There are a number of new laws that will kick in in 2024, but one of the most interesting fights are likely to over the new California law requiring stores with more than 500 employees to carry “gender-neutral” toys over face state fines. The law, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021, is likely to trigger free speech challenges.
The law covers childcare items, which is defined as “any product designed or intended by the manufacturer to facilitate sleep, relaxation, or the feeding of children, or to help children with sucking or teething.”
The requirement of a gender-neutral section could be opposed by businesses on religious or other grounds. Notably, this applies to relatively large businesses. In the past, companies like Target have been boycotted for selling “tuck-friendly” items opposed by some consumers. While there is likely to be a backlash, these companies can argue that they are merely following the law rather than pursuing woke corporate policies.
The law could return courts to defining the free speech rights of corporations and the question of compelled speech. It is an interesting variation on the case of the recent 303 Creative ruling of the Supreme Court, which is discussed in my recent law review publication as well as my forthcoming book.
In that case, the Court ruled in favor of a website designer who refused to work on same-sex marriage projects. That case, however, involved products made by the designer with “expressive content.” This is requiring the selling of products made by others.
In 2010, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court held in favor of a company in striking down political campaign limits as a denial of corporate free speech rights.
In 2014, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Court ruled in favor of a privately-held, for-profit corporation that refused to cover contraceptive services under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.
This case presents a different but arguably analogous issue of corporate free speech. A major element for challengers is to find an ideal plaintiff with long-standing religious objections to such gender neutral products to make the strongest case for government-compelled speech.
The question is whether a state can compel a company to sell items that it or its customers consider to be morally offensive. If so, what is the limit on such state power? While these are not expressive products created by the owners, it is still compelling the store to associate with such products and their inherent message or values. For example, if Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop is no longer required to make same-sex cakes, could he be required to sell pre-made same-sex cakes created by others?
As many on this blog are aware, my natural default remains with free speech. However, people of good faith can disagree on such questions. The court may soon be involved in answering these questions in what is likely going to be a novel and important challenge out of California.
” [Target] selling “tuck-friendly” items . . .”
Speaking of the Left’s obsession with the perverse —
Just when you think the culture cannot get any lower:
“Here Come the Ecosexuals! [People who find] nature romantic, sensual, and sexy.” Sonja Semyonova “describes herself as ‘ecosexual’ believes she is in the midst of a love affair with an oak tree.” “I would lie against it. There was an eroticism with something so big and so old holding my back.”
(https://drhurd.com/2023/12/27/the-logical-extreme-of-subjectivism-keeps-stretching/)
The law is stupid.
I am not sure the big deal is free speech.
The core issue is the general freedom to do business at all.
If the government can order a store to carry Gen Neutral items, what can’t it do ?
Can it order grocery stores to carry auto parts ?
Separately stores actually go to a great deal of trouble to carry the products that customers in their markets want.
If the customers of these stores want gender neutral toys – they are already being sold.
I do not fundimentally have a problem with gender neutral products.
I do not think Hobby Lobby does either.
Many places that supply babies products already sell gener neutral goods – because until recently it was difficult to know the gender of a baby before birth – and even today – everyone might not know.
Will this law be challenged ? I do not know ? It appears to be so narrow that few are going to care.
The big deal is NOT the law itself, but the massive potential that will inevitably follow.
It is a very bad idea for the state to be telling businesses what they must offer for sale.
It is also a violation of fundimental aspects of the social contract.
The role of the state is to tell you those FEW things you CAN’T do.
Nearly all law is negative – thou shalt not.
While all negative law is not good law,
negative law tends to be far less problematic than positive law – Thou Shalt.
There is no limiting principle that would apply to laws of this type.
When government forces merchants to carry products that do not sell well,
the cost of that is born by consumers in higher prices.
No one is going to have standing ..that’s the law fare here. Despite 500 being an arbitrary number. Maybe hobby lobby.?
But how did the rule makers pick 500 of what math and rationality? I guess the cia does actually need front stores in America despite in 2008 saying they’d stop that nonsense…we. The people need front companies with 500employeesto
challenge this social engineering law. Geez for the people by the people should be easier than this crap.
https://jonathanturley.org/2023/12/27/new-callifornia-law-requires-stores-to-carry-gender-neutral-toys/#more-213491 …
American stupidity continues to increase rapidly in the 21st century… 😃
How can someone “force” someone to do something like “selling something” in this case, against their own “wishes and business sense”? …
Whatever happened to “freedom and liberty”? 😂
Who will pay for the “unsold stock/inventory”?? … 😃
By passing a “statute” one can ask “someone to NOT do something” as it may act against the “general well-being” of a “society” ..
But by a “fiat of a lawmaking body” one can not “force” someone to “do something” just because it “helps” others… It can merely encourage …
However, the “choice” must be “entirely” left to the “society”..
I mean that is how we practice “democracy” in “Bharat” … 😂
Clearly, along with “North Korea, Somalia, China, Taliban-Afghanistan” and all those other “dangerous” countries; one must “avoid” visiting “California” too.. 😂😂
Aw!! This slays us … 😃
Another crock of bull excrement! Perhaps they will require retailers to sell toys for those who have other body dysphorias such as anorexia nervosa. Perhaps the state will require those with anorexia to have mandatory liposuction so that their body will match their dysphoria.
It is a race to the bottom!
The free American consumer drives and decides what products are placed on shelves.
The consumer takes them off the shelves, or not.
Any governmental interference in products or purchases is dictatorship.
When communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) adhere to the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” Karl Marx’s “dictatorship of the hired help,” they criminally violate and nullify the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
No governmental level has any power to dictate the design, engineering, manufacture, or marketing of products, or any command and control of purchases.
One of these days, the Supreme Court is going to hear about the Constitution and its Justices’ sworn-oath duty to “support” its clear meaning and intent.
Oh, Happy Day!
This is brainwashing pure and simple, and I don’t see how any store can be forced to sell a certain product.
California has left the solar system. They’re in outer space.
No one is forcing any stores to sell a specific product. You’d know that if you bothered to read the law (which JT links to but doesn’t quote).
I force toys all of the time up my uranus. How else to explain my explosive diarrhea rants on this blog? You have no idea how hard it is to find a butt plug that doesnt slide easily inside my bum. Ive had so many toys inside me that not even California’s genderless toys can satisfy my unquenchable hunger. The struggle is real
Not me.
Steaming turd^^^
Ok anonymouse. Feel free to post where it says that. I work for a living so I don’t have time to hide behind an anonymous handle playing armchair troll all day, but feel free to post where it says that.
Let me get this straight: in Turley’s first paragraph, in the last sentence, the word “law” is hyperlinked, but you are unwilling to simply click on it? JFC.
The relevant paragraph says “55.8. (a) A retail department store that offers childcare items or toys for sale shall maintain a gender neutral section or area, to be labeled at the discretion of the retailer, in which a reasonable selection of the items and toys for children that it sells shall be displayed, regardless of whether they have been traditionally marketed for either girls or for boys.”
That paragraph says NOTHING suggesting that a “store can be forced to sell a certain product.” It’s only about the placement of items they already sell. God forbid that they place children’s toys in a “Toy” section.
So not only are you snibbling c oward hiding behind an anonymous handle cackling like that little creature on Star Wars that sat at Jabbas feet collecting all the food that fell out of his mouth, but you’re also iliterate?
You can’t even read?
It clearly states they have to there a gender-neutral line of products. it doesn’t say anything about relocating existing products. It says they have to create a section that carries gender neutral products, meaning they have to have gender neutral products.
Idiot.
“55.8. (a) A retail department store that offers childcare items or toys for sale shall maintain a gender neutral section or area, to be labeled at the discretion of the retailer, in which a reasonable selection of the items and toys for children that it sells shall be displayed, regardless of whether they have been traditionally marketed for either girls or for boys.”
IF they “offer[] childcare items or toys for sale,” THEN they “shall maintain a gender neutral section or area.” That’s about the location. That area will include “a reasonable selection of the items and toys for children that it sells.” In other words: of the childcare items / toys that it ALREADY sells, at least a subset (constituting “a reasonable selection”) will be placed in the gender neutral AREA.
Idiot.
We’re talking about how the law applies to “TOY” stores and stores that sell Toys.
Idiot.
Of course you know that, which is what makes you a rodent, anonymouse.
In other words, I was right, but you can’t admit it, and instead you resort to insult. Nice ad hom!
No idiot, it means you’re a worthless piece of sh@# troll wasting my time with your nonsensical baby talk.
And it also means you’re wrong, the law DOES say if you sell toys you have to sell gender neutral toys.
Deal with it punk.
Really? You are going to argue that while it’s not ok for government to mandate private companies to sell specific products, it’s perfectly fine for government to mandate private companies to have specific categories of products and areas set aside displaying said products?
Who decides what number of products fulfill the definition of “reasonable?”
Also, what’s considered gender neutral? Or a toy for that matter?
Have you never known girls who like Hot Wheels and boys who like Easy Bake Ovens? ALL toys are fender neutral on planet Earth in 2024.
And anyway, I thought gender was “fluid?” Doesn’t that logic extend to “gender neutral toys?” Barbie’s feeling very “Ken-like today.”
Your defense is snacks of a kind my teenaged daughters tried. It didn’t work then and it sure as heck ain’t working now.
There is no need for any law to tell, suggest, hint, at what businesses must sell.
There is no need for California to have any law regarding Gender and products.
This is little different from Jim Crow. Businesses in the south did not discriminate to the liking of southern law makers – so they had to FORCE that by law.
If people want gender neutral toys, products, whatever – business will provide.
Fentanyl is illegal – yet millions of people buy it every year.
The war on Drugs is a disaster. You really think that is people want Gender Neutral products – that they are not going to be able to buy them ?
You left wing nuts constantly talk about democracy – but to you all that means is those in power telling the rest of how to live.
I would like all stores in Florida which sell meat products to sell bacon too. Including, of course, my local kosher and halal meat shops. I don’t want to have to drive 2 more miles to my Publix supermarket.
Are you really going to be this obtuse?
Dow Aims To Close Year With Record High
The Dow notched a fresh closing high, while the S&P 500 finished less than 0.5% off of its closing record of 4,796.56 set in January 2022. Along with the Dow and Nasdaq, the S&P is also enjoying an eight-week winning streak — its longest since 2017.
“The market wants to get this done before the year is out,” said Sam Stovall, chief investment strategist at CFRA. “That’s the overriding effort, but at the same time, once the market does set a new all-time high, it’s probably vulnerable to a post-high pause.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/26/stock-market-today-live-update.html
………………………
Investors are bullish that inflation is under control, or this rally would not be happening.
Steaming turd^^^ from turdrunner the chcikensh!t who is afraid of Estovir and wont use his own handle.
The stock market is not an inflation indicator. If you want an indicator of inflation expectations – look at gold prices or treasury auctions.
The stock market is a leading economic indicator for the economy as a whole.
A rising stock market right now IS a signal that investors think that the future will be better than the present.
The stock market is often – but not always right. The stock market was rising consistently from 1920 through September 1929. After a september drop, it rose through october until the late october 1929 crash.
It is possible that the market is correctly reading a brighter future.
It is also possible that the market is misreading the future.
The Stock Market is not the only leading economic indicator.
Right now some indicators are good, and some are very bad – basically indicators are mixed.
It is also possible the worst of inflation is behind us, but that does not mean the economy is about to take off.
Inflation is still high for the norms of the past 150 years – and though it is less painful than it was a year ago, it is still not good.
Mild deflation is good, Mild deflation is the norm absent central banks.
Mild deflation is very good for the working class.
I would note – my business, commercial due diligence is also a leading economic indicator, and we have been in recession for over 18 months and are currently in depression. Everyone expects that to end – soon. But not because the economy takes off, but because commerical property owners that have been avoiding refinancing finally run out of time, and if they can not refinance then they go bankrupt.
Either way – my business will benefit.
But right now the sale or refinancing of commercial properties is nearly dead.
I enjoy listening to the uninformed talking and quoting about things they have little knowledge of.
“S&P 500 finished less than 0.5% off of its closing record of 4,796.56 set in January 2022.”
Factor in inflation. Suddenly, that number seems like it could be more appealing.
The stock market is not the only marker of the economic health of a nation. When the stock market is booming, but the middle class is shrinking, and the remaining ones have less money in their pockets, that is a warning sign the ill-informed don’t see. Additionally, there are many reasons for a booming market in an overall lousy economic situation. Example: What happens when people abroad are afraid of their economies? Do they invest in their stock markets or go elsewhere?
Whatever else might be said about this new law, neutral it is not. And neither is its author, Evan Low. Like others before him, including the despicable Scott Weiner, Assemblyman Low is an unabashed advocate, not for a better California, but for a California better for the twisted fringe of the homosexual community. Low’s bizarre concern about children’s toy’s is no accident; these putrid activists are desperately and alarmingly interested in our vulnerable children.
California could solve its energy problem by incinerating illegal aliens. Each illegal alien has the same energy of 4 gallons
of fuel oil. If there are 3,000,000 illegal aliens in California, this is the equivalent of 12,000,000 gallons of fuel oil. This energy could electrify lots of homes in Los Angeles and San Francisco. Supporting data below:
1 – California
Illegal immigrants percentage: 7.63%
California has a population of more than 39 million people, making it the most populous state. Oregon lies toward the north of California. On its east, California is bordered by Nevada and Arizona. The capital of California is Sacramento, with a population of 525,041 people. At around 7.63%, California has the highest percentage of illegal immigrants among all states. Their existence in its labor market is significant as one in ten workers in California is an undocumented immigrant. Its total immigrant population is 3,002,500, according to our estimate.
“We need them to pick the cwops”—-Nancy Pelosi, with her characteristic rhotacism