Shut Up H8er, California Explained

     California’s war to keep people “queer”, even if they wish to change their own behavior, has hit full on censorship with California’s AB 2943 which makes illegal “Advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual” involving “sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer are unlawful.”

     A recent analysis of AB 2943 by the Alliance Defending Freedom indicates that the bill is even worse than previously thought.

“At its core, AB 2943 outlaws speech, whether offered by a licensed counselor, a best-selling author, or even a minister or religious leader. It targets a specific message—that an adult who is experiencing unwanted same-sex attraction or gender identity confusion can find help to address those issues—for censorship. The breadth of this censorship is staggering. Under AB 2943:

• A licensed counselor could not help a married mother of three who is experiencing unwanted attraction to a close female friend or confusion over her gender identity overcome those feelings;

• A religious ministry could not hold a conference on maintaining sexual purity if the conference encourages attendees to avoid homosexual behavior;

• A bookstore (including online bookstores like Amazon) could not sell many recently published books challenging gender identity ideology and advocating that these beliefs should be rejected by society; and

• A pastor paid to speak at an event addressing current social topics could not encourage attendees that they can prevail over same-sex desires or feelings that they were born the wrong sex.

“In these scenarios, there is a transaction (the counselor’s payment; the conference attendance fees; the cost of the book; and the pastor’s speaking fee) that triggers AB 2943 And under the bill, a person or organization who is paid by a consumer for goods or services cannot engage in any practice—including pure speech—that tells someone”

     And this is completely a one way street. The bill explicitly mentions efforts “eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex”… but not such sexual or romantic attractions or feelings towards individuals of the opposite sex. Further, it will still be allowed to “provide acceptance, support, and understanding of clients or the facilitation of clients’ coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, including sexual orientation-neutral interventions to prevent or address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices or to otherwise promote healthy sexual and romantic relationships”. Thus, a councilor can decide that a straight individual is actually “queer” and manipulate/encourage them to—not to “change” a person’s sexual orientation—but rather discover that they were “queer” all along; in contrast, a kid who isn’t “trans” or “Gay”, but expresses such a thing, can never receive actual help, but rather must be pushed down the path of genital mutilation and hormonal manipulation—and cases like this do exist:

“More than a decade ago, pediatrician Michelle Cretella treated a male patient named ‘Andy.’ Andy enjoyed playing with girls’ toys and made friends with girls more easily than with boys. He was eventually referred to a therapist for his gender confusion.

“According to Cretella, the breakthrough came when Andy told the therapist that he believed his parents would love him more if he were a girl. Cretella claims that the therapist looked further into this admission and found that Andy’s confusion may have stemmed from the birth of his little sister, who had special needs and required a lot of attention from parents. The theory was that Andy gravitated toward girly behavior to get the attention of potentially neglectful parents.

“Though Cretella did not discuss the ultimate resolution to Andy’s gender confusion, she said that today a patient like Andy would be wrongfully referred to a gender specialist or clinic instead of a therapist. The treatment, she said, would be focused on supporting that child’s inclination toward the opposite sex, which could lead to more extreme treatment in adolescence like hormone blockers and organ modification.”

     AB 2943 would harm the vast majority of people who express as “trans-gender” who do not persist in that expression, not to mention those who could be happy in a traditional (non-same sex) but are dissuaded by those who will insist that they be as “queer” as “queer” could be by providing “acceptance, support, and understanding of clients or the facilitation of clients’ coping, social support, and identity exploration”.

     The legal analysis can be read below:

Legal Analysis – California AB 2943 (2018) by ThePoliticalHat on Scribd

Tweet