WE TRULY HAVE ENTERED THE FINAL DAYS: A CALIF. APPEALS COURT ACTUALLY HAD TO RULE FORCING SOMEONE TO USE A ‘PREFERRED PRONOUN’ IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Just how far into the abyss — the final days of our republic — have we gone?

We’ve gone so far that we actually need federal courts to tell us when we can and cannot use certain “pronouns.”

More specifically, when we’re ‘allowed’ to not use certain pronouns.

Breitbart News has more:

The California Third District Court of Appeals ruled unanimously Friday that a 2017 state law requiring nursing homes to use patients' preferred pronouns violates First Amendment free speech rights.

The law, SB 219, was authored by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco). As Breitbart News reported at the time, it provided for jail sentences of up to one year for using the 'wrong' pronoun.

Got that? Democrats are so insanely authoritarian they actually passed a law that would put people in jail for using the ‘wrong’ transgender pronoun — but don’t care that laws against blatant theft from a store aren’t being enforced or that police are being defunded so cities devolve into chaos.

The California court ruled:

As we will explain, we agree that the pronoun provision is a content-based restriction on speech. The law compels long-term care facility staff to alter the message they would prefer to convey, either by hosting a message as required by the resident or by refraining from using pronouns at all. … As we discuss at greater length post, we recognize the State has a compelling interest in eliminating discrimination against residents of long-term care facilities. However, we conclude the pronoun provision is not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government objective because it burdens speech more than is required to achieve the State's compelling objective. Accordingly, the provision does not survive strict scrutiny.

However, 'the First Amendment against state action includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.' (Wooley, supra, 430 U.S. at p. 714.) For purposes of the First Amendment, there is no difference between a law compelling an employee to utter a resident's preferred pronoun and prohibiting an employee from uttering a pronoun the resident does not prefer. … Accordingly, we disagree with the Attorney General that the restriction on speech here is content neutral simply because...

Read More HERE