Video: What Is Hate Speech? We Asked College Students

Video:  What Is Hate Speech? We Asked College Students


“How should “hate speech” be defined, and should it be regulated? We went to the campus of USC to ask college students, who are on the front lines of America’s free speech battles.”

ReasonTV’s Justin Monticello concludes the video by saying, “Granting the government the power to decide what’s acceptable to say presumes that what brings us closer to the truth is not the free exchange of ideas, but the wise decision-making of politicians.”

Judge Rules In Favor Of California Baker Who Refused To Bake A Wedding Cake For A Same-Sex Couple

9th Circuit Court will reverse this ruling.

A California judge has ruled in favor of a Christian baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

The judge denied a motion for a temporary restraining order filed on Wednesday against Cathy Miller, the owner of Tastries Bakery in Bakersfield, California.

According to a press release sent by The Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund, the order would have compelled “Miller to create wedding cakes for LGBT persons, even though doing so would violate her sincerely held religious beliefs.”

The bakery received criticism last August when Miller said she refused to serve the couple because of her beliefs.

“Here at Tastries, we love everyone. My husband and I are Christians and we know that God created everyone and he created everyone equal,” Miller said in August. “It’s not that we don’t like people of certain groups … there is just certain things that violate my conscience.”  10News

University of Iowa Kicks Christian Student Group For Its Religious Beliefs

The Univerisity of Iowa has made it mandatory to be an officially recognized student group that group must approve of and support homosexuality.  Otherwise, your group is not accepted officially and you are a “hater” or “against love”…  By definition that excludes every Bible-believing Christian.   The strategy is to marginalize any and all that have a moral objection to homosexuality.  The movement of homosexual rights that the left has embraced and pushed is to attack Bible-believing Christians.

The university stripped The Business Leaders in Christ of their status on campus after a member claimed he was denied a leadership position for being openly gay. The group, however, says the member was rejected because “he expressly stated that he rejected BLinC’s religious beliefs and would not follow them.”

“Members should conduct their careers without the greed, racism, sexual immorality and selfishness that all too often arise in business, political, and cultural institutions,” a portion of group’s statement of faith says.

University of Iowa spokesperson Anne Bassett issued a statement to Fox News accusing BLinC of violating the school’s Human Rights Policy and the Iowa Civil Rights Act.

“…When a voluntary student organization chooses to become a registered student organization, it must adhere to the mission of the university, the UI’s policies and procedures, and all local, state, and federal laws,” said Bassett, who also emphasized the school’s 20 religious student organizations on campus and “the worship opportunities in the surrounding community.”…

As a de-registered student group, BLinC no longer receives funding or access to university facilities enjoyed by the other 500 student groups. To get back in the school’s good graces, BLinC would have to amended its statement of faith and submit an “acceptable plan” for selecting leaders.FoxNews

Lawsuit

The University of Iowa kicked a small Christian group of students, Business Leaders in Christ, off campus recently, because they regularly share their religious beliefs. In response, the group sued. The dean of students told BLinC that if it wants to be back on campus, it must “revise” its religious beliefs and submit an “acceptable plan” for selecting its leaders.

In BLinC v. University of Iowa, BLinC asks the court to stop this religious discrimination and allow it to choose leaders who embrace its mission, just like every other student group on campus. Becket, a legal organization that specializes in religious liberty, is representing the student group.

BLinC is a small student organization that gives Christian students a forum for discussing how to incorporate their beliefs in the competitive business world. Like many religious groups, its members also serve others because of their religious beliefs. On Sept. 1, the university told BLinC it could select leaders who affirm its beliefs, so long as those beliefs were clearly stated so students would be aware of them. But after BLinC added a statement of its religious beliefs to its campus webpage, the university responded by kicking it off campus shortly before Thanksgiving…

“This is premeditated religious discrimination, plain and simple,” said Eric Baxter, senior counsel at Becket.“A state school cannot demand a change to students’ faith any more than the U.S. President could demand a change to the Bible.”  WashingtonExaminer

Senators Cruz and Rubio Demand Justice For Air Force Colonel Leland Bohannon

This is clearly unlawful and unconstitutional.

 Leading U.S. senators have weighed in on the Col. Leland Bohannon controversy, condemning his treatment on religious liberty grounds and demanding an investigation into his case so that justice is “restored.”

Bohannon was the commander of the Air Force Inspection Agency at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico. A highly decorated officer and veteran of two wars, he was stripped of his command just before being promoted to Brigadier General and his elevation was cancelled because he didn’t sign a document endorsing same-sex “marriage.”

“Col. Bohannon has suffered severely on account of the Equal Opportunity investigator’s mishandling of his religious liberty rights,” the letter stated. “The Air Force owes it to him to see that justice is restored, along with his good name.”

“Clarify the branch’s position on religious liberty,” the letter asked Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson. The senators further ask Wilson to “instruct the Air Force to issue formal guidance and provide adequate training to commanders so that they know how to properly and respectfully address the religious liberty rights of their subordinates.”

The letter called for an investigation into “the proceedings surrounding Col. Bohannon’s request for religious accommodation.” It concludes by asking that the original Equal Opportunity complaint against Bohannon be “reversed and any unfavorable note in Col. Bohannon’s service record removed.”

When a homosexual Master Sergeant with a male “spouse” retired, Bohannon’s religious convictions prohibited him from signing the certificate of appreciation to the “spouse.”  He asked the Staff Judge Advocate and his chaplain what he should do, and filed for a religious accommodation.

No accommodation came. Eventually, a higher ranking officer signed the certificate. But the Master Sergeant filed a civil rights complaint against Bohannon.

An Equal Opportunity investigator decided Bohannon discriminated against the gay Master Sergeant. Bohannon lost his job, his income, and his career.

The senators’ letter quotes Wilson in her confirmation hearing saying “‘Air Force commanders have a responsibility to ensure that the spiritual needs of all Airmen are met,’“ and the senators urge, “That time is now.”

The senators’ letter also points out that in Bohannon’s case the Air Force has shown that the religious freedom of soldiers is not respected by commanders.   LifeSiteNews

The Equal Opportunity investigator unbelievably claimed even had the religious accommodation been granted, Colonel Bohannon would still be guilty of unlawful discrimination.

The EO investigator determined the colonel had discriminated against the gay Airman – and went on to say that “even had the accommodation been granted, Col. Bohannon would nonetheless be guilty of unlawful discrimination.” 

Family Research Council’s Travis Weber :

[The DOJ’s religious freedom] memorandum relies on current law—the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 1300.17—which all protect religious freedom in the military, and thus protect Col Bohannon. Indeed, DODI 1300.17 requires an accommodation to be granted unless a military interest overrides it. All of these authorities clearly require the government to protect Col Bohannon’s religious freedom by not forcing him to personally sign the certificate.

Video: ‘Beating up fascists is good,’ college students say

“Beating up fascists is good.”

what is most troubling is that these anti-free speech beliefs and tactics are not simply embraced by a radical fringe. A recent Brookings Institute study found that a majority of students believe that disrupting speakers to silence them is “acceptable” and one in five students (19%) endorse the use of violence to silence an “offensive” speaker. A plurality of students believe that “hate speech” is not covered by the First Amendment, despite Supreme Court precedent establishing otherwise.  DailyWire

Campus Reform

As acts of political violence in America increase in regularity, a new poll shows that many college students have no problem with it.

Of those surveyed, a startling 19 percent claimed to support the use of violence to silence speakers they find offensive, the same perspective held by the increasingly violent Antifa groups around the country.

Wanting to see what college students in Washington, D.C. thought of Antifa, Campus Reform took to the campus of American University to ask students their opinion of the violent leftist organization recently labeled a domestic terror organization by the Department of Homeland Security.

Immediately, the students made it clear that they had no problem with the controversial group. CampusReform

Video:  College Students Offer Support To Antifa

The Supreme Court Sided With Trinity Lutheran Church

Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer involved a state program that provided grants to nonprofits to help provide a rubberized surface made from recycled  tires to cover playgrounds to keep children safe. A provision of the Missouri Constitution blocks public funds from directly or indirectly assisting any church, sect or religion. One preschool and daycare was excluded from obtaining the funds because it is run by a church.

Video:  Why the Trinity Lutheran Supreme Court Case Matters

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 for Trinity Lutheran Church.   Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined.

The case focused on whether this decision conflicts with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and specifically whether Missouri was violating the free-exercise clause by preventing Trinity Lutheran from participating in a secular, neutral aid program. On Monday, the court overwhelmingly agreed that the answer was “yes.” TheAtlantic

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources’ express policy of denying grants to any applicant owned or controlled by a church, sect or other religious entity violated the rights of Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc., under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment by denying the church an otherwise available public benefit on account of its religious status. scotusblog

Justice Roberts:

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources has not subjected anyone to chains or torture on account of religion. And the result of the State’s policy is nothing so dramatic as the denial of political office. The consequence is, in all likelihood, a few extra scraped knees. But the exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot stand. SupremeCourt

A Footnote To The Decision

“Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the majority opinion, but Justice Neil M. Gorsuch and Justice Clarence Thomas did not join a footnote where four justices state, ‘This case involves express discrimination based on religious identity with respect to playground resurfacing. We do not address religious uses of funding or other forms of discrimination.’ Because only four justices joined that footnote, it is technically not considered the opinion of the court.” WashingtonPost

Case Could Potentially Expand The Free-Exercise Clause Of The First Amendment

Seven justices affirmed the judgment in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, albeit with some disagreement about the reasoning behind it. The major church-state case could potentially expand the legal understanding of the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It is also the first time the Supreme Court has ruled that governments must provide money directly to a house of worship, which could have implications for future policy fights—including funding for private, religious charter schools.  TheAtlantic

Constitutional attorney David French: 

While there are many threats to religious liberty, few are more consequential over the long term than the state’s ever-expanding role in private life. If the government is able to vacuum up tax dollars, create programs large and small for public benefit, and then exclude religious individuals or institutions from those programs, it has functionally created two tiers of citizenship. Secular individuals and institutions enjoy full access to the government they fund, while religious individuals and institutions find themselves funding a government that overtly discriminates against them.

  • First, it places another brick in a wall of precedent that stands for the proposition that once the state creates a neutral program — one designed neither to advance nor to inhibit religious practice — it can’t exclude citizens or institutions from that program merely because they’re religious. Under these precedents, churches are able to worship in government buildings, religious student groups may access student activity fees to fund their campus outreach, parents may send their children to religious schools with publicly funded vouchers, and hosts of religious organizations may participate in public–private partnerships to serve our nation’s poorest and most vulnerable citizens. So entrenched is this precedent that it would have been a legal earthquake had the Court ruled against the church.
  • Second, seven of the nine justices concurred in the result of the case. This means that the principle of religious nondiscrimination in public programs has broad judicial support. NationalReview

Free Speech Under Attack In Minneapolis

Shame on Minneapolis.  Minneapolis should instead consider setting up a helpline for Muslims to report jihad activity.

“Hate speech hotlines operate as government enforcement of fascism.  They are a denial of free speech and the very definition of government censorship. Looking for government informants to rat out speech the government forbids goes to the heart of denying American citizens our inalienable rights. Governments CAN NOT do this under our constitution.”
-Former Rep. Michele Bachmann

The city of Minneapolis has set up a hotline for residents to report suspected hate crimes, including “speech and actions,” according to statements on the city’s website.

The city, which will operate the “service” through its 3-1-1 helpline, is targeting any “harassing behaviors motivated by prejudice,” according to a press release. Those wishing to report a hate crime from outside the city may dial 612-673-3000.

According to the local newspaper, the Star-Tribune, “the announcement comes amid signs of a recent surge of such incidents affecting Muslims and Jews across the country, many of which go unreported.”

The city’s Department of Civil Rights clearly states on its website that it only enforces hate crimes against certain “protected classes.”

A city official further indicated the impetus for the hate-crimes hotline was the election of President Trump and that the targets would be his supporters.

“Since the general election, many of us have experienced, witnessed firsthand or heard of actions of: racism, xenophobia, sexism and bigotry directed at people here and in cities across the United States,” Minneapolis Department of Civil Rights Director Velma Korbel wrote in a statement posted on the city’s website. “In no uncertain terms, hate-motivated speech and actions have no place in Minneapolis nor will they be tolerated.”

Korbel said the city’s tough stance on “hate” is reflected in the views of its mayor, Betsy Hodges. Korbel states on the city website:

This department echoes Minneapolis mayor, Betsy Hodges’ resolve and commitment when she stated: “I will not compromise the public safety of the people of Minneapolis to satisfy Trump’s desire to put politics before public safety. Minneapolis is being built and strengthened by people from all over the world and I am grateful for their commitment to our city. I stand with them today and will continue to take that stand as the President-elect prepares to take office.”

Michele Bachmann, former congresswoman from Minnesota, decried the new hotline as a form of fascism in which citizens are encouraged to turn in their neighbors for holding opinions deemed forbidden by the state. WND

Former Rep. Michele Bachmann

“Hate speech hotlines operate as government enforcement of fascism,” she said in an email to WND. “They are a denial of free speech and the very definition of government censorship.

“Looking for government informants to rat out speech the government forbids goes to the heart of denying American citizens our inalienable rights. Governments CAN NOT do this under our constitution.”

Bachmann said the hate-crime hotline is a stealth move by Hodges and the city council to impose Islamic anti-blasphemy laws on non-Muslims.

By installing Islamic anti-blasphemy hotlines and advertising for informants, Minneapolis is violating the doctrine of separation of church and state,” she added. “What difference is there between the Minneapolis City Council action and United Nations resolution 16/18 advanced by former Secretary Hillary Clinton?”

U.N Resolution 16/18 encouraged nations to criminalize speech that defames a person’s religious views.

Pushed by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the only speech the resolution sought to criminalized was speech critical of Islam, Bachmann said. After years of failure, the resolution only passed after the language was somewhat watered down.

“Which is interesting, since the OIC continually proclaims death to the Jews, death to Israel,” she said. “The citizens of Minneapolis surely can’t be that easily bamboozled into giving away their First Amendment rights to free of speech.”… WND

U.S. Again Trying to Criminalize Free Speech

“The Framers of the Constitution knew that free speech is the friend of change and revolution. But they also knew that it is always the deadliest enemy of tyranny.”
-Hugo Black

The drafters of Senate Resolution 118 and House Resolution 257, are two Muslim organizations,

Current Law

The law already prohibits violence and threats of violence, and law enforcement authorities are supposed to prosecute those — intimidation, destruction, damage, vandalism, simple and aggravated assault. What “hate crimes” are not already covered by the law?

Senate Resolution 118 -The resolution refers to hate crimes against Muslims, Jews, African-Americans, Hindus, and Sikhs and was sponsored by Senator Kamala Harris and co-sponsored by Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Dianne Feinstein, and Senator Susan Collins.

On April 4, 2017, the US Senate passed Senate Resolution 118, “Condemning hate crime and any other form of racism, religious or ethnic bias, discrimination, incitement to violence, or animus targeting a minority in the United States”. The resolution was drafted by a Muslim organization, EmgageUSA (formerly EmergeUSA) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). On April 6, 2017, EmgageUSA wrote the following on their Facebook page:

“Thanks to the hard work of Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Susan Collins and Senator Kamala Harris we have achieved the approval of Senate Resolution 118, an anti-hate crimes bill drafted by Emerge-USA. It is days like this that Americans are reminded of this country’s founding principles: equal opportunity, freedom, justice. We are proud to help support the protection of these rights #amoreperfectunion #theamericandream”.

Senate Resolution 118 calls on

“…Federal law enforcement officials, working with State and local officials… to expeditiously investigate all credible reports of hate crimes and incidents and threats against minorities in the United States and to hold the perpetrators of those crimes, incidents, or threats accountable and bring the perpetrators to justice; encourages the Department of Justice and other Federal agencies to work to improve the reporting of hate crimes; and… encourages the development of an interagency task force led by the Attorney General to collaborate on the development of effective strategies and efforts to detect and deter hate crime in order to protect minority communities…”

House Resolution H.Res. 257

On April 6, almost the exact same text was introduced as House Resolution H.Res. 257, “Condemning hate crime and any other form of racism, religious or ethnic bias, discrimination, incitement to violence, or animus targeting a minority in the United States”. A House Resolution can be reintroduced as legislation.

H.Res. 257 urges

“…the development of an interagency task force led by the Attorney General and bringing together the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Education, the Department of State, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to collaborate on the development of effective strategies and efforts to detect and deter hate crime in order to protect minority communities”. The House Resolution was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary on April 6 and from there it was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations on April 21.

Americans should be concerned about these resolutions, especially the part of the House Resolution, which urges the establishment of an “interagency task force led by the Attorney General … on the development of effective strategies and efforts to detect and deter hate crime in order to protect minority communities.”

What is a hate crime in this context? The law already prohibits violence and threats of violence, and law enforcement authorities are supposed to prosecute those — intimidation, destruction, damage, vandalism, simple and aggravated assault. What do “strategies and efforts to detect and deter hate crime” entail, and again, what “hate crimes” are not already covered by the law? In other words, why would the House of Representatives find it necessary to make such redundant statements, if not in order to redefine the concept of a hate crime? Perhaps by including “hate speech“?

The US has been in a similar situation before. In December 2015, House Resolution H.Res. 569 “Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States” was introduced. That resolution never went any farther, but it was problematic: it favored Muslims over everyone else. The current resolution includes most of the major ethnic and religious minorities in the United States, so it will have a far better chance of passing, as it will more easily fool Representatives into thinking that the contents of the resolution are harmless.

The drafters of Senate Resolution 118 and House Resolution 257, are two Muslim organizations, EmgageUSA (formerly known as EmergeUSA) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council. This is what EmgageUSA published on its website on April 6, 2017:

“We are excited to report that EmergeUSA and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) worked with Senator Kamala Harris to introduce Senate Resolution #118, which was passed unanimously today. The historic resolution is the first of its kind to condemn hate crimes and other forms of racism. The hate crimes extend beyond targeting just Muslim and Jewish Americans to also include religious minorities such as Hindu and Sikh Americans… EmergeUSA is committed to engaging, and empowering the Muslim American community via the political process by working towards making federal and state legislation and policies more equitable for the Muslim American community”.

Online:  U.S. Trying to Criminalize Free Speech – Again

Kentucky Court Rules Print Shop Doesn’t Have to Make Gay Pride T-Shirts

The Kentucky court put religious freedom first, choosing not to elevate local discrimination ordinances above the first amendment.

Kentucky Lower Court

“There is no evidence in this record that [the company] or its owners refused to print the T-shirts in question based upon the sexual orientation of the GLSO or its members,” he [Judge Ishmael] said.

“Rather, it is clear beyond dispute that [the company] and its owners declined to print the T-shirts in question because of the message advocating sexual activity outside of a marriage between one man and one woman.”…

The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission took up the case and ruled that the company’s refusal to print the T-shirts was discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The commission also found that the local fairness ordinance did not violate free speech rights or rights to the free exercise of religion.

In reversing that determination, Judge Ishmael said the commission’s conclusions were “in direct contrast to well-established precedent.”..

In addition, he ruled that the company and its owners enjoy a right to freely exercise their religion, which includes not facing government actions that substantially burden those rights. Ishmael said there was no showing of a compelling government interest that would justify forcing company officials to violate their religious beliefs.

The judge said GLSO was able to obtain its T-shirts from another firm at a substantially reduced price or, perhaps, for free.  CSMonitor

Kentucky Court of Appeals

The ruling by the Kentucky Court of Appeals favored the business owner. A crucial difference in this case was the expressive nature of the service denied: literally words on a shirt.

In a split vote, a three-judge panel concluded that the store, Hands on Originals, couldn’t be forced to print a message with which the owner disagreed.

The dispute started in 2012 when Gay and Lesbian Services Organization in Kentucky asked Hands on Originals to make T-shirts with the name and logo of a pride festival.

Blaine Adamson, owner of Hands on Originals, said he refused to print the shirts because it violated his business’s policy of not printing messages that endorse positions in conflict with his convictions.

Mr. Adamson offered examples of other orders he refused, such as shirts featuring the word “bitches” or a depiction of Jesus dressed as a pirate.

The gay-rights group filed a complaint with the Lexington Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission, which in 2014 ordered Mr. Adamson to make the shirts.

Friday’s decision affirmed an earlier ruling from a lower court. The commission, which brought the appeal, said the store was in violation of a local “fairness” ordinance banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in places of public accommodation.

The Kentucky Court of Appeals, one level below the state’s Supreme Court, disagreed, ruling that the conduct by the business wasn’t discrimination, rather a decision not to promote certain speech.

One judge on the panel dissented, saying he thought Mr. Adamson’s shop had engaged in “deliberate and intentional discriminatory conduct.”

In other lawsuits against religious business owners, courts have rejected First Amendment defenses. WallStreetJournal

UMich Student Leaders Reject Free Speech Measure – Says It Puts People At Risk

What puts people at risk is lack of free speech.  This is about the ideology of the left.  If you deviate from that ideology you have no rights.

A resolution that called for a robust defense of free speech at the University of Michigan has been voted down by its student government.

Some students who voted against the measure cited concerns that, if approved, it’s essentially “legitimizing certain hate speech,” “delegitimizing minorities on campus” and “putting people at risk,” according to the minutes of the March 28 Central Student Government meeting.

The resolution was brought forth by student Deion Kathawa, the Michigan Review editor-in-chief and a College Fix contributor, who said he was motivated to lobby for his “Resolution That Commits Robustly Both This Body and the University as a Whole to Free Speech, or, the ‘Dangerous School’ Resolution” to bolster an institutional commitment to free speech.

It called on the student government to release a statement reaffirming its commitment to the First Amendment, to make it clear to the campus community that protests are allowed as long as they don’t deprive other students of their free speech rights, endorse the Chicago Principles of Free Expression, and support viewpoint diversity — particularly political diversity — in campus efforts to advance diversity in the curriculum and by other means.  TheCollegeFix

Top Psychologist: The Whole Concept Of Microaggressions Isn’t Supported By Science

He says, the science just doesn’t add up.

It is a mental disorder – inability to cope with life.

Microaggressions are in the water these days at colleges and universities. Students across the country are now learning what they are, how to avoid them and how to respond to them.

But according to one leading psychologist, the science behind microaggressions just doesn’t add up, and we shouldn’t be using the concept as a guideline for how we treat people because the whole thing could all be in our heads.

Dr. Scott Lilienfield of Emory University has a new review in Perspectives on Psychological Science that argues that microaggressions aren’t actually well-defined, that they are often dictated by the politics of a situation, and that there is a lack of concrete evidence that people suffer any long-term harm from being micro-aggressed.

Part of the problem, Lilienfield says, is that people lump “old fashioned abuse” in with small, everyday actions that are unintentionally racist and sexist. It’s not clear how small or how large an offense has to be before it moves out of the realm of “microaggression” and into the realm of actual racism or sexism —or whether there is actually any difference.

But that’s not stopping colleges from fully embracing the concept. Some students are being forced into microaggression training programs. Some schools are spending thousands on counselors, coloring books, therapy dogs, and ball pits to help students cope with an increasingly racist world. HeatStreet

Video:  Does Free Speech Offend You?

Hawaii Bill Would Force Church, Pro-life Centers To Promote Abortion

The bills  HB 663 and SB 501 target specifically non-profit pregnancy centers.  These bills would allow the government to tell faith-based pregnancy centers what they cannot say, and also what they have to say; provide abortion and contraceptive information even if it goes against their belief system.

Hawaii is considering legislation that would require all pregnancy centers to refer patients to clinics that provide abortions, — a move pro-life centers say will violate their religious beliefs and their free speech rights.

In a 22-3 vote, the state’s Democrat-controlled Senate approved SB 501, which would direct “all limited service pregnancy centers to disclose the availability of and enrollment information for reproductive health services.”

For the Rev. Derald Skinner, pastor at Calvary Chapel Pearl Harbor, that would mean putting a sign advertising abortion in his church.

“They want to mandate all pro-life centers to put an abortion referral sign in our reception areas,” Mr. Skinner said in a video published to the church’s Vimeo account. “Now our particular pro-life center is in our church. So it’s very important to realize that they are dictating to us what we can and cannot say. Will they give me my sermon next and tell me what I can preach?”

A companion bill is expected to pass in the House, which is also controlled by Democrats.  WashingtonTimes