The War on Christianity Continues – California Police Reform Bill May Ban Christians from Joining the Force

A new piece of California legislation aims to ban individuals associated with hate groups from joining law enforcement.

California Assembly Bill 655 seeks to investigate prospective or current cops that participated in groups such as the KKK.

But the problem is, what we’ve seen defined as a “hate group” makes Christians and Conservatives a prime target for unfair treatment.

By the broad definition of a hate group according to AB 655, pro-life organizations could realistically be defined as a hate group.

And that would virtually eliminate police officers who hold Christian & Conservative views.

Could Christian organizations who believe in the sanctity of marriage being between a man & woman be classified as a hate group?

The bill’s suspect language makes Christians and Conservatives a prime target to be excluded from law enforcement.

And Californians need to push back against this sneaky Marxist attempt to destroy religion.

California May Exclude Christians, Conservatives From Police Departments https://t.co/seCtxMLIx0

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) March 19, 2021

This chilling police reform bill in California may ban conservative Christians from law enforcement. Any previous association with a “hate group” would be grounds for termination. The definition of “hate group” is extremely broad.https://t.co/kYHtZKP75Y

— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) March 19, 2021

California, leading the way in creating the new hellscape of Woke America.https://t.co/H1tkFRlq2z

— Jacob Jordan (@FNPreparedness) March 19, 2021

https://twitter.com/LifeNewsHQ/status/1372588623309180943

CA Dems Bill that Could Force Removal of Christian or Conservative Police.

The bill's definition could cause Christians and conservatives to be classified as “hateful” based on the premise of rejecting abortion or same-sex amendments.https://t.co/DCXAXhSMGB

— Amber Waves for Trump (@Marsha250) March 18, 2021

PJ Media had the scoop:

California Assembly Bill 655 would require police departments to investigate whether not potential cops had “engaged in membership in a hate group, participation in hate group activities, or public expressions of hate.” It would make such activities “grounds for termination.”

When Americans think of a “hate group,” many minds would conjure up a domestic terrorist group motivated by racial animus like the Ku Klux Klan. Yet some transgender activists and organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) use the term “hate group” as an epithet to demonize their political and ideological opposition. The SPLC has become notorious for branding mainstream conservative and Christian groups as “hate groups” because they advocate against same-sex marriage or transgender activism.

Assembly Member Ash Kalra, the author of A.B. 655, told PJ Media that he does not intend his bill to “curtail freedom of religious views or political affiliations — conservative or otherwise.” He acknowledged that the bill’s “definitions are a work in progress.” If so, he should seriously reconsider the definition of “hate group.”

A.B. 655 defines a “hate group” as “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 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.”

That definition seems reasonable, but it can easily encompass mainstream conservative Christian organizations like Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). ADF opposes the Orwellian redefinition of civil rights laws to kowtow to transgender activism. In Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), the Supreme Court ruled that when Congress outlawed “discrimination on the basis of sex” in the 1960s, that law also applies to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity today.

As Justice Samuel Alito warned in his dissent, the Bostock ruling creates serious threats to religious freedom, free speech, fair play in women’s sports, women’s privacy, and women’s safety, among other things. There are serious problems with the logic Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch used to reach his decision in Bostock, and the decision arguably should be overruled.

NATIONAL POLL: Will You Vote For Trump A THIRD Time?

According to Bostock, organizations like ADF that advocate against transgender activism may fit A.B. 655’s definition of a “hate group.”

Furthermore, pro-life organizations arguably fit the definition, as they seek to deny women the “constitutional right” to abortion established in Roe v. Wade (1973).

Matthew McReynolds, senior staff attorney at the Pacific Justice Institute (a conservative legal organization the SPLC falsely brands a “hate group”), warned that the overbroad definition of “hate group” in A.B. 655 raises important questions.

“Are the many conservative organizations pejoratively labeled ‘hate groups’ by the discredited Southern Poverty Law Center—because they oppose radical LGBTQ ideology—actual ‘hate groups’ within the meaning of this legislation?” McReynolds asked. “Is the Catholic Church a ‘hate group’ because it advocates for the sanctity of life and thereby rejects the constitutional rights of women to obtain abortion?”

“Are the thousands of churches in California which voiced support for Proposition 8, the traditional definition of marriage, ‘hate groups’ because they opposed LGBTQ constitutional rights to marry?” McReynolds added. “Are the careers of Muslim officers in jeopardy if the mosque where they offer prayers has ever spoken out against homosexuality or gender equality? Is the Republican Party a ‘hate group’ because it does not endorse gender identity as a constitutional right?”

“If it is not the author’s intent to exclude from law enforcement the millions of Californians who identify as Catholic or conservative evangelical or Republican, this Bill must be substantially rewritten to communicate a very different intent than what currently inheres from its language,” McReynolds argued.