The Bell Gardens Democrat said he wrote Senate Bill 1146 to protect LGBT students who may not be treated equally at religious colleges. “The goal for me has always been to shed the light on the appalling and unacceptable discrimination against LGBT students at these private religious institutions throughout California,” Lara told the Los Angeles Times.

As written, Senate Bill 1146 would have put roadblocks in the way for institutions that make admission, housing and accommodation decisions based on traditional views about sexuality. It would also require colleges to advertise their Title IX exempt status publicly.

But after pushback from religious colleges who claim the bill forces them to violate long-established standards of conduct, as well as making them vulnerable to lawsuits, Lara said SB1146 required a second look.

“I don’t want to just rush a bill that’s going to have unintended consequences so I want to take a break to really study this issue further,” Lara said.

Lara’s amendment removes the restrictions on Title IX exemptions, allowing colleges to continue to hold on to their faith-based standards while requiring notification of exemption status and information about disciplinary actions against students based on their sexuality.

SB1146 received intense opposition from California religious colleges, some of which created the Association of Faith Based Institutions and the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities to lobby against the bill. Independent protest groups such as California MassResistance also encouraged opponents of the bill to petition their local assemblymen.

“This bill is a proposed solution looking for a problem,” California MassResistance director Arthur Schaper said. “It’s more about fomenting unrest and legal conflict. That’s the last thing students need.”

Many California colleges have announced support for the amended bill, which has already been approved in the state Senate and will be heard by the Assembly Appropriations Committee on Thursday.

His red pen and marked-up copy stood out as he and fellow protester Mike McGetrick reached the sixth floor of a steely high-rise in Anaheim.

Their message for Assemblyman Tom Daly, an Anaheim Democrat, was simple: “I’m just gonna go with this,” Lauten said, unfolding his statement. “I’m gonna tell him to say no,” McGetrick said.

With only one working month left in session, California legislators will likely consider a bill that would eliminate most religious exemptions from Title IX requirements for colleges and universities that receive public funds. Title IX is a federal policy designed to combat gender discrimination in colleges and universities, and SB1146 would, among other things, require housing and restroom accommodations that adhere to the student’s gender identity.

Religious freedom v. discrimination

Lauten, McGetrick and others split into groups to target five Southern California assemblymen last week to urge a “no” vote. Some groups came with more posters, cameras and statements for the media than the Anaheim protesters, but all were ready to discuss their concerns.

Opponents argue the bill would restrict their First Amendment protections, while supporters say current and prospective LGBT students are discriminated against by religious colleges, especially after federal recommendations that Title IX should include transgender students.

“This is about putting outrageous pressure on schools, opening them up to interminable liabilities, and at its core, making it easy for people to deprive these schools of the opportunity to operate by and to pursue the core principles they’ve laid out,” said Arthur Schaper, the director of California MassResistance, a group that aims to limit the LGBT movement and organized the protests.

But does it fight discrimination?

SB1146, sponsored by Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, would allow only colleges that prepare students for religious vocations to apply for a Title IX exemption, a special waiver that allows colleges to make admissions and hiring decisions based on their religious beliefs about sexuality. The bill would also require that colleges make public their Title IX exemptions.

Current law exempts religious institutions from both federal and state laws if they believe Title IX requirements are not consistent with their religious beliefs. 

“All students deserve to feel safe in institutions of higher education, regardless of whether they are public or private,” Lara said in a statement in April. “California has established strong protections for the LGBTQ community and private universities should not be able to use faith as an excuse to discriminate and avoid complying with state laws. No university should have a license to discriminate.” Lara did not respond to CalWatchdog’s requests for comment.

Besides Daly’s office, California MassResistance activists visited district offices of four other Assembly Democrats: Ian Calderon of Whittier, Miguel Santiago of Los Angeles, Patrick O’Donnell of Long Beach and Chris Holden of Pasadena.

Exemptions on the rise

At least 42 California institutions qualify for the exemption. And of the nine that have submitted applications, seven have been granted and two are pending, according to the U.S. Department of Education.

Exemptions are usually granted, though the college must specify the areas to which their application applies, such as in housing, athletics, facilities or admission by gender identity.

Though Title IX exemptions have been around since the federal Higher Education Act was amended in 1972, exemption requests have soared in the last few years since protections were expanded to include transgender students.

According to the Human Rights Campaign, two schools requested exemptions between 2009 and 2013. In 2014 and 2015, there were at least 56.

Limits to religious freedom?

The Supreme Court has ruled on the limits of religious freedom at universities before. Perhaps the most well-known ruling was against Bob Jones University in South Carolina.

Bob Jones University did not admit black students until 1971, but barred interracial dating and marriages among students after that. In 1976, the university lost its tax exempt status based on IRS regulations against racially discriminatory admissions policies.

The Supreme Court upheld the IRS’ decision to withhold tax exempt status in 1983. Instead of changing its interracial dating policy, the university chose to keep it intact and pay years of back taxes.

“Title IX was created to stop discrimination based on sex,” Schaper said. “Now Democrats are distorting the word ‘sex’ to mean orientation and identity.”

Schaper is also concerned about the bill’s requirement that makes Title IX exemptions public. Colleges would be required to advertise their Title IX exemption status on admission materials, in student orientations and in a prominent place on campus.

“This puts an undue burden on colleges and makes them vulnerable to lawsuits,” Schaper said.

Discussion on campus

An LGBT activist group at Biola University in La Mirada is pushing against religious colleges from the other side of Title IX.

In May, Erin Green, the executive director of Biolans’ Equal Ground — a group of Christian, affirming LGBTQ students and supporters — wrote a letter to the college asking it withdraw its pending Title IX exemption request.

“There is a vast difference between upholding Biola University code of conduct versus the outright discrimination against a certain group of people,” Green wrote. “The request for a Title IX exemption is an attack on your LGBTQ students and their safety.”

But Biola opposes SB1146 and it doesn’t appear institutional leaders will withdraw the college’s exemption request.

“We are not asking the LGBT community to change who they are,” Biola president Barry Corey said in a video created as part of the college’s “Oppose SB1146” campaign. “We are simply asking that they do not force us to change who we are, either.”

SB1146 already passed the Senate and faces a floor vote in the Assembly. If it passes, the bill will reach Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk later this year. Brown has been supportive of pro-transgender and LGBT legislation, most recently signing the “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Disparities Reduction Act” in 2015.

According to a Public Policy Institute of California poll released Wednesday, a majority of Californians support government efforts to improve the environment, despite possible rises in energy costs and ongoing debates about the legality and effectiveness of the state’s environmental policies.

The study, which surveyed around 1,700 California residents about various environmental concerns, found that the majority of Californians supported existing plans to combat global warming, and were willing to expand these laws, even if that means paying more for gasoline and electricity.

“We find strong support today for the state’s greenhouse gas emissions targets set 10 years ago,” PPIC president Mark Baldassare said. “The commitment to help reduce global warming includes a surprising willingness on the part of majorities of Californians to pay higher prices.”

Big dreams for a cleaner California

Sixty-nine percent of Californians approved of plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels, as laid out in AB32, one of the state’s landmark environmental laws.

But government plans to reduce emissions have been met with mixed results. The cap-and-trade program, created by the Air Resources Board in response to AB32, places carbon emission limits on businesses and allows them to purchase credits for exceeding those limits. But at May’s quarterly auction, businesses purchased only 2 percent of the anticipated revenues.

The program faces legal challenges as well. A lawsuit by the California Chamber of Commerce claims the program is actually an illegal tax on businesses, requiring a two-thirds vote to become law.

Critics have complained about how the cap-and-trade revenue is spent – that the money doesn’t often fund projects that meet the required emission reduction goals. Assemblyman Adam Gray, D-Merced, said he is concerned about how the revenues are spent, calling the program “a feeding frenzy for a multitude of pet projects,” according to The Sacramento Bee.

And though there has been a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions, some say the lower levels may reflect outside factors like business scale-backs during the Great Recession.

“The jury’s really out on whether we’ve seen a lot of reductions caused by cap-and-trade,” James Bushnell, an energy economist at UC Davis, told the Los Angeles Times. 

Despite varied expert opinions, 54 percent of respondents in the PPIC survey approve of the cap-and-trade program – after the surveyors gave a brief explanation to the 55 percent who had never heard of the program before.

Respondents also support a proposed new law that would ramp up AB32’s plans to control emissions, which would exceed AB32’s reduction goals and extend the program to the year 2030.

And 58 percent of those surveyed believe local and state governments should devote more resources to other environmental issues, as well – electric cars, solar power and drought management.

A big paycheck for California residents

Californians know that reducing greenhouse gas emissions could raise energy costs – and they are ready to foot the bill.

The majority of respondents said they would be willing to pay more for gas (63 percent) and solar- or wind-generated electricity (56 percent). The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that gas prices would rise 11 cents as a result of the cap-and-trade program.

But this widespread support of energy reforms comes alongside equally widespread opposition by those who prioritize economic concerns over the environment.

How it’s playing in 2016

Alternative energy plans come with a cost – and according to Assemblywoman Cheryl Brown, the Inland Empire may not be able to afford it. In 2015, the San Bernardino Democrat opposed a petroleum-reduction provision of Senate Bill 350, another key piece of California’s environmental policy, citing concerns that potential rising energy costs could harm lower-income families.

However, some voters said Brown’s opposition amounted to a rejection of the entire clean energy campaign and retribution was swift. Protests, rallies and criticisms from other officials have threatened Brown’s re-election, while the campaign has become a proxy war between Big Oil and Big Environment. 

“Do you ever feel that something is not going quite right?” Brown asked the Los Angeles Times in March. “They are after me, and I still don’t know why. I don’t know who ‘they’ are. But I will find out soon.”

Concerns about the impracticality of California energy reforms are reflected in the PPIC survey, as well. The majority of respondents supported clean energy programs like electric cars and charging carports, with 68 percent in favor of tax credits for purchasing electric cars, and 77 percent supportive of infrastructure for charging the vehicles.

But less than half (47 percent) are actually considering purchasing an electric car themselves, suggesting that good intentions may not match up with environmentally conscious decisions.