Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

A look at California’s AB 2943, outlawing “sexual orientation change efforts”

A look at California’s AB 2943, outlawing “sexual orientation change efforts”

“There is no religious exemption.”

Assembly Bill 2943 is currently winding its way through California’s state legislature, and many religious leaders and free speech advocates are sounding the alarm about the possible ramifications if it should pass.

The proposed legislation is entitled “Unlawful Business Practices: Sexual Orientation Change Efforts“. The bill adds “sexual orientation change efforts” to the state’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The key passages are as follows:

(i) (1) “Sexual orientation change efforts” means any practices that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.

… (a) The following unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or that results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer are unlawful…

(28) Advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual.

The problem with the rules (as is so often the case with California regulations) is that the scope is so broad that materials as activities could be construed to meet the definition of “sexual orientation change efforts”. One need look no farther than our coffee houses, which are now decorated with cancer warnings, to appreciate the understandable concern religious leaders, conservatives, and those with common sense have over the proposed measure.

Fox News host Todd Starnes reviewed AB2943, and noted that Alliance Defending Freedom called the potential for censorship is “staggering”.

  • A religious ministry could not hold a conference on maintaining sexual purity if the conference encourages attendees to avoid homosexual behavior;
  • A bookstore (even online bookstores) could not sell many recently published books challenging gender identity ideology and advocating that these beliefs should be rejected by society;
  • 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.

The measure is quietly making its way to the state senate, for the next phase in implementation. To assuage the concerns now being voiced about the potential to outlaw the Bible and other faith-based material, “fact-checkers” cite that religious texts aren’t mentioned. The Federalist contributor Robert Gagnon explains why this approach is sneaky:

Read the bill. There is no religious exemption. There is no restriction to mental health professionals. There is not even a restriction to claims about changing a person’s sexual orientation or transgender feelings in whole or part. The bill is quite clear that any “efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions” are included in the ban on attempts to change a person’s “sexual orientation.”

So you would be violating the law if you advertise that Christ can empower people not to engage in homosexual practice or not to identify as “gay” or “transgender” because such behaviors and self-identities are morally wrong, or if you offer to engage or actually engage in efforts to persuade people of Christ’s power to transform in this area, you will be in violation of California AB 2943, at least so long as your advertising or efforts involved in any way an exchange of money for goods or services.

Furthermore, like most progressive policies, the rules could end up hurting those it was intended to help.

The broad nature of AB 2943 also fails to consider those LGBT individuals who may seek help in their efforts to refrain from acting on certain inclinations. These individuals would be denied professional and personal help under AB 2943.

The policy would also affect transgender persons who later cease identifying with the opposite sex and wish to transition back to their biological gender. Under AB 2943, such individuals would be categorically denied the help and support they desire.

Should this bill be signed into law, there is a little hope that the rest of the nation will be spared further California insanity. Another #CalExit proposal has now been cleared for the signature gathering process.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


So does chopping off someone’s penis and fashioning a fake vagina count as “sexual orientation change efforts?”

Freaking unreal. Counseling is verboten, but bodily mutilation is OK. We are truly living in la-la land.

    Jackie in reply to Paul. | April 26, 2018 at 12:24 am

    The suicide rate for people who have had “gender” surgery is sky high. Would even informing these unfortunates prior to surgery be a violation of this silly law?

I personally know two different cases of “sexual orientation change” that worked. In both cases it was a parent decision and in both cases the families consulted pediatricians, endocrinologists, psychologists, and a bunch of other doctors.
It worked. Politically incorrect and all, it worked.

    Daiwa in reply to Exiliado. | April 25, 2018 at 9:33 pm

    The window of time needed to gauge how well it ‘worked’ can be quite large, unfortunately.

    Edward in reply to Exiliado. | April 26, 2018 at 6:41 am

    You live in a strange part of the world, or in a strange cultural group, to be able to allege you have personal knowledge of two. The vast majority (let’s postulate 99.9999999999999%*) of the global population do not know even one.

    * Sorry, my calculator can’t handle the calculation to determine how many of the 7,617,945,XXX people in the world that represents.

      Exiliado in reply to Edward. | April 26, 2018 at 9:44 am

      You made no calculations or research whatsoever. Instead, you pulled those numbers out of your arse to cast doubt on my statement. I wonder why.

      It might help, in future calculations, to consider that humans are not distributed randomly.

      Being in a country where behavior will result in your violent death is a rather major factor in not being identifiable.
      Being in a sub-culture that immediately attacks members of a group, even if it’s “only” socially, likewise.

      A very simple possible solution to that “problem” is that the person is publicly identifiable as, at the very least, not being hostile to those who have had an experience.

      Another example of this– I have several children, and if the subject comes up I will mention that my family has a history of miscarriages. This results in my having a much higher rate of women who have lost a child talking about the kid with me, than the average person. Another example that is slightly broader– people who are quiet, polite and attentive will frequently have some really strange conversations to report, because of the infamous, invisible “please, tell me your life story!” sign on our foreheads. A wide range of people will just assume that we are supportive of whatever they want to talk about. (Which can get ugly when they discover you “misled” them, because you won’t jump on their bandwagon.)

Subotai Bahadur | April 25, 2018 at 9:57 pm

California is NOT part of our country. California has rejected the Constitution and doubly rejected the Bill of Rights. All non-Federally owned property inside what is referred to as California needs to be either expelled and cut off from the rest of the country completely with no trade, no subsidies, and no cross border travel; or they need to be invaded and the current state government suppressed and the Federal Constitution re-imposed by force of Federal arms.

So would this also criminalize attempting to provide therapy or other assistance to people with *criminal* sexual behavior such as rapists or pedos?

    From the text…there’s no exception for it.

    I was wondering the same thing.

    pilgrim1949 in reply to georgfelis. | April 27, 2018 at 9:59 am

    It’s been noted over the years that tendencies toward addictive behavior CAN have a genetic factor, sometimes spanning generations, so….

    For those who are addicted to alcohol/drugs, I’ve yet to hear of anyone demanding that we embrace and celebrate the behavior and resulting personal wreckage, nor hear of anyone requiring that NO ONE may at any time provide advice or counseling (ESPECIALLY from some “religious” perspective) to those who RECOGNIZWE their own self-destructive behavior and collateral damage, and who DESIRE to be freed of them.

    But, we’re told, we can’t go against “science” can we? (Except to DENY those pesky binary-choice chromosome thingies….who cares about THAT anyway, right?)

    I’m sure if a genetic predisposition toward violence and murder is confirmed then those who desire to act out their inner urgings will be celebrated by our Lib/Dem/Prog advocates and provided whatever assistance they desire to execute (purposely chosen word) their actions. (Wonder what the “approved” provided weapons of PC choice might be?)

    Now, about those who have (again, perhaps genetically predisposed?) perpetual, deep-seated, red-hot burning lustful yearnings that can only be fulfilled through rape…..will they have their own “YEAH, ME TOO!” support phalanx to protect them?


Why isn’t converting someone from straight to gay actionable?

    pilgrim1949 in reply to EBL. | April 27, 2018 at 10:02 am


    So, will that PROHIBIT the LGGTXYZ groups and individuals from proselytizing the “straights” to embrace (pun?) they gay lifestyle?

    THAT would be fun to watch.

How would the right of privacy that made abortion a civil right not apply in this case as well? It’s going to be interesting to hear the arguments about how it’s an illegal interference between a doctor and patient when they’re conspiring to kill an unborn, but it’s totally OK for the government to jail doctors when people come to them for help in resolving their gender identity issues.

As written in the sections quoted, pedophilia would be a protected orientation.

So once again science is to be the concubine of political jihadists, just like Stalin’s USSR. Is this what those signs mean that proclaim “we believe in science”?

Next step….State approved churches and synagogues ? Like in China?

How is gender fluidity and trans-sexual behavior not like anorexia nervosa? If a 18 year old woman weighing 75 pounds and 5’8″ demands diet pills for obesity. ..are doctors required to prescribe them?

Similar things have happened in other states, such as Washington and Illinois, where pro-abortion groups such as planned parenthood conspired with state pharmacy boards to rewrite the laws to eliminate conscience exemptions for abortifacients. Christian pharmacists were required to either carry “emergency contraceptives” such as plan B. Fortunately the conspirators were stupid. The governor of Illinois at the time was Blagojevich. He couldn’t keep his mouth shut. He made several public comments to the effect that while the law appeared facially neutral the real purpose was to drive religious people out of the pharmacy business. During discovery in the Washington case the defendants were forced to produce hundreds (perhaps thousands; I didn’t see them all) of emails where the conspirators made it clear they were targeting religious people to drive them out of business while writing the law in such a way that it didn’t obviously appear to be targeting religious people.

So of course there’s no religious exemption. That would defeat the purpose of the law. It’s to take revenge on the people mostly responsible for passing Proposition 8, which defined marriage as only between one man and one woman. The Stalinists are making it clear that no one has the right to their own conscience in Kali unless it’s in perfect lockstep with what they tell you to think.

    Arminius in reply to Arminius. | April 26, 2018 at 2:12 am

    If Blagojevich could keep his mouth shut he probably wouldn’t be serving a 14 year prison stretch for corruption. So all in all I guess it’s a good thing he can’t shut up.

If Hillary had won, D’s would have a majority on SCOTUS and this idiocy would become the law of the land.

Judicial nominees alone is all the reason any sane person needs to ALWAYS vote for any candidate that has a chance of beating a Democrat.

I have spoken to many men who have same sex attraction and who say they are Christian. Each one has said to me that though they desire to not have these attractions to the same sex, their desires do not change. Can someone change their sexual desires from the same sex to the opposite? Can someone change their sexual desires from the opposite sex to the same? I somewhat doubt it.

Should the church in California have the Constitutional right to believe what they believe in? Absolutely!

Should the state of of California dictate this? NO!

This is a slippery slope here. California is off the deep end with it’s Sanctuary City views, to its smothering and burdensome taxes and regulations. When do people in that state wake up and say enough?

    Immolate in reply to natdj. | April 26, 2018 at 12:50 pm

    Clearly, God can change anyone’s heart. But a change of heart isn’t necessary to avoid sin in this case. It only requires a change of behavior. God doesn’t promise the absence of temptation–only the strength to resist it.

    I can do all things through Christ, which strengtheneth me.

    If the spectrum theory of attraction is true– I tend to think it is, based on observing folks’ tastes change in response to environment, even as basic as “he’s totally not my type, but he’s just such a wonderful person”– then there could be vast swaths that aren’t going to be able to change sex of who they’re attracted to, while it still being a functional option.

Taken to extremes (and leftists have a history of taking things to extremes), it seems to me this law could prohibit the sale of any religious books which contain condemnations of same-sex erotic behavior, including the Tanakh and the Christian Bible.

So, California promotes this lunacy through their state funded education system, and now wants a law to punish anyone who contests their opinion? It’s surely an unconstitutional suppression of free speech, but that no longer means anything. Much of today’s law is unconstitutional, but not according to the slugs we have for judges.

It is always educational to see good little fascists in action. This looks to be on a direct collision course with the 1st Amendment.

No way this passes Constitutional muster.

A few ideas.

Has anyone read the Qur’an and Hadith on homosexuality to the sponsors of such a bill? Surely, the faith of Malcolm X should be accommodating [sarc]!

I think the proposed Kali law is a travesty, and deserves a challenge on First Amendment grounds and Equal Protection grounds.

But still, is religious exemption that good an idea? To me, it smacks way too much of a benefit of clergy rather than a true upholding of the Free Exercise of Religion–which should apply to laity as well as clergy. Better far would be laws which say that the judges and state attorneys who’ve hounded caterers, florists, and the like over unwillingness to service same-sex marriages should not only be impeached and removed, but also disbarred for life and then tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail (well, maybe the last smacks of cruel and unusual punishment…)

Can you imagine the stampede out of CA if it looks as if they may secede? It’s one thing to talk big about how tolerant you are, it’s another to realize you could become similar to a Venezuelan citizen overnight, with Jerry Brown telling you that you need to house the homeless in your spare bedrooms – because global warming.

It’s not a good thing if they split. We won’t be giving up those military bases and a good percentage of Californians won’t be willing to go. It will be a war, China and Mexico will get involved.

once again the state of California violates the first amendment. can we just kick California out of the united states and be done with them.

caseoftheblues | April 29, 2018 at 7:35 am

This bill as worded absolutely protects pedophiles… Legitimizing that sexual orientation… Hmmmm by design or oversight???