Calif. bill could ban conservative Christians from serving as police

Posted on March 16, 2021 11:56 pm

Special from the CFC

For more independent West Coast news, check out our home page, PressCalifornia.com.

SACRAMENTO – A Bay Area assemblyman wants to ban from service police officers and police officer candidates who are members of hate groups or have used hate speech in the past, even in “a private discussion forum” online.

Yet the definition of a “hate group” and “hate speech” used by Assemblyman Ash Kalra’s (D – San Jose) new bill, AB 655, is incredibly broad. Not only does it include armed militia groups and white supremacists promoting “domestic terrorism,” it also includes police officers expressing conservative religious or political views on abortion, marriage, and gender or with membership in a political party or church that does.

One legal expert said the bill would “usher in a new era of McCarthyism” where Muslim, Catholic, Evangelicals, and even registered Republicans would be blacklisted from law enforcement jobs.

‘Inexplicable, unwarranted and unprecedented attack’

“Under the guise of addressing police gangs, the bill at the same time launches an inexplicable, unwarranted, and unprecedented attack on peaceable, conscientious officers who happen to hold conservative political and religious views,” wrote Pacific Justice Institute Senior Staff Attorney Matthew McReynolds.

“Indeed, this is one of the most undisguised and appalling attempts we have ever seen, in more than 20 years of monitoring such legislation, on the freedom of association and freedom to choose minority viewpoints.”

According to a bill fact sheet provided by Kalra’s office, AB 655 is needed to root out “extremist infiltration” into our police departments as evidenced by “the apparent cooperation, participation, and support of some law enforcement,” gave to insurrectionists during the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol Building.

The document goes on to say that California sheriff departments all over the state have been “plagued by texting, email, and social media scandals where officers exchanged racist and homophobic messages.”

Definition of hate speech is alarmingly broad

AB 655 would require police candidates to receive a background check for “official membership in a hate group, participation in hate group activities, or other public expressions of hate.”

Public complaints of employed police officers would result in the same investigation, “and if sustained, could lead to termination.”

So how does broad is the bill’s definition of a hate group and hate speech? Here is the definition from the text of AB 655:

“‘Hate group’ means an organization that, based upon its official statements or principles, the statements of its leaders, or its activities, supports, advocates for, or practices the denial of constitution constitutional rights of, the genocide of, or violence towards, any group of persons based upon race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.”

AB 655 defines hate speech with similar language. It states: “‘Public expression of hate’ means any explicit expression, either on duty or off duty and while identifying oneself as, or reasonably identifiable by others as, a peace officer, in a public forum, on social media including in a private discussion forum, in writing, or in speech, as advocating or supporting the denial of constitution constitutional rights of, the genocide of, or violence towards, any group of persons based upon race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.”

According to McReynolds, the breath of these definitions raise serious questions. Is the Catholic Church a hate group because it advocates rejecting the “constitutional rights of women to obtain an abortion?” Are all the churches that voiced support for Proposition 8, defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman, “hate groups” because they “opposed LGBTQ constitutional rights to marry?” Are Muslims banned from being officers because they attend a mosque that has “spoken out against homosexuality or gender equality?”

Support for traditional family could bar service

What about the California Republican Party that still has a family blank in its platform that says it “support[s] the two-parent family as the best environment for raising children, and therefore believe that it is important to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.”

The platform also says that, “The Supreme Court’s ruling [on same-sex marriage] cannot and must not be used to coerce a church or religious institution into performing marriages that their faith does not recognize.” It would seem the Republican Party itself is a hate group according to AB 655.

“The rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution have been the topic of intense political debate for 200 years, and especially over the last several decades since the Supreme Court found a right to abortion in the Constitution in 1973,” said Greg Burt, Director of Capitol Engagement with the California Family Council.

“Should the state now ban from public service qualified, fair-minded people who happen to hold religious or political views that conflict with controversial Supreme Court decisions on marriage and abortion? This is a blatantly unconstitutional violation of religious liberty and freedom of speech. It is also a tyrannical abuse of power from a politician seeking to ruin the lives of those he disagrees with.”

AB 655 is scheduled to be heard before the Assembly Public Safety Committee on April 6, 2021.

Spread the love
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
73 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
4ever49
4ever49
15 days ago

Kalra – another example of California’s ability to elect morons.

Latest Villians
Latest Villians
20 days ago

Not legally it couldn’t. They would be sued. And lose. The new thing is white Christian villification. A muslim gets denied for being a muslim and all hell would break loose (or the illusion thereof). Enjoy the show. Race and religion to keep you busy, busy, busy….while they live deliberately and money is no object because they control it. They print it. Take what they want, and loan the rest out at interest.

Justanother
Justanother
1 month ago

I believe discriminating against someone based on their religion (sex, age, color, etc…) is against federal law.

Cerano Smith
Cerano Smith
1 month ago
Reply to  Justanother

I believe discriminating against someone based on their religion (sex, age, color, etc…) is against federal law.

YaSureYouBetcha
YaSureYouBetcha
2 months ago

Can we get rid of the picture of this arrogant wog? It is triggering me.

Jeep Grand Cherokee 4x4 Laredo
Jeep Grand Cherokee 4x4 Laredo
2 months ago

Same scenario used in churches. Get the good people out so you can use the benevolent cover for malevolent reasons. Hide in plain sight. 501c3 churches do the same thing. They “sell out” to the feds for their money, but then must do what the feds say and accept the rent a congregation of antifa types who will scare off the good members and the trafficking begins. If the clergy and staff has any non-behoden they are replaced and the beholden ones get “activated” and he church is now a node on a global judean network. Most religous clergymen and… Read more »

Zola Holt
Zola Holt
2 months ago

Sounds pretty Unconstitutional. Even the 9th Circus would reject this.

Rout Them out
Rout Them out
2 months ago

More “all money can buy” jew spew against the only demographic they obviously fear. If they put half as much money into MAGA than villifying good people, we wouldn’t have to make America great again. It was only great when it was constitutional. Hasn’t been for a very long time, even before the 2nd Central Bank charter, as in the first was illegal as well, but that caused the war of 1812, the Brits jewish freemasons burned the white house down and forced the 2nd bank charter. We are still fighitng the war of 1812 against “our” central bank and… Read more »

trackback

[…] The news curator Press California reported the bill’s broad definition of the term “hate” could apply the ban to “police officers expressing conservative religious or political views on abortion, marriage, and gender or with membership in a political party or a church that does.” […]

Hellen Keller
Hellen Keller
2 months ago

This is a complete racist bill discriminating against certain group of people for there believes

Speak up
Speak up
2 months ago

Keep Indians the hell out of government positions .
Look what they do in companies.
First just a manager, 6 months later the whole department.
Corruption is all they know

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
2 months ago

There is no such thing as ‘hate speech’. It is a tool of the left to bestow special rights to select groups of victims.

Goading
Goading
2 months ago

Straight, white, Christian “caliphate” anyone?
More divisive racial rhetoric to stoke the masses to war.

trackback

[…] The news curator Press California reported the bill’s broad definition of the term “hate” could apply the ban to “police officers expressing conservative religious or political views on abortion, marriage, and gender or with membership in a political party or a church that does.” […]

trackback

[…] The news curator Press California reported the bill’s broad definition of the term “hate” could apply the ban to “police officers expressing conservative religious or political views on abortion, marriage, and gender or with membership in a political party or a church that does.” […]

trackback

[…] The news curator Press California reported the bill’s broad definition of the term “hate” could apply the ban to “police officers expressing conservative religious or political views on abortion, marriage, and gender or with membership in a political party or a church that does.” […]

trackback

[…] The news curator Press California reported the bill’s broad definition of the term “hate” could apply the ban to “police officers expressing conservative religious or political views on abortion, marriage, and gender or with membership in a political party or a church that does.” […]

trackback

[…] The news curator Press California reported the bill’s broad definition of the term “hate” could apply the ban to “police officers expressing conservative religious or political views on abortion, marriage, and gender or with membership in a political party or a church that does.” […]

trackback

[…] The news curator Press California reported the bill's broad definition of the term "hate" could apply the ban to "police officers expressing conservative religious or political views on abortion, marriage, and gender or with membership in a political party or a church that does." […]

Prairiegale
2 months ago

May I make a suggestion? Crossroads with Joshua Phillip did a great video discussing how to talk to the WOKE, and gave and example from Tim Scott. “Live Q&A: Virus Origin Story Gets Narrative Shift; $5000 Fines Proposed for Online “Conspiracies” The part starts at 36:00. He does great work. No, I have nothing to do with him or the Epochtimes, but find him very informed, gives examples and answers questions.

Brian
Brian
2 months ago

The left are a bunch of sick wackos. Not only that but they are cry babies. Not only that but they are ignant. Not only that but they are idiots. Not only that but they are booger eaters. Guess I can’t be a cop in California now based on the above hate speech. It’s a free country.

William Krueger
William Krueger
2 months ago

Folks, don’t let any of this surprise you. This type of behavior is prophesied in scripture many, many times. IE: 2 Timothy 3:12 “Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.” — Matthew 5:10 “Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:12 “Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” These are just a few of many more. Man will turn against man, father against… Read more »

trackback

[…] A Bay Area assemblyman wants to ban from service police officers and police officer candidates who are members of hate groups or have used hate speech in the past, even in “a private discussion forum” online. […]

m. fuah
m. fuah
2 months ago

hire only those demonstrating the following revered characteristics: baggy pants-sagging, butt-shaking, d***-scratching, dope-smoking, n****-phoning, ghetto-blasting/parking/trashing, etc. shudwerkfine4u***holes.

Mondeaux
Mondeaux
2 months ago

Unconstitutional.

Mondeaux
Mondeaux
2 months ago

Unconstitutional. It’ll get dismissed by SCOTUS.

Nobody N. Particular
Nobody N. Particular
2 months ago
Reply to  Mondeaux

Not these days, remember, a pedophile is Chief Justice and he will block it from his court room.

Squatch
2 months ago

Guys like Ash-clown Kalra and Richard Pan should not be allowed to sleep peacefully. They should get the bullhorn/ air horn treatment 24/7. What the f*** is wrong with the people who vote for this vermin?

Jewish Jihad Continues
Jewish Jihad Continues
2 months ago

This is why we need separation of church and state. We all know it will be filled with muslims if this passes and we go the way of the UK.

Richard Anderson
Richard Anderson
2 months ago

Absolutely a delightful, loony leftist idea! Just ban all who know the Biblical ten commandments, and all will be well again. Now they can rename the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles, to Sodom and Gomorrah, because they certainly are not saintly or angelic.

trackback

[…] does determine the quality of a state and city. For example, recently in the news, left coast California is considering a bill that would ban conservative Christians from serving as police officers. And […]

Daniel
2 months ago

When does the San Andreas fault let loose? kind of like Sodom and Gomorrah out there.

mrmacc
mrmacc
2 months ago

dems – threaten you with the laws they pass
then try to grab your guns before your resist
typical corruption
last time ended with a civil war – these cowardly dems lost

HAT451
HAT451
2 months ago
Reply to  mrmacc

The first thing the communist in Cambodia did was outlaw guns, several years before Pop Pot’s take over of the country. Pol Pot’s revolutionaries ignored that order, law abiding citizens followed the law. When Pop Pot’s armed illegal forces marched into Phnom Phen, no one was able to put up an effective resistance. Over the next 2-3 years, over 20% Cambodian were murdered by Communist.

Gr8tium
Gr8tium
2 months ago

Ready to fight yet?

Nobody N. Particular
Nobody N. Particular
2 months ago
Reply to  Gr8tium

Been ready, I’ve been expecting this for decades. Trump’s election in 2016 speed it up.

trackback

[…] A California assemblyman wants to ban from police service any officers or officer candidates who are… […]

John Chapter 8
John Chapter 8
2 months ago

God already banned Christians from joining criminal organizations.

Bill
Bill
2 months ago

What a joke…Where do we find these brainless idiots?

Stephen
Stephen
2 months ago
Reply to  Bill

They are not kidding this is an example of the same ideology declared by the 4 women founders of Antifa who declaired: ” We are trained Marxists.” They might get this bill passed and Gov. Newsom might sign it, but It will be headed for the Supreme Court of the United States for assessment as to its’ Constitutality. If they approve of it then the Second American Civil War will begin.

Daniel
Daniel
2 months ago
Reply to  Stephen

It was Black Lives Matter that they founded, not Antifa.

Antifa was started by some punk scene skinheads in the UK in the 1970-1980 time frame.

old farta
old farta
2 months ago
Reply to  Bill

Provided by those who support unlimited immigration.

Squatch
2 months ago

Crusades anyone?

Nobody N. Particular
Nobody N. Particular
2 months ago
Reply to  Squatch

Maybe reform the new Knights Templar.

Romy Swillman
Romy Swillman
2 months ago

They Won’t Stop Until You Stop Them.

Tim Harris
Tim Harris
2 months ago

Guess that’s what happens with one party rule.

SnakeUSMC
SnakeUSMC
2 months ago

SUPREME COURT RULINGS https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fc16799a2245 Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed. Marbury v. Madison if a law is found to be in conflict with the Constitution, then the law is invalid Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them’ U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431  a statute that regulates without constitutional authority is a… Read more »

Brian
Brian
2 months ago
Reply to  SnakeUSMC

True that. Good job finding resources.

Mr Natural
Mr Natural
2 months ago

Hey dimwit, how about following “Wokeism” protocol and hire Antifa, BLM and/or felons to serve in the police force?

trackback

[…] Article by Richard Stenger from Press California. […]

robert f miller
2 months ago

SO WHO ARE THE GOING TO HIRE, HAS ANYONE NOT EVER SAID A BAD THING BEFORE… LETS STOP ANYONE FROM BEING A POLITICIAN OR BEAURACRATE WHO EVER LIED, CHEATED OR SWORE. NOW WE HAVE A GROUP OF 3 YEAR OLDS LEFT,,, OK NO DIFFERENCE HUH

UpYoursTyrant
UpYoursTyrant
2 months ago

Completely ignorant and racist; a double threat guy!
Way to go, Ash!
And not a modicum of disbelief that this A Hole is a democrat.

Jon Luc Picard
Jon Luc Picard
2 months ago

And people ask me why I don’t travel to California or the left coast. I quit doing business there years ago!

Chuckiechan
Chuckiechan
2 months ago

He shpuld be impeached for racism for even suggesting it!
Get a rope!

Torqey Motor
Torqey Motor
2 months ago

Do it. PLEASE! Do it!
I freaking dare you. Maybe you’ll finally press the button that gets conservatives up off their asses.

Fred Stevens
Fred Stevens
2 months ago

More proof of what has become obvious:

Democrats are the enemies of the American people.

Liberals Suck in Every Way
Liberals Suck in Every Way
2 months ago

Screw that communist piece of s…

m. fuah
m. fuah
2 months ago

ucan always hire a crt-unarmed-negotiating-transit

showandtell
showandtell
2 months ago

This is unconstitutional, for what it’s worth
OUTRAGEOUS — but not exactly a shock — that these creeps would even go there

Dave
Dave
2 months ago
Reply to  showandtell

“This is unconstitutional, for what it’s worth…..”
.
That depends on who is sitting on the Supreme Court.
It shouldn’t but it does.