Did California Really Ban the Sale of the Bible?

Recently there has been some online chatter about a bill in California which would supposedly ban the sale of Christian books and possibly the Bible itself.  Various websites, including Factcheck.org and Snopes.com have said it’s a bunch of nonsense and hysteria.

Today I wanted to take a look myself.


That’s a Bad Analysis, Patrick!

Let’s start with the analysis of Assembly Bill 2943 by Factcheck and Snopes. They both follow the same pattern.  They don’t quote the text of the bill – (or much of it anyway) – and they quickly shift to expert testimony insisting the bill will won’t apply to book sales. 

Snopes goes through the added effort of a CTLR+F search on the bill for the words “Bible”, “Christianity”, and “Religion”.  Then, having found zero hits, they say the whole thing is absurd.

This is an utterly insufficient way of analyzing the bill.  For instance, suppose I drafted a bill which would ban the use of internal combustion engines in California state parks.  An automotive website might see this and claim, “Cars and Trucks Now Banned from State Parks”.

Now, Snopes and FactCheck might open up the bill and search for the words “car” or “truck” and get zero hits.  They might even get an expert to claim the bill isn’t meant to affect cars or trucks.  But this doesn’t mean cars and trucks wouldn’t be banned anyway.  It just means the bill unintentionally banned them by implication.

The Letters of the Law:

So instead of relying on those websites, let’s conduct our own analysis.  And we’ll start by doing the job the fact-check sites refused to do; looking at the words of the statute.

AB2943 affects the state’s unfair business practices law, the “Consumer Legal Remedies Act” (CLRA).  That section of the California code bans:

“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.” 

The bill adds a clause to the CLRA which expands its scope.  It 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."

And by “Sexual orientation change efforts” (SOCE) it offers the following definition:

“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.”

Please note something important in the definition of “sexual orientation change efforts”.  It includes "any practice" to get a person to change "behaviors"  in regard to the same sex.  In other words, this goes beyond banning attempts to actually change a person’s sexual orientation.  It also bans efforts to assist a client in not acting on that sexual orientation – even if the orientation itself is left alone.

Now, the legal experts cited by Snopes and FactCheck insist this would only apply to counselling efforts.  However, the definition of SOCE includes "any practices".  Taken literally, this would apply to more than formal counselling.

Also, we should note that the CLRA - (in which this statute is found) - applies to any transaction in which “goods” are sold by "any person".  This seems to imply the scope of the ban would include the sale of any product. 

Which would include books.


Test Case:

Now let’s imagine a scenario:

A man who experiences same-sex attractions embraces Christian celibacy and finds peace and fulfillment.  He decides to write a book about his story.  In that book he commends his new lifestyle to other men in similar situations.  This book finds its way to a Christian bookseller in California.    

Question: Is it legal to sell that book?

Well, the book is a product which attempts to change one’s behavior in regard to homosexual acts.  That - (according to the definition in AB2943) - is an attempt at a “sexual orientation change”.  And selling the book would be a sale of a “good” to that effect. 

All in all, it’s difficult to see how selling the book wouldn’t fall under the statute’s prohibitions.  In other words, I’m pretty sure it would be illegal to sell that book.

You could argue the Christian bookseller isn’t technically  engaging in the “sexual orientation change efforts” by selling the book.  It’s really the author who’s doing it. The bookseller is just profiting off being a middle-man.

But that seems like a very flimsy defense.  At best it would make him an accomplice for fraud.


Broadening the Scope:

Back to the bigger question.

If the above is true of about a hypothetical book encouraging Christian chastity … it’s difficult to see how it wouldn’t also apply to Christian religious texts.  After all, there are no exemptions in the bill for religious texts.

So while there is no telling how it all might shake out in the courts, I think there is a strong case to be made that wording of Assembly Bill 2416 in the California CLRA would inadvertently ban the sale of the Bible and the Catholic Catechism.

A lawmaker might say this goes beyond the intent of the legislation, but it seems to be included in the words of the bill.