You don't have to buy in 100% on one side or the other on this issue to know the proposed legislation is evil. I don't agree with everything typically thought of by the average person today as "conservative." I don't even agree with the emphasis of the article on "free speech," though freedom of speech, which must be balanced against the rights of others, is an important thing and overly restricting speech, especially when in an unbalanced, unfair way, is counter-productively tyrannical. The proposed legislation is counter-productively tyrannical in that sense.
Other extremely important reasons the legislation is flat wrong include, but aren't limited to, the following well-established facts typically censored in the mainstream media, which media is almost completely not evidence-based on this subject but ideologically based (being for the continued movement in the extremely mentally and physically harmful direction of sexual anarchy):
1st, one person's bad experience doesn't negate all the people (many thousands) who have had good experiences.
2nd, therapies change based upon results. They have vastly improved since the time some had bad experiences.
3rd, bad experiences can simply involve emotional difficulties dealing with a subject area even though the whole therapy can end up being quite fruitful.
4th, "dysphoria in children often fades over time ... transitioning is [often is] harmful."
5th, dysphoria in children often results from sexual abuse (even rape, even gang rape), which when homosexual, often results in unwanted same-sex attraction, which is then, without doubt, a mental illness (which often results in physical illness and social ills).
6th, abandoning such children to their inflicted unwanted-same-sex attraction is child abuse. If the state doesn't, it is state-mandated child abuse.
UPDATE: These ideas occur to people independently. I wrote my post above and then read this: "CA Bill Censors Speech."
UPDATE 2: "There is certainly nothing in the bill that exempts such practices from prosecution by the state. We have learned on LGBTQ matters what is exempted is not exempted for long and what is not exempted has no exemption. If you haven’t figured this out by now, you haven’t been paying attention." ~ Robert A. J. Gagnon, PhD. (Source). Let me emphasize that the bill as currently proposed is definitely unconstitutional broad and would be ruled as such by any competent court. The trouble is, there are many incompetent courts.
UPDATE 3: An additional post (which also contains several useful links at its bottom): "Assembly votes to violate the 1st Amendment,by Greg Burt."