to be cast out for living for the things of this world.

    May God/Jesus Christ be glorified!

    • TheKingOfRhye

      This is not a story about homosexual people. It is about transgender people. So most of what you said is irrelevant.

      • Reason2012

        Hello. When a man pretends to be a woman than tries to date a man, it’s both.

        • TheKingOfRhye

          Even if I agreed with that (and I don’t) it still doesn’t describe all transgender people. They don’t all “try to date” a person of the same gender as they were assigned at birth. Basically, what I’m saying here is that while trans people are often grouped together with homosexuals and bisexuals, being trans isn’t about one’s sexual orientation.

          • Reason2012

            It doesn’t have to describe them “all”. It describes many. And for the ones it doesn’t, it’s still an abomination on its own.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “It describes many.”

            So freakin’ what? Even if it does, this story is not about homosexuality, or any form of sexual orientation or even sexual activity. A person can be transgender and completely asexual, even. So, again, your rant about homosexuality is largely irrelevant, still.

            By the way…..why do you keep saying “TRY to date”? Some trans women (who you would call men, but I refuse to call them that) do more than TRY, they actually DO date men. (and going back to my point, some date women, and some don’t date)

  • Miss Percival

    People are entitled to be addressed as they wish. It’s simple good manners. Your feelings about their name, or what you think they should be calling themselves, or what you’d prefer to call them instead, has nothing to do with it. This applies across the board, from those who chose to use their married name, or retain their maiden name, those who don’t like their given name, and use a middle name or nickname instead, or chose a new name altogether, the list is endless. Address people by the names they tell you to use. If you’re unsure, ask them what name they’d like you to use, then use it. You don’t need to know why either, it’s none of your business.

    • bwgirl

      This isn’t about names. This is about Pronouns.

      And people aren’t entitled to punish those that don’t speak the way they wish.
      I personally, won’t give into their delusions, their perversions, their demonically lead lifestyles.

      For God created Man and made Woman out of the rib of man. There was no third gender. He made them male and female.

      So, I either call them by the way God created them. The only other possible name for them if they refuse to accept reality it IT.

      • RWH

        If this is the way that you feel, don’t be surprised when the administration of your institution shows you the door. It pays to read the policy manual, and if your institution states that you address people by the pronoun they wish to be addressed by, you address them the way that they wish to be addressed. Otherwise, you find a different job, or you get yourself transferred to a unit where you don’t have to work with people. Religious rights are not absolute, and you give up some of these rights when you take a job somewhere.

      • Miss Percival

        “And people aren’t entitled to punish those that don’t speak the way they wish.” Try using bigoted slurs at your job. I dare you.

        • Boommach

          Again, as batgirl already attempted to clarify, this discussion is about pronouns; not bigoted slurs.

    • Amos Moses – He>i

      “People are entitled to be addressed as they wish. It’s simple good manners. ”

      they are not entitled to use the LAW as a cudgel to beat others into free speech submission ………

      • Miss Percival

        You have free speech. You can say anything you like, and the government can’t throw you in jail. But try keeping a job using bigoted slurs. Just try it.

        • Amos Moses – He>i

          first ….. it is not “bigoted” …. but what is being done to speech by imposing a fine …… IS … and it is unconstitutional ….. an EMPLOYER may restrict speech in their PLACE OF BUSINESS …… but GOVERNMENT has NO AUTHORITY … and the constitution says they DO NOT …..

          • RWH

            I think that the government can. You purposely go out of your way to antagonize someone, especially the elderly living in a home, this constitutes an assault. One need not get in contact with someone physically. The first one to run afoul will most likely challenge the law in court, and it is my guess that the person will lose.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            sorry …. words are not assault ……… that is just plain delusional …. assault is an “offensive touching” of another ….. words DO NOT TOUCH ….. a persons hurt “feelings” is NOT AN ASSAULT ………….

          • RWH

            Pennsylvania, for example, has two classes of assault: verbal and physical. You speak to someone in a threatening manner or do something else to create a hostile environment, you are committing verbal assault. If the individual is incapacitated in some way, such as someone bedridden in a nursing home, plan on getting a good lawyer because you will need one. In short: your feelings and beliefs don’t matter.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            sorry dewd …. using an appropriate PRONOUN to a person who is delusional about what they are ….. is NOT an assault nor is it a threat of any kind ….. except to their “feelings” ….. and it is absurd to suggest otherwise ………. tell them to go to Walmart and buy a backbone …..

          • RWH

            Amos, your pretentious, disrespectful attitude will do nothing more than to get you fired from your job immediately. You’ll have problems getting another job in the same field. If you don’t believe me, look up the case of Dr. Paul Church. He had a similar disrespectful, pretentious attitude as yours, and he not only lost his position at the Beth Israel Hospital of Boston, but the three other hospitals he was affiliated with also showed him the door. He can stick to his attitude and his principles, but he is unemployed without the chance of getting another job as he most likely has been blackballed.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            blah, blah, woof, woof …… business owners HAVE EVERY RIGHT to demand it ….. GOVERNMENT HAS NONE ……………

          • RWH

            Well then, Amos, we’ll come visit you in jail or we’ll walk over to the bank with you as you take out money to pay the heavy fine.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            again … blah, blah, woof, woof …. and no you wont …. you just lied ………..

        • If you are really a dude and I address you as such, that is not bigoted, that is common sense.

  • Lydia Church

    As Christians, we WILL REFUSE to use any unbiblical gender pronouns for anyone, in any place, under any circumstances, no matter what.
    Well, I warned that persecution of Christians was coming to America many years ago and the hurricane is hitting landfall because now it’s here, encroaching more and more in every area of life. I refuse to comply, I refuse to conform. I only submit to God and He is conforming me into the image of Christ and His righteousness, which means I must stand against the sin of homosexuality no matter the cost. I pray that others will be able to stand strong as I do through His power, unto death. Don’t cave to the devil folks, just don’t do it. You will regret it badly.

    • MCrow

      What constitutes an “unbiblical pronoun” exactly?

  • MCrow

    It should be noted that the caretaker could simply request another patient. Or choose another profession. The way the bill is worded would require the person to be deliberate about it in a way that’s evocative of harassment or bullying. I don’t see anything wrong with it. Unpopular opinion, but these are people near the end of their lives who have likely faced the same harassment before. I see nothing wrong with protecting them in the last period of their lives

  • Michael C

    When a nurse or caretaker clocks in for work, they are entering someone’s home.

    I think elderly people have the right to be treated with dignity and respect in their home.

  • Vince

    More nonsense from CA you can not fix stupid

  • R2D2Censored

    Perversion must be Genetic Mutation in people named “Wiener”!!!

  • This level of ignorance and stupidity coming from California?

    You can’t make this stuff up. It must be true.

  • PilgrimGirl

    The job of a nurse is to help sick people, not lie to them.

  • Cady555

    Speech versus actions.

    If I were a nurse and I sincerely believed that christians were [insert several rude adjectives], my conduct as a nurse would still have to be polite and professional. I could not refer to christians as “it.” I could not refuse to place christians in the better rooms. I could not inform patients their beliefs are ignorant. I could not forbid them to wear religious clothing or symbols. Etc. I cannot let me personal beliefs interfere with my treatment of the person.

    This law is no different. The nurse must ACT professionally despite his/her personal beliefs. This law shouldn’t be needed, but apparently too many christian nurses cannot treat LGBT people decently without a law.