Homosexual 'rights' closer in California

SACRAMENTO -- Two bills that passed on the floor of the California
State Assembly are creating a surge of protests because they would give
civil rights status to homosexual behavior if the state Senate approves
either in the coming weeks.

Assembly Bill 1001, known as the Fair Employment and Housing bill,
and AB
1670, known as the California Civil Rights Amendments of 1999, squeaked
by for approval late last week. AB 222, a related bill, which had been
dubbed the Dignity for All Students Act, was narrowly defeated last week
missing Assembly approval by one vote.

AB 1001, which was first introduced by Assembly Speaker Antonio
Villaraigosa, would, he says, move current state laws prohibiting
discrimination against gays, lesbians and bisexuals in the workplace and
housing into California's primary civil rights law, the Fair Employment
and Housing Act.

"AB 1001 isn't about 'special rights' or creating new protected
classes," stated Villaraigosa. "It is already against the law in
California to discriminate against gays and lesbians in housing and
employment. AB 1001 simply moves these existing laws under the sole
jurisdiction of the Department of Fair Employment and Housing. This is
good government, efficient government and fairness to all."

TRENDING: Republicans move to replace GOP canvasser who voted to certify Biden win

Natalie Williams, director of education policy and a spokesperson for
Capitol Resource Institute, disagrees with Villaraigosa's assessment of
"good government" and "fairness to all."

"This is a really dangerous bill," Williams said. It's going to
directly pit religious liberties against claims of discrimination
against homosexuality. It's questionable as to whether or not different
stances taken against homosexuality by religious people will be
tolerated by the government."

According to those at the Capitol Resource Institute, AB 1001 would
insert sexual orientation into the Fair Employment and Housing Act,
resulting in tax-funded investigations as well as $50,000 fines against
religious businessmen and women, Bible bookstores, Christian radio
stations, the Boy Scouts and other groups and individuals who, for
reasons of conscience, can't support homosexuality.

Peter Lepiscopo, a lawyer who gave a written opinion of the bill to
members of the California Assembly, agreed with the Capitol Resource
Institute that the bill should not be approved.

One of the considerations Lepiscopo gave for not giving AB 1001
approval was that the bill elevates homosexuality to the constitutional
status of a civil right, thereby requiring public schools to mention
homosexuality to students when discussing civil rights. Lepiscopo
mentioned that another reason for voting against AB 1001 is its blatant
violation of the First Amendment. Lepiscopo believes the bill would be
quickly thrown out in court if challenged because it violates the free
speech and free exercise of religion clauses.

To explain the bill's First Amendment violation, Lepiscopo, in his
letter to the Assembly, said an employer who refuses to hire a
homosexual for religious reasons would be liable under the new bill.
Similarly, a property owner who refuses to sell or rent to a homosexual
for religious reasons would be held liable, thus violating the First
Amendment.

Brad Dacus, the president of the Pacific Justice Institute,
agrees with Lepiscopo and the Capitol
Resource Institute and thinks the bill should not become law, but he
told WorldNetDaily that he's preparing legal action as if it will.

"It is our opinion that this bill is -- on its face and as to be
applied -- unconstitutional," said Dacus. "We at the Pacific Justice
Institute intend to challenge it in the courts should it pass the Senate
and be signed into law by Gov. Gray Davis."

Although Dacus and others believe AB 1001 can cause plenty of
problems for those who hold unfavorable views in the eyes of the bill,
AB 1670, which passed soon after AB 1001, has the potential of creating
even more problems. For example, AB 1670 would increase the fines
mentioned in AB 1001 from $50,000 to $150,000.

The Capitol Resource Institute, which refers to AB 1670 as the "most
dangerous bill of the homosexual agenda," says the bill goes too far by
failing to protect all citizens from discrimination. It would
discriminate against the civil rights of persons of conscience, Capitol
Resource said, while creating intense antagonism between persons who
support and oppose homosexuality.

Regarding the bill, David Llewellyn, a lawyer in the Sacramento area
working with the Pacific Justice Institute, said, "AB 1670 is a stealth
attempt to ban sexual orientation and all 'arbitrary' discrimination in
housing, including the selection of roommates, housemates, renters and
all persons seeking shared living arrangements, without exception. AB
1670 would make sexual orientation and other 'arbitrary' and
pro-homosexual criteria apply to everyone, without exception, including
religious organizations and nonprofit civic organizations."

Llewellyn added that section four of AB 1670 would amend the Fair
Employment and Housing Act to provide that all forms of discrimination
prohibited under Civil Code 51 would be prohibited in housing under
FEHA. In other words, like AB 1001, this bill would indirectly declare
homosexuality to be a civil right.

Speaking of both AB 1001 and AB 1670, Dacus said, "These bills are a
serious attack on the family as well as religion and religious freedom,
and we intend to lead the legal counterattack against them should they
be signed into law."

Dacus added that it was his belief that if these bills aren't
defeated in the courts, it will "open the flood gate for civil
legislation like this across the country."

Other bills related to AB 1001 and AB 1670 that have passed or are
being considered in the California Legislature include AB 26, which
concerns itself with domestic partner health insurance, AB 107, which
focuses on public employee's health benefits for domestic partners, and
SB 75, which will require the state to recognize homosexual couples as
married.