MACS wrote:Hey Victor...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO2NeN34ZJo
God I can't believe I clicked on that.
There's a reason I don't follow youtube links here. They're always to the most stupid "information".
That's not a news network macs.
But. since you made me watch the stupid, and didn't offer any of your own opinion, I'll assume you believe her hook line and sinker.
So I went to the bill.
First off. The Consumer Legal Remedies Act is a bill that is already in place. The amendment is adding these sex change services to it. Keep that in mind as we go through the stupid.
So she claims that since the bible is a "goods" it can be banned under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act because the act to amend the CLRA starts with the phrase "Existing law, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, makes unlawful certain unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result, or which results, in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer. Existing law authorizes any consumer who suffers damages as a result of these unlawful practices to bring an action against that person to recover damages, among other things."
That is dumb.
The CLRA covers a literal ton of stuff. Goods... services.. disparaging goods and services. etc. It is accurate to say that the CLRA covers goods and services. Her claiming that this act's preface is going to do anything is nonsense. It's like she doesn't even understand how amendments work. That phrase is NOT EVEN PART OF THE CHANGE TO THE CLRA.
Her second... "point"...
"This bill would include, as an unlawful practice prohibited under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual. "
She.... grabbed an old version. The new is below. Not much changed
"This bill would include, as an unlawful practice prohibited under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, advertising, offering for sale, or selling services constituting sexual orientation change efforts, as defined, to an individual. The bill would also declare the intent of the Legislature in this regard."
But the salient point is that AGAIN, this isn't the actual change to the CLRA. This is the Amendment to change the CLRA.... so this isn't the actual law itself post-amendment.
But, keep in mind. The first quote is not an actual modifier of the second quote. the fact that the first quote uses the term "goods and services" does not in any way mean that "goods" apply to the second quote. This is something she is unable to understand.
Her third quote is the only actual quote from the amended CLRA... the definitions section... where they did in fact add:
"“Sexual orientation change efforts” means any practices that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex."
So... that's the definition of a sexual orientation change effort.. .yay.
So what's the ACTUAL change to the CLRA?
"Advertising, offering for sale, or selling services constituting sexual orientation change efforts to an individual."
That, she interestingly, did not quote. Know why? Because it's SERVICES based only. Her entire schtick about goods is irrelevant. The law change ONLY applies to SERVICES constituting sexual orientation change efforts.
If she's so worried about the CLRA banning bibles, she should look at existing line items:
"(2) Misrepresenting the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services." Bible source is misrepresented
"(4) Using deceptive representations or designations of geographic origin in connection with goods or services." yeah... geogrphic origin....
"(8) Disparaging the goods, services, or business of another by false or misleading representation of fact." I'm pretty sure the bible disparages competing religions"
^ those lines actually apply to goods. And probably could be applied to the bible much more easily than a line about services.
You are watching bad "news" macs. Stop doing it.
Or at least stop trying to use it as evidence of anything.