fify

That’s part of the equation

😟

Hey Victor...

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.

Not sure why this is even a discussion... they can't ban the bible, that would be unconstitutional.

I would think that would be pretty obvious. The fact that not one of those comments victor posted said it is kind of alarming about the state of the average intelligence of the population.

Meh... I focused on the specific law itself.
But correct, there constitutional amendments which would trump anything california passed even if the idiot on that fake news show were correct.

OAN is actually a news channel. It's on cable... channel 616 on Frontier Fios.

The law, as it was written, could attempt to ban the bible. As you said, the constitution would not allow for it.

The way they covered it was certainly alarmist in its delivery, which gets clicks of course.

haven't read any of the stuff about banning the Bible, but the horse is outta the barn. Like guns (300 mm in circulation) there are probably more Bibles in circulation than people.

Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Seems to me that the bible would be constitutionally protected under freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

At least no State legislature or the parliament of whores, Congress, ever approved a bill and had it signed into law that violated The Constitution. [sarcasm]

---

MACS. Read my post. The law as written would have absolutely nothing to do with the bible... Unless you want to suddenly call it a service.

Her reporting is crap, and showed she either didn't understand what was being passed, what parts of the document were relevant, or didn't care because she knew her viewers wouldn't care if it was true or not.

If that's how this "news" station reacts to being wrong then it's really not news. They should have said "sorry, our bad, we retract". They doubled down on incorrect. That's not news. You're now getting your "news" from the equivalent of a cbid forum post.

A Festivus for the rest of us!!!!!🌫

So you're saying OAN does the same thing that CNN and MSNBC and FOX and ABC and NBC and CBS do!!??

Well then I guess they are a legit news channel.

Rimshot!

---

MACS... This may be what the other news stations do in your head. But it simply is not reality.

Name a single instance where ABC/nbc/cnn (anyone other than Fox) reported a patently false story, and then after it was proven to be false issued another segment using literally incorrect "evidence" to prove it.



On a side note, maybe this is a learning opportunity. Do you Notice how your argument has shifted?

Earlier this thread, when I pointed out that OAN had a number of controversies regarding their false reporting, you first attacked my source (Wikipedia).
Then you fell back to "well how did they handle it when it was proven false"... Because you could justify watching it if they properly correct their errors.

When it's now been shown they double down and are either too stupid to understand their argument or really hope their viewers are... You now rationalize watching them with "they're doing the same thing everyone else is!"

This is not good. I mean... That itself is incorrect. But to even use that as your justification....

I still think OAN is a better source for news than the others, including FOX.

You disagree, and you've stated why. I haven't changed my mind.

I suppose it doesn't matter.

You'll watch a "news" network which I've already shown you will literally lie to you about the main focus of their story (whether they are doing it knowingly or unknowingly, I don't know). They will double down on lies to maintain a specific agenda. And you will post their links in defense of your arguments, without filtering it through your own common sense first.

If you're watching that channel without double checking their work, there is a distinct chance they are reducing your actual knowledge.

Trump is counting on that strategy...

we thought he was kidding when Kellyanne Conway said during his first days in office that Trump will present alternative facts...he's been consistent from day one...

facts are not facts...

the truth is not the truth...

Just like all the other networks told us there was solid proof of Trump colluding with Russia... for 2 years... and had people on the air who had people who knew people who were 100% sure he colluded.

But wait... the Mueller report showed no collusion. Now they want his tax returns!!

You can think that OAN is no better (or worse) than the rest, but I disagree.