The California Supreme Court stops a major challenge to LGBT groups in nursing homes

The California Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to the 1st Amendment to the federal law that protects the rights of nursing and nursing homes and denies employees of such facilities the use of a resident or co-worker.

The decision, issued on Friday, held that the violation of the rights of LGBT residents during the period of care of residents is not protected by the 1st amendment

“The pronoun provision constitutes a regulation of discriminatory conduct affecting speech,” the court said.

The opinion overturned an appeals court ruling that provided the country’s 2017 laws with patient pronouns could interfere with freedom of speech. Five judges signed the best opinion; two signed in partnership. There are no arguments.

“All people deserve to live without a harmful, dignified attack that attacks their sense of independence, especially when they receive the necessary care for their continued well-being,” atty. Genb Rob Bonta said in a written statement that he commends this decision. “Federal law prohibits discrimination and harassment in the workplace. I am pleased that the California Supreme Court agrees with us on the importance of these protections and affirmed their law.”

The group challenging the law, Outrage, argued in its filing that the provision to provide long-term care facilities uses the words of the people who shape the values ​​to “make the content of the speech compelling.”

Outrage described itself in court documents as a group of counter-attempts “to force the public to accept the Transgender myth that a person can be any sex / gender / you think,

The court ruled that the Bill of Rights for long-term care of the rights of the LGBT will be violated when there is a serious and double injury in front of the resident, the resident hears or the resident is injured because the resident is injured that they are harassing. “

The LGBT Time Care Bill of Rights is enforced by the California Health and Safety Code section. Penalties can range from civil penalties to misdemeanor prosecutions – the power of criminal penalties was a major point of contention. The Court’s decision notes that some protections for long-term caregiving citizens have long carried both criminal and criminal penalties.

“It seems that the legislature does not intend to set criminal penalties that will be limited except as a last resort, in the circumstances of California, Jalifornia Justice Patricia Guerrero Guerrero.

The opinion makes comparisons to other free decisions with similar properties, such as the high court decisions of 1995 which concluded that the gays of Ireland, the lesbian and the group of Boston could not force the organizers of parrick parrick data parade to include them.

“On the contrary, the present case does not involve any analogous creative product or emerging entity,” wrote Guerrero, concluding that California law is governed by the conduct of the People.

Duara writes in CalNews.