The state of California has followed the progressive LGBT agenda right off the cliff on occasion.

For example, it allowed a homosexual judge who stood to benefit from his own ruling to decide that voters cannot define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. And it prohibits counselors from answering truthfully when gender-confused young people want advice on ridding themselves of same-sex leanings.

Now it’s moving into whole new fields of extremism.

It is considering a law that would make criminals of nursing home employees who use the wrong pronoun for a homosexual, lesbian or transgender resident. The bill also would require the installation of a “bordello” in those institutions.

The battle is over Senate Bill 219, the “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Long-Term Care Facility Resident’s Bill of Rights.”

It essentially would impose the full range and reach of the LGBT agenda on nursing homes, including those run by religious organizations, in an in-your-face slap at the groups’ religious beliefs.

How did America get from “Mayberry” to “gay marriage”? Find out in “A Queer Thing Happened to America: And What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been.”

It also would require “a Catholic facility [to] enable residents to have sexual relations with whomever they please while on the premises,” warns a letter to lawmakers from the Pacific Justice Institute.

“Such an arrangement would resemble a bordello more than a religious healthcare facility,” the legal team said.

PJI said the nursing home front is the newest over the war to impose “gender theory” on residents.

“The failure to conform to state orthodoxy could be a crime,” the warns the letter to members of a California legislative committee considering the move.

The proposed mandates were to be reviewed in a hearing March 28 in the Senate Human Services Committee.

PJI’s Kevin Snider addresses several issues of constitutional concern, including “the bill contains no exceptions for religiously operated institutions, which means nuns caring for the elderly and disabled in covered facilities would be expected to embrace the state’s gender ideology.”

“The bill also fails to account for the sad reality that many residents of long-term care facilities are not in their right minds and may have delusions that should not be imposed on caregivers,” he said.

PJI President Brad Dacus said radical gender theory “has real, negative consequences for society.”

“All of us should be alarmed by the attempt to now criminalize the use of legal names and grammatically correct pronouns in nursing homes. We believe this bill is not only unconstitutional, but unconscionable,” he said.

Besides the absence of religious exemptions, other issues are mandated pronouns, mandated names and compelled speech requirements, the letter explains.

The letter to Sens. Scott Wiener, Tom Berryhill, Steven Glazer, Josh Newman and Janet Nguyen notes that many long-term care facilities are run by religious organizations that care for the sick, elderly and mentally ill.

“But for their faith, these institutions would not exist. Caring for the weakest members of society has been the calling of Christians for 2,000 years and Jewish believers for more than 3,000 years,” the letter explains.

They operate because of, and in accordance with, their faith, and the law’s proposals giving nursing home residents a “right to sexual intimacy” would be an issue.

“Is it the author’s position that a Catholic facility should enable residents to have sexual relations with whomever they please while on the premises? Such an arrangement would resemble a bordello more than a religious healthcare facility.”

Also, the letter noted, a facility refusing permission for two unmarried people of the opposite biological sex to share a room could result in “criminal and civil liability.”

Further, the law demands “that facility staff use a resident’s preferred pronoun.”

“Perhaps not fully schooled in current gender theory, the drafters of the bill presume the existence of but two sexes – male and female – and through a subconscious slip, use the binary pronouns his and her. It should be noted that those who believe in dozens of genders have created numerous pronounces to replaced the traditional he/him and she/hers words.”

Thus, an email from anyone affiliated with a care facility using the wrong pick from “he, she, ze, zie, sie, ey, ve, tey or e” can be subjected to criminal and civil penalties, the letter warns.

Further, the plan calls for the formal recognition of whatever name a patient chooses.

“If a resident’s preferred name is Joseph Stalin, under the current language the institution – including employees – are obliged to use a name associated with the worst of infamy. Moreover, if a poor soul suffers from delusions causing them to believe that they are someone famous, as the bill stands the staff would be required to call the individual Napoleon or whomever historical figure the resident is fixated on.”

While people have a right to call themselves whatever name they choose, they can’t force others to use use that name.

The law states: “This bill would make it unlawful, except as specified, for any long-term care facility to take specified actions wholly or partially on the basis of a person’s actual or perceived sexual orientation gender identity, gender expression, or human immunodeficiency virus status, including, among others, refusing to transfer a resident within a facility or to another facility, or discharging or evicting a resident from a facility.”

It explains “LGBT seniors experience discrimination” in care centers there they “no longer enjoy the privacy of having their own home or even their own room.”

How did America get from “Mayberry” to “gay marriage”? Find out in “A Queer Thing Happened to America: And What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been.”

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.