SaveCalifornia.com Blog//

‘Christians’ are helping perverse bills pass

Thursday, October 6, 2016, 12:53 pm | Randy Thomasson

SaveCalifornia.com provides this solely for educational purposes
and does not support or oppose candidates for public office.

I never thought I’d see the day when professing Christians help anti-Christian bills pass.

But that’s what happened with some of the worst, anti-family bills of the year in California.

When Governor Jerry Brown, a Democrat, signed SB 1146 to initiate State control over religious matters on religious property, favoring the unnatural, unhealthy, unbiblical, tyrannical homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda over constitutional religious freedom, he could only do it because the presidents of six large “Christian” colleges in California had dropped their opposition and instead supported this unprecedented, unconstitutional, subjective bill.

These “Christian” universities supporting the amended SB 1146 were Azusa Pacific, Biola, Cal Baptist, Point Loma Nazarene, Westmont, and William Jessup. Together, they issued a statement saying they “appreciate” and are “grateful” to homosexual activist and SB 1146 author Ricardo Lara, even saying they “look forward to working with Sen. Lara…to strengthen this partnership.”

genderneutralrestroomsign2And when Gov. Brown signed AB 1732 to tear down “men,” “women,” “boys,” and “girls” signs, and replace them with pro-transsexuality “all gender” signs at single-user restrooms at every business, including home businesses, and every church school, religious daycare center or religious senior home, etc., it was because some professing Christians supported this intrusive bill, empowering it to pass.

In the California State Assembly, Republican Catharine Baker of Dublin voted “yes” for both AB 1732 and SB 1146. Yet Baker has publicly said she’s a “Christian” and has been a Sunday school teacher at San Ramon Valley United Methodist Church.

And in the California State Senate, Republican Anthony Cannella of Ceres is known as a professing “Christian” to locals and also to reporters. But Cannella spoke in favor of and voted for AB 1732 to force small and home businesses and church schools to replace “men” and “women” signs with “all-gender” signs at single-user restrooms.

Yet in California’s pro-family community, the most shocking support for AB 1732 came from a pro-family legal organization leader, who said the bill “makes a lot of sense,” that he say “nothing with laws” like AB 1732, that he would not oppose it, and commended the bill for being “sensitive to many transgendered people.”

What’s the upshot of all this? Pastors who preach and individuals who teach must purposefully strive to a) hold people in leadership positions accountable to biblical sexual standards, b) teach separateness from evil (holiness), c) warn against partnering with evil people, d) condemn political prostitution, and e) urge people to vote for candidates with proven moral-values integrity.

Because sadly, these dark days, a “Christian” who won’t “compromise” seems a rarity.

The harm of SB 1146 | SB 1146 votes
The harm of AB 1732 | AB 1732 votes

Do not be deceived: “Evil company corrupts good habits.”
1 Corinthians 15:33

Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols?
2 Corinthians 6:14-16


“Christians” + “LGBT” activists pass SB 1146 harming religious freedom

Tuesday, August 23, 2016, 10:35 pm | Randy Thomasson

THANK YOU for going for the win for religious freedom by opposing SB 1146. And you would have won, but you were tackled by your “own side”!

August 23 in California, “Christian” colleges got what they wanted. Despite noble religious-freedom supporters following SaveCalifornia.com, California MassResistance, and some courageous Christian pastors fighting hard against the amended SB 1146, this anti-religious-freedom bill PASSED the California State Assembly August 23 by only 2 votes. It’s because some “Christian” college presidents “partnered” with the homosexual-activist author of SB 1146, to “OK” this bill giving the State the beginnings of control over religious matters.

What does this tell you? That if “Christian” colleges had also opposed SB 1146 hard on the Assembly floor (instead of supporting it, which was announced by the Assembly’s homosexual-activist floor jockey of SB 1146, Evan Low), this first-of-its-kind state regulation of religious matters (see how bad SB 1146 is) would have been defeated instead of approved.

ThankyouforyourhardworkAgain, thank you for making EFFECTIVE phone calls to “pull off” nearly enough Democrats who were either concerned about this obvious anti-religious-freedom bill or concerned about their reputation if they voted for it. I admire your love and perseverance if you made one or more phone calls against SB 1146 at SaveCalifornia.com’s request. Again, it was the “Christian” college presidents supporting the same amended SB 1146 that homosexual activists are pushing that got this bad bill passed!

The first vote on the Assembly floor was so close, SB 1146 only got 33 yes votes. For more than an hour, the Democrat bosses had to work extra hard to get enough foolish votes in favor of this unconstitutional bill. An hour-and-a-half after the first vote, the “call” on SB 1146 was lifted for a second vote. While 10 Democrats abstained and so did 5 Republicans, the bill initially passed with 42 votes, just one more than needed (in the 80-member State Assembly, 41 votes are required to pass majority-vote bills).

After some vote changes when the day’s session ended, the final vote on SB 1146 was 45 voting YES (44 Democrats + Republican Catharine Baker), 28 voting NO (including Democrats Joaquin Arambula, Jacqui Irwin and Rudy Salas), and 7 abstentions. SB 1146 now goes to the State Senate for a concurrence vote by August 31.


The vote tally below reflects vote changes at the end of the August 23 floor session: Going from NOT VOTING to voting NO were Republicans Brian Jones of Santee and Ling Ling Chang of Diamond Bar and Democrats Joaquin Arambula of Fresno, Jacqui Irwin of Thousand Oaks, and Rudy Salas of Bakersfield; going from NOT VOTING to voting YES were Democrats Eduardo Garcia of Palm Desert and Nora Campos of San Jose, and Republican Catharine Baker of Dublin. Final vote totals are 45 yes, 28 no, 7 not voting 7.

Voting yes on SB 1146 were 44 Democrats and 1 Republican
See the Democrats’ contact numbers

Luis Alejo
Toni Atkins
Catharine Baker (R)
Richard Bloom
Susan Bonilla
Rob Bonta
Autumn Burke
Ian Calderon
Nora Campos
Ed Chau
David Chiu
Kansen Chu
Jim Cooper
Matthew Dababneh
Tom Daly
Bill Dodd
Susan Eggman
Bill Frazier
Cristina Garcia
Eduardo Garcia
Mike Gatto
Mike Gipson
Jimmy Gomez
Lorena Gonzalez
Richard Gordon
Roger Hernandez
Chris Holden
Reginald Jones-Sawyer
Marc Levine
Evan Low
Kevin McCarty
Jose Medina
Kevin Mullin
Patrick O’Donnell
Bill Quirk
Anthony Rendon
Sebastian Ridley-Thomas
Freddie Rodriguez
Miguel Santiago
Mark Stone
Tony Thurmond
Philip Ting
Shirley Weber
Das Williams
Jim Wood

Voting NO on SB 1146 were 25 Republicans and 3 Democrats:
See the Republicans’ contact numbers

Katcho Achadjian
Travis Allen
Joaquin Arambula (D)
Frank Bigelow
William Brough
Ling Ling Chang
Rocky Chavez
Brian Dahle
Beth Gaines
James Gallagher
Shannon Grove
David Hadley
Matthew Harper
Jacqui Irwin (D)
Brian Jones
Young Kim
Tom Lackey
Eric Linder
Brian Maienschein
Devon Mathis
Melissa Melendez
Jay Obernolte
Jim Patterson
Rudy Salas (D)
Marc Steinorth
Donald Wagner
Marie Waldron
Scott Wilk

Not voting either way on SB 1146 were 5 Democrats and 2 Republicans

Cheryl Brown (D)
Ken Cooley (D)
Adam Gray (D)
Patty Lopez (D)
Chad Mayes (R)
Adrin Nazarian (D)
Kristin Olsen (R)

See why SB 1146 is an unprecedented, unconstitutional, subjective, and harmful attack on religious freedom


Will ‘men’ and ‘women’ restroom signs be torn down?

Monday, August 22, 2016, 8:43 pm | Randy Thomasson

Scroll down for your sample letter to urge a veto of AB 1732


The foolish favoritism that the ruling Democrats (and some Republicans) in the California Legislature give to a segment of transsexual activists, who want to abolish male/female differences wherever they can, may result in the elimination of “men,” “women,” “boys,” and “girls” single-user restrooms up and down California.

genderneutralrestroomsignOn August 22, the California State Assembly gave final approval to AB 1732, which requires the removal of male- and female-designated single-user restrooms in all California businesses (including home businesses) and all religious schools and colleges, senior centers, and day care centers.

This radical bill that has no religious exemption passed the California State Assembly with the “yes” votes of most of the Democrats and 5 Republicans. This came after 25 Democrats and 3 Republicans in the State Senate passed it. See who voted yes and no.

This year, SaveCalifornia.com was the only organization opposing AB 1732 at the State Capitol. No business organizations spoke out like their counterparts did in other states where similar bills were defeated. No other pro-family organizations fought it either (one pro-family leader even publicly said AB 1732 “makes a lot of sense” for how it’s “sensitive to many transgendered people”).

Now AB 1732 can only be stopped by Jerry Brown. There is no legislation in the nation like this that has gotten this far. It is time for every pro-family business owner to mail and fax their veto letter to Gov. Brown, on business letterhead. Brown’s fax is 916-558-3160.



Governor Jerry Brown
State Capitol, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: AB 1732 Veto Request

Dear Governor Brown,

As a small business owner, I am writing to urge you to veto AB 1732.
This bill is unnecessary. We’ve never had a problem, incident, or complaint. Anyone who identifies as male uses the men’s room; anyone who identifies as female uses the women’s room.

Yet AB 1732 would force me to buy and install new door signs and possibly also install a men’s urinal in the women’s room. Subsection (c) of the bill defines “single-user toilet facility” as “a toilet facility with no more than one water closet and one urinal with a locking mechanism controlled by the user.” This is poorly drafted at the least. I don’t want to be forced to pay for plumbing, drywall, and masonry work to install a men’s urinal in the women’s room.

And women and girls don’t want to use a urine-stained toilet seat, which I’ve seen too many times. Also, while my restrooms shut and lock properly, I am concerned for the privacy and security of women and girls in restrooms that don’t shut or lock properly, since under an “all-gender” restroom mandate, a man or boy could surprise a woman or girl who is on the toilet.

I am also concerned this bill could result in less access. Under AB 1732, small businesses — especially businesses that start up or move — that wish to save time and money can go from two single-user restrooms (one for men and one for women) to only one restroom (“all gender”). They could easily be motivated to save costs on installation, repair, supplies, cleaning, water, electricity, and inspection. For AB 1732 is silent on whether there must be “two restrooms.”

Furthermore, AB 1732 is inconsistent with laws requiring separate restrooms for males and females. At restaurants, public and private school cafeterias, etc.: California Health and Safety Code, Section 114276 requires that “a food facility with more than 20,000 square feet of floor space shall provide at least one separate toilet facility for men and one separate toilet facility for women.” At gas stations: Business and Professions Code, Section 13651 mandates urban and suburban service stations to “include separate facilities for men and women.” At construction sites: Cal/OSHA Title 8 regulations (Subchapter 4. Construction Safety Orders, Article 3, Section 1526) reads “A minimum of one separate toilet facility shall be provided for each 20 employees or fraction thereof of each sex.” At government buildings and offices: Health and Safety Code, Section 118500 says public agencies must provide restrooms “for each sex.”

Governor Brown, AB 1732 is not only unnecessary, it’s poorly drafted and it’s intrusive. As a small business owner, I would appreciate your veto of AB 1732.




Mothers always pass an X chromosome on to their children. Whether your father passes on his X chromosome (leading to a pair of X chromosomes) or his Y chromosome (making a mixed set) determines your sex.
“The X and Y Chromosomes Determine Your Sex”, 23andme.com