California bill to purge Christians from police

[Weezer]

What a guy believes is immaterial as long as they understand the constitution trumps their beliefs. The constitution is supposed to protect unpopular thought.

That's what I said, just in longer form.

 

[Septic]

It's one thing to believe something, it's another to act on it. Freedom of religion is freedom of belief. That would be a horrible thing to believe, just like white supremacy is a horrible thing to believe, but people have a Constitutional right to those beliefs, to even express those beliefs, like it or not. Problems only arise when they act on their beliefs to usurp the Constitutional rights of others. People tend to forget freedom of speech includes speech you don't like. If you don't want to associate with those people, you can walk away. You have that freedom. But the Constitution applies to all citizens, not just the ones you agree with.

They do have a right to those horrific beliefs. It also seems reasonable that a municipality would want to mitigate liability by not hiring people who've expressed their constitutionally protected beliefs where they'd deny that same right to others?

 

[Weezer]

They do have a right to those horrific beliefs. It also seems reasonable that a municipality would want to mitigate liability by not hiring people who've expressed their constitutionally protected beliefs where they'd deny that same right to others?

Everyone has beliefs, so how do you know which ones may try to enforce or act upon their beliefs rather than following the Constitution?

 

[Rickyvol77]

Yeah - I’m not seeing the religious connection here. I’m also not seeing anything here saying cops can’t believe what they want. The issue is when they verbalize or act upon hate speech.

What exactly is the issue with that?

the definition of what "hate speech" is construed as for some people

 

[ButchPlz]

Then what's the Biblical problem with homosexuality if that was the old law?

The old law said to stone them.

The new law says to acknowledge the sin and love them anyway, because nobody is sinless. That doesn't mean roll over and accept anything and everything.

I'm not interested in a discussion on what 'love' is, because what many leftists define as 'love' (i.e., extreme tolerance) is horrifically damaging, and I'm not even talking in the spiritual sense.

I don't even think government should have anything to do with 'marriage'.

 

[Septic]

Everyone has beliefs, so how do you know which ones may try to enforce or act upon their beliefs rather than following the Constitution?

The bill states:

"...would mandate a background check for all officers who have “exchanged racist and homophobic messages.”

and

The bill defines hate speech as “as advocating or supporting 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.”

Truthfully, I can't believe that this isn't part of a LEO's contract of employment already. What seems like common sense is being twisted into an attack on the LEO's cover for being douchebags. Ultimately, this is simply codification of background checks to make sure that the David Dukes of the world don't get a badge, a gun and qualified immunity for their actions.

 

[rjd970]

When they act in opposition to constitutional rights fine but even cops have the right to free speech.

Depends I guess on when the speech is being said. In private? I don’t know. Depends on the employer I guess. Things done in private preclude people from getting hired all the time.

If it is said while in uniform and during the course of duty it should be common sense that isn’t allowed.

 

[rjd970]

the definition of what "hate speech" is construed as for some people

What would be an example that would be concerning?

 

[Weezer]

The bill states:

"...would mandate a background check for all officers who have “exchanged racist and homophobic messages.”

and

The bill defines hate speech as “as advocating or supporting 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.”

Truthfully, I can't believe that this isn't part of a LEO's contract of employment already. What seems like common sense is being twisted into an attack on the LEO's cover for being douchebags. Ultimately, this is simply codification of background checks to make sure that the David Dukes of the world don't get a badge, a gun and qualified immunity for their actions.

The Constitution allows you to advocate and support changing the Constitution. The means to change it is even provided. So it seems a bit contradictory. The problem arises when someone acts on their belief rather than the letter of the law. So back to what I was asking, who chooses which people get the benefit of the doubt?

 

[Rickyvol77]

What would be an example that would be concerning?

i mentioned them above in this thread....heck there are groups today pushing for the resignation of the sheriff over the investigation of the GA shooting because his department had an officer who shared a tshirt sale on FB making a joke about COVID coming from communists in China and is saying that is hate speech and racist

 

[Rickyvol77]

The old law said to stone them.

The new law says to acknowledge the sin and love them anyway, because nobody is sinless. That doesn't mean roll over and accept anything and everything.

I'm not interested in a discussion on what 'love' is, because what many leftists define as 'love' (i.e., extreme tolerance) is horrifically damaging, and I'm not even talking in the spiritual sense.

I don't even think government should have anything to do with 'marriage'.

This is 100% correct in every way

 

[Wafflestomper]

It's one thing to believe something, it's another to act on it. Freedom of religion is freedom of belief. That would be a horrible thing to believe, just like white supremacy is a horrible thing to believe, but people have a Constitutional right to those beliefs, to even express those beliefs, like it or not. Problems only arise when they act on their beliefs to usurp the Constitutional rights of others. People tend to forget freedom of speech includes speech you don't like. If you don't want to associate with those people, you can walk away. You have that freedom. But the Constitution applies to all citizens, not just the ones you agree with.

I don't have the right to say anything I want to where I work without consequences. Why should police officers? Especially when doing so may undermine the trust the public has in them.

 

[Septic]

The Constitution allows you to advocate and support changing the Constitution. The means to change it is even provided. So it seems a bit contradictory. The problem arises when someone acts on their belief rather than the letter of the law. So back to what I was asking, who chooses which people get the benefit of the doubt?

No one is advocating for the Constitution to be changed, so i don't follow why you bring that up. The Bill simply ensures that civil servants who've expressed denying others their rights not be allowed to enforce the law. No one is saying that they can't be swinging from the rafters bigots, it's just saying they can't do that in a position of authority where those beliefs could manifest in the trampeling of rights of others.

This should be common sense legislation and it's shocking that it even needs to be legislated.

 

[hog88]

Depends I guess on when the speech is being said. In private? I don’t know. Depends on the employer I guess. Things done in private preclude people from getting hired all the time.

If it is said while in uniform and during the course of duty it should be common sense that isn’t allowed.

I’m in 100% agreement with the bold.

I can see this bill be used to go back years into an officers social media and using an errant post as a reason to fire them.

 

[Weezer]

I don't have the right to say anything I want to where I work without consequences. Why should police officers? Especially when doing so may undermine the trust the public has in them.

Where you work being the key. I thought we were talking about things said in the past, before ever being on the job. Am I wrong on that?

 

[Rickyvol77]

I don't have the right to say anything I want to where I work without consequences. Why should police officers? Especially when doing so may undermine the trust the public has in them.

Again, not what we are talking about...no one is saying actual racial slurs or anti-gay comments on duty (or off duty) is okay.....the point is the grey area latitude of WHAT is considered "hate speech" in Los Angeles, San Francisco, etc. is not as simple as the obvious ones. The article even mentioned that because the California state GOP has "traditional marriage" listed as their main tenet, it could be construed under the ambiguity of the bill defining hate speech as “as advocating or supporting 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.”

 

[Wafflestomper]

The old law said to stone them.

The new law says to acknowledge the sin and love them anyway, because nobody is sinless. That doesn't mean roll over and accept anything and everything.

I'm not interested in a discussion on what 'love' is, because what many leftists define as 'love' (i.e., extreme tolerance) is horrifically damaging, and I'm not even talking in the spiritual sense.

I don't even think government should have anything to do with 'marriage'.

We discussed this in another thread recently. Jesus stopping folks from stoning an adultress does not explicitly apply to every sin, or even every sin of the same type. To believe that is an interpretation of the text, whereas it does explicitly say that gays should be put to death in leviticus. My point being that some strict Biblical literalist is not really any different from a hard line Muslim in this regard.

But I do agree with you that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage.

 

[Weezer]

No one is advocating for the Constitution to be changed, so i don't follow why you bring that up. The Bill simply ensures that civil servants who've expressed denying others their rights not be allowed to enforce the law. No one is saying that they can't be swinging from the rafters bigots, it's just saying they can't do that in a position of authority where those beliefs could manifest in the trampeling of rights of others.

This should be common sense legislation and it's shocking that it even needs to be legislated.

There's a difference between expressing your opinion and actually acting on it. It seems people believe they are preventing a crime before it happens, but if it hasn't happened, why should the person who allegedly would have perpetrated it be punished? Not to mention the fact that people and their beliefs evolve over time, so something they believed 5 years ago, or even 5 days ago, could have changed.

 

[Septic]

There's a difference between expressing your opinion and actually acting on it. It seems people believe they are preventing a crime before it happens, but if it hasn't happened, why should the person who allegedly would have perpetrated it be punished? Not to mention the fact that people and their beliefs evolve over time, so something they believed 5 years ago, or even 5 days ago, could have changed.

A bit of a different scenario, but would you hire a book keeper if he or she tweeted about a desire to rip off their employer?

Or would you move onto a different candidate who hadn't floated that? Or would you assume they'd changed?

 

[Weezer]

A bit of a different scenario, but would you hire a book keeper if he or she tweeted about a desire to rip off their employer?

Or would you move onto a different candidate who hadn't floated that? Or would you assume they'd changed?

Depends on how good of a bookkeeper they were.

I think it better to monitor what people are actually doing rather than looking back 5-10-15 years to see what they did or said in the past. Personally, I think the police need more oversight, and the blue wall needs to crumble. Officers need to stop protecting fellow officers they know aren't fit for duty. I think we need to deal with the here and now and worry less about "cancelling" people for expressing unpopular opinions.

 

[Weezer]

Moving away from police for a second, if society is so caught up in not hiring people who have made inflammatory comments in the past, what does that mean for felons released from jail after serving their time? No jobs for them because they actually acted on their impulses rather than simply expressing them? There goes the notion of reform.

 

[RockyTop85]

Depends I guess on when the speech is being said. In private? I don’t know. Depends on the employer I guess. Things done in private preclude people from getting hired all the time.

If it is said while in uniform and during the course of duty it should be common sense that isn’t allowed.

I don't have the right to say anything I want to where I work without consequences. Why should police officers? Especially when doing so may undermine the trust the public has in them.

I think these two posts pretty much hit on why the law probably falls within constitutional limits.

The Supreme Court has said that when a public employee speaks in their capacity as a private citizen and speaks on a matter of public concern, they are entitled to the full panoply of 1A protections, BUT the government has an interest in the efficient delivery of public services that can sometimes outweigh the speaker’s private interest in expression. (You can google the Pickering-Meyers test for more).

The definition of hate speech in this bill seems pretty closely tailored to things that would impede the efficient delivery of police services. As @Septic pointed out, it seems like common sense.

Police officer says black people are thugs and should be beaten into a coma: probably ok to fire them.
Police officer says illegal immigrants should be thrown off social safety net programs, probably not ok to fire them.
Might be a little more fact dependent on issues like gay marriage.

Also, I don’t know why people keep bringing up abortion. Seems pretty clear that a religious conviction that abortion is immoral doesn’t fall anywhere near this definition of hate speech. But since genocide, violence, and deprivation of constitutional rights don’t fall anywhere near the Bible’s definition of Christian, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

 

[ButchPlz]

Will this law only apply to white officers?

 

[ClearwaterVol]

There's a difference between expressing your opinion and actually acting on it. It seems people believe they are preventing a crime before it happens, but if it hasn't happened, why should the person who allegedly would have perpetrated it be punished? Not to mention the fact that people and their beliefs evolve over time, so something they believed 5 years ago, or even 5 days ago, could have changed.

The issue becomes that when a LEO is entrusted to protect the rights of marginalized people and has publicly expressed a belief that such people don't deserve rights, then it becomes less likely said LEO will perform his duties. That LEO also becomes a legal liability for the department.

 

[Weezer]

The issue becomes that when a LEO is entrusted to protect the rights of marginalized people and has publicly expressed a belief that such people don't deserve rights, then it becomes less likely said LEO will perform his duties. That LEO also becomes a legal liability for the department.

Is it just "marginalized people"? What if a cop professes atheism and speaks poorly of Christians? Should Christians fear how that officer would treat them? Who gets to decide which views are okay, and which views are not?