A lawsuit has been filed against a recently signed California law that inflicts fines and/or jail time on employees who “misgender” a patient within a senior care facility. SB 219, enacted last October, was introduced by state senator Scott Weiner (D-San Francisco) and sponsored by Equality California. It penalizes senior healthcare workers who “misgender” any patients identifying as transgender by failing to address the patient by their preferred gender pronouns. Any employees who “willfully or repeatedly violate” SB 219 could be charged with a misdemeanor and subject to punishment of a $1000 fine, or even up to one year in jail.
This new law strips away the realities of physiological characteristics and instead implies that a person can change their gender by self identifying as a male, female, or even neither (non-binary). Worse yet, the government is seeking to punish those who do not comply with this new atrocious law.
Thankfully, this law is being legally challenged.
The case Taking Offense v. State of California is being brought by Llewellyn Law Office’ Attorney David Llewellyn on behalf of several unnamed clients and is challenging the law as “unconstitutionally vague and over broad.”
The lawsuit also argues that the law violates “constitutional protections of equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, [as well as] Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution.” The lawsuit also points out that the law imposes an unconstitutional religious preference, and “censors and licenses private speech, in violation of the principles of freedom of expression in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, [as well as] Article 1, Section 2(a) of the California State Constitution. The suit also challenges the law on the basis that it requires conformity to the constructs of sexual fluidity, or gender preference.
This is pure coercion.
Gender is not fluid, and it is absolutely unnecessary and dangerous to have laws that force other people to accept someone else’s gender identity based solely on their personal choice. The government’s decision to force people of faith to accept these fluid personal gender preferences or face fines and/or imprisonment is a great affront to our Constitution. Gender is not a personal choice that people make, but rather a biological fact based on characteristics present even prior to birth. Let’s pray the courts recognize this law for what it is.
According to Llewellyn, the case, filed on December 4, 2017, is active and waiting for a court hearing date.
