• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom®

ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom®

religious liberty and religious freedom news

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Articles
  • Podcast
Home » CALIFORNIA: Full assembly will likely vote on SB 1146 before August 31

CALIFORNIA: Full assembly will likely vote on SB 1146 before August 31

August 4, 2016 by Michael Peabody

California Capitol

The California Assembly will likely vote on a  controversial bill designed to pressure religious colleges and universities to abandon faith-based sexual behavior policies by the end of the month. California Senate Bill 1146, would require religious universities and colleges to stop discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status, was one of 200 bills heard before the Assembly Appropriations Committee on Wednesday.

In keeping with the rules of the Assembly Appropriations Committee, all bills that cost more than $150,000 are moved to the suspense file for further consideration. Lawmakers have until August 31 to pass their bills before the final resource or wait until next January.

SB 1146 would require any entity that receives state funding or enrolls students who receive state financial assistance, for example, Cal Grants, to abide by all the nondiscrimination requirements of state law, even if this would violate the religious tenets of the entity. SB 1146 would affect the policies that religious colleges and universities have including student admissions, housing accommodations, behavioral standards, housing accommodations, and employment practices.

The only exemptions are for programs designed to prepare students specifically to become members of the clergy or work in ministry in a professional capacity.

An earlier version of the bill that prohibited religious institutions from imposing mandatory chapel attendance policies or required religion courses passed the California state Senate but was widely opposed. The current version allows religious institutions to “enforce religious practices” so long as they are applied in the same way to all students.

There is a common misperception about what the “suspense file” means. Many people think this is another way of saying that the bill will be “tabled” or not heard at all. The suspense file is a holding place for bills with “significant” (more than $150,000) fiscal impacts, and most bills are held in “suspense” while both the Senate and Assembly evaluate the total impact on the state. Bills that are moved out of suspense go directly to the floor of their respective houses while bills that remain in suspense die.

SB 1146 has already passed the California Senate and every committee to this point in the California Assembly. While large enough to reach the “significant” fiscal impact level, the bill is not particularly expensive to implement and will likely be moved out of the suspense file, meaning that a floor vote is highly likely before the end of the month.  If it passes the Assembly, it will soon end up on the governor’s desk.

To read the current version of the bill and check the status visit: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1146

 

 

Filed Under: Legislation Tagged With: California, Jerry Brown, SB 1146, SB1146

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Jon Mark Oliver says

    August 5, 2016 at 9:22 am

    A pro-discriminatory screed against SB 1146 by the Church State Council has lately been distributed in church bulletins. This tract decries “a blatant attack on the right of religious colleges and universities to BE religious … by eliminating the right [!] of such institutions to discriminate” on the basis of gender identity or orientation. The logic here, if any there be, escapes me.

    As far as I know, BEING religious means adopting and following the Golden Rule, that precept which (if Jesus is to be trusted) sums up the law and the prophets. Far from demanding that adherents discriminate against others, the Golden Rule is antithetical to discrimination.

    As I read it, the Church State Council explicitly claims that one MUST discriminate against others in order to BE religious, making one tantamount to the other. This constitutes a profoundly offensive defamation of religion itself … and it has been offered up to the church community with no rebuttal whatsoever.

    It is terribly ironic that Adventists – who fiercely fight discrimination on account of their Sabbath-keeping or for any other reason – want to insist that being free to discriminate against others is somehow _fundamental_ to the very operation of a religion. This incongruity deserves some careful consideration.

    I am unaware of any governmental agency in the US interfering with the ability of religious institutions to preach and teach whatsoever they will, so this – fortunately – is not at issue. I thank God that I live in a country in which I am free to choose a religion for myself and to comport myself accordingly. But (it should go without saying), choosing a religion for myself is not to obtain a license to discriminate; neither should universities be granted a license to discriminate. It is high time to eliminate Title IX exemptions and exemptions carved out in the “Equity in Higher Education Act” of the California Education Code (§§ 66250 – 66292.4).

    If institutions fear court challenges, the remedy is simple: don’t discriminate; follow the law like everyone else.

    I hope that the Church State Council’s gross misrepresentation of the nature of religion – and its utter disregard of the Golden Rule – will soon be addressed and put right from pulpits where this tract has been distributed.

  2. Kerubo Obaba says

    August 19, 2016 at 2:58 pm

    I truly love my church, the Seventh Day Adventist church. I honestly believe that God has inordinately blessed us with heavenly messages than any other church on earth. Now, what we do with those messages is the question. Like Israel of old this is of no value if it does not draw us closer to God.
    I believe that a prayer request of this nature, is the kind God does not entertain.I do hope we say at the end that let your will be done and mean it and let it be! Even if the bill is defeated, it may not be of God but the tyranny of the majority!
    I do join Jon Mark Oliver in saying, Please do not discriminate against anyone however heinous their sin may be! It is ungodly. Jesus touched the leper who he was NOT supposed to touch! Any lesson learnt?

Primary Sidebar

Geneva, Switzerland - December 03, 2019: World Health Organization (WHO / OMS) Headquarters - DepositPhotos.com

Biden admin could hand over US control of health emergencies to WHO next week

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The ultimate control over America’s health care and its national sovereignty will be put up for a vote next week at a meeting of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) governing legislative body, the World Health Assembly (WHA).  On May 22-28, 2022, the 75th World Health Assembly will convene at the United Nations […]

Statement on the Leak in Dobbs

The leak was intended to disrupt the processing of the decision and we are not going to dignify the leak or the unidentified leaker by analyzing it prematurely. As a constitutional republic we cannot go down that road without doing severe damage to the institution of the Supreme Court where there must be professional courtesy between the justices and their staffs.

Boston City Hall - photo from Supreme Court Opinion

Supreme Court rules 9-0 that Boston violated 1st Amendment in refusing Christian flag at City Hall

This morning the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Shurtleff v. Boston (Dec’d 5/2/2022) that the city of Boston violated the free speech rights of a Christian group when it refused to allow them to participate in a city flag raising program.

Active Liberty - a survey of Justice Stephen Breyer's religion clause jurisprudence - Supreme Court

Active Liberty: A Survey of Justice Stephen Breyer’s Religion Clause Decisions

A comprehensive review of retiring Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer’s decisions in Free Exercise and Establishment Clause cases.

Canadian gov’t calculates that expansion of assisted suicide will save taxpayers millions of dollars

In Canada, it is easier for the disabled who do not suffer terminal illness to get approval for assisted suicide than approval for affordable housing. The government has calculated the cost of providing healthcare versus providing assisted suicide.

Random Quote

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

— Ronald Reagan

Get the ReligiousLiberty.TV Newsletter!

Comes out a couple of times a month. Unsubscribe anytime automatically, no questions asked.
* = required field
unsubscribe from list

powered by MailChimp!

Copyright © 2022 Founders' First Freedom is a registered trademark. All rights reserved.

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Articles
  • Podcast
0
0
0
0