California playing devious trick with 'religious freedom'

Democratic legislators in California hope to add their state to the list of those that have adopted religious freedom bills.

However, unlike other bills intended to protect individual rights of conscience with regard to same-sex “marriage,” the bill effectively protects Islamic terrorists by barring law enforcement and immigration authorities from collecting information regarding religious beliefs, an expert on radical Islam says.

“This bill has nothing to do with genuine religious freedom issues,” Robert Spencer, co-founder of Stop Islamization of America and the Freedom Defense Initiative told WND. “Instead, it is intended to hamper law enforcement by being a Shariah-compliant bill to hamper legitimate attempts to keep us safe.”

SB 31, labeled the California Religious Freedom Act, would appear to be in the same vein as bills passed by state legislatures in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage. It passed the state Senate April 4 and now is in the hands of the Assembly.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, “gay” activists have become increasingly militant, demanding everyone not just tolerate but endorse their lifestyle.

Same-sex couples have targeted Christian businesses by asking artists to create works that go against their deeply held religious beliefs regarding the sanctity of marriage. When the artists refuse to lend their creative talents to endorse a ceremony they consider unbiblical, they have been hauled into court and told their First Amendment rights must take a back seat to a “gay” couples right not to be offended.

To fight against the infringement of religious liberty, 21 states have passed religious freedom bills modeled on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act that was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The laws attempt to strike a balance by prohibiting discrimination against a person based on their sexual orientation, while preserving the right of an individual to refuse participation in an event such as a same-sex wedding.

With California known as a far-left state it, may be a bit of a shock that Democrats would pass such a bill, until one reads the text.

The bill, co-sponsored by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, “would prohibit a state or local agency or a public employee acting under color of law from providing or disclosing to the federal government personal information regarding a person’s religious beliefs, practices, or affiliation, as specified, when the information is sought for compiling a database of individuals based on religious belief, practice, or affiliation, national origin, or ethnicity for law enforcement or immigration purposes.”

CAIR is regarded by the FBI as a Hamas front in the U.S., by the Justice Department as an unindicted co-conspirator in a terror-funding plot and by the United Arab Emirates as a terrorist organization

The bill also prohibits state and local law-enforcement agencies and employees from “collecting personal information on the religious beliefs, practices, or affiliation of any individual, except as part of a targeted investigation.”

It was discovered after the 2015 San Bernardino terrorist attack which killed 14 and wounded 22 others that Tashfeen Malik, wife of fellow terrorist shooter Syed Rizwan, posted on social media as far back as 2012 her support for violent jihadism. Government officials came under fire for not properly vetting Malik prior to issuing her a visa.

In the wake of the shootings, many in law-enforcement called for greater scrutiny that would include a review of social media before issuing a visa. President Donald Trump ran on a platform of extreme vetting that would include, among other things, requiring visa applicants to turn over a list of their social media accounts for scrutiny.

However, under SB 31, local law-enforcement would be prohibited from using this valuable resource or sharing it with federal officials.

Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute in California, who has long been an advocate for legitimate religious freedom, agrees with Spencer.

“Law enforcement needs and uses all types of information on a suspect in order to access potential motives to help identify a suspect or potential suspect in a crime. This will be a great hindrance to law enforcement.”

Dacus said PJI is a strong advocate for religious liberty for everyone, but he believes the bill goes beyond preventing genuine discrimination and will provide cover for Muslim terrorists by preventing law-enforcement from stopping them before they commit a crime.

“No one wants to see a person stigmatized because of their faith or face discrimination because of their beliefs,” Dacus told WND. “But this bill goes far beyond that and actually prevents law-enforcement from being able to prevent possible crimes from being committed.

“The First Amendment exists to protect everyone’s religious freedom but this doesn’t mean we need to tie the hands of law-enforcement when it comes to a proper investigation to prevent a crime that they have good reason to believe may be committed if pre-emptive measures are not taken,” he said.

( Source )

1 view0 comments