Mass. tries to join Iowa in coercing speech from churches re: transgenders

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Dear Clueless Massachusetts State Government, almost every event the typical church holds is open to the general public.  This is a not-so-well-disguised attempt by you to compel speech.  Pick up a United States Constitution once in a while.

 

Quote

 

From the official Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination’s Gender Identity Guidance, just released last week:

Even a church could be seen as a place of public accommodation if it holds a secular event, such as a spaghetti supper, that is open to the general public.

Now, churches hold events “open to the general public” all the time — it’s often how they seek new converts. And even church “secular events,” which I take it means events that don’t involve overt worship, are generally viewed by the church as part of its ministry, and certainly as a means of the church modeling what it believes to be religiously sound behavior.

My guess is that most churches would not turn someone away from a generally open spaghetti supper. (Though I think churches should be free to exclude transgender attendees — just as they should be free to hold men-only and women-only events or, for that matter, black-only events, white-only events, events only for ethnic Jews, and the like — that is a question for another day.)

But some religious leaders, as well as the church employees and volunteers, may refuse to use pronouns that they believe are inconsistent with God’s plan as revealed by anatomy. To quote one example — whether or not you agree with its logic or theology —

Truth-telling is always necessary for the Christian (Eph. 4:15). We are not allowed speak in ways that are fundamentally dishonest and that undermine the truth of God’s word about how he made us and the world. Transgender ideology is fundamentally a revolt against God’s truth. It encourages people–sometimes very disturbed and hurting people–to deny who God made them to be. It traps them in a way of thinking and living that is harmful to them and that alienates them from God’s truth. We do not serve them or love them well by speaking as if transgender fictions are true. …

The practical upshot of this principle means that I must never encourage or accomodate transgender fictions with my words. In fact, I have an obligation to expose them. For me, that means that I may never refer to a biological male with pronouns that encourage him to think of himself as a female. Likewise, I may never refer to a biological female with pronouns that encourage her to think of herself as a male. In other words, I have to speak truthfully. And that includes the choice of pronouns that I use.

Under Massachusetts law, refusing to use a transgender person’s preferred pronoun would be punishable discrimination. (At least this is true of “he” or “she” — I saw nothing in the document about “ze” and other newly made-up pronouns.) The Massachusetts document I linked to makes that clear in the employment context, and it also makes clear that the antidiscrimination law rules apply to places of public accommodations (including churches, in “secular events” “open to the public”) just as much as to employment.

Indeed, a church might be liable even for statements by its congregants (and not just its volunteers, who are acting as agents) that are critical of transgender people. Tolerating such remarks is generally seen as allowing a “hostile environment,” and therefore “harassment.” Indeed, the statement I linked to specifically encourages people to “prohibit derogatory comments or jokes about transgender persons from employees, clients, vendors and any others, and promptly investigate and discipline persons who engage in discriminatory conduct” (emphasis added). But that’s not just encouragement; it simply reflects hostile work environment harassment law, which has long required employers to restrict derogatory speech by clients, to prevent “hostile environments.” See 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11. The same logic applies for places of public accommodation, which Massachusetts says can include churches.

Now some might think this is fine: Everyone should use the pronouns that the subjects prefer, the argument would go, even if the speaker views such use as endorsement of what the speaker sees as falsehood, or of a wrong-headed ideology. People shouldn’t say derogatory things about transgender people, at least when those people can overhear. Maybe churches could do something different in sermons, or behind closed doors — but once they open their doors for “secular events,” church leaders have to use the words that the law requires, even when they view them as false or even blasphemous, and have to suppress offensive speech by their congregants. I don’t share this view, but I take it that some do.

But I just think it should be clear that this is where these rules are headed, at least in places like Massachusetts but likely elsewhere as well.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/09/08/massachusetts-churches-may-be-covered-by-transgender-discrimination-bans-as-to-secular-events/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_term=.866e182a98a1

 

 

[japantiger 4,077]

Orwell would be proud....

[TheBlueVue 177]

Sadly, the Constitution seems to mean less and less to the progressive movement especially when it comes to the kinds of speech that get in the way of their agenda.

As much as I would hope to be wrong, I'm of the opinion this is just the beginning, especially in a Hillary Clinton administration. Call me crazy but this looks suspiciously like the beginnings of the criminalization of Christianity.  She is on record  publicly stating that Christians are going to have to change some of their fundamental beliefs and I don't see it being a big stretch to believe she'll do everything in her power to make that happen should she be elected.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Even outside of churches though, this idea that anyone gets to dictate, under threat of fines or other government sanctions, the speech of a person or organization is troublesome.  Such scenarios should be extremely limited in scope - at best, such as interactions with the government, the way your employer handles such matters, etc.  But outside of such very narrow situations, why should any group of people have the power of the government behind them to coerce anyone to say what they want them to say?

[TheBlueVue 177]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

But outside of such very narrow situations, why should any group of people have the power of the government behind them to coerce anyone to say what they want them to say?

Obviously they shouldn't but surely you understand that progressives honestly see themselves as the ONLY ONES smart enough to decide what everyone else must conform to. The idea that the 1st amendment was designed specifically to protect free speech is lost on them completely because they're so steeped in their ideological nonsense they cant see beyond it.

[japantiger 4,077]

You have 100% freedom to speak what they want you to speak.  I look forward to seeing all this challenged in court.

[MDM4AU 337]

Thee ign'rant biggots and thy fartuous religion art a blight on society. 

[icanthearyou 4,468]

I have never cared for the "Christian" agenda that seeks to persecute homosexuals.  I do not understand the mindset of someone like Anita Bryant who sees homosexuality as a threat to family, America, Christianity.  I believe this movement makes the church a political target.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

5 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I have never cared for the "Christian" agenda that seeks to persecute homosexuals.  I do not understand the mindset of someone like Anita Bryant who sees homosexuality as a threat to family, America, Christianity.  I believe this movement makes the church a political target.

But then, that's not really what this is about.  The churches aren't seeking to "persecute" anyone here.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

But then, that's not really what this is about.  The churches aren't seeking to "persecute" anyone here.

Really?  The church (in general) seems to have been doing that for years, IMHO.  Perhaps there are actions and, corresponding reactions?  Perhaps, the church is not the political victim your narrative suggests?

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Just now, icanthearyou said:

Really?  The church (in general) seems to have been doing that for years, IMHO.  Perhaps there are actions and, corresponding reactions?  Perhaps, the church is not the political victim your narrative suggests?

Please re-read the article and try to respond on subject.  

[icanthearyou 4,468]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Please re-read the article and try to respond on subject.  

I believe that I am on subject.  I am simply not in alignment with your views.  

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Just now, icanthearyou said:

I believe that I am on subject.  I am simply not in alignment with your views.  

The next post in this thread from you that's actually dealing with the subject in the original post will be the first.  Let me know when that happens and I'll be happy to discuss.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

The next post in this thread from you that's actually dealing with the subject in the original post will be the first.  Let me know when that happens and I'll be happy to discuss.

No, you are now being disingenuous.  You are attempting to narrow the discussion to suit your narrative that portrays the church as an innocent victim.

Use politics as part of your crusade against homosexuals and transgenders all you care to but, don't expect me to see you as some sort of martyr.  This is one of those instances when I believe as a Christian, we should stop listening to politicians, pastors, and even the Bible.  I believe we would be better served listening to Christ in our hearts.

[TheBlueVue 177]

12 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

No, you are now being disingenuous.  You are attempting to narrow the discussion to suit your narrative that portrays the church as an innocent victim.

Use politics as part of your crusade against homosexuals and transgenders all you care to but, don't expect me to see you as some sort of martyr.  This is one of those instances when I believe as a Christian, we should stop listening to politicians, pastors, and even the Bible.  I believe we would be better served listening to Christ in our hearts.

Really? This is really weak sauce even for you bro. Where did Christ proselytize about requiring by the law the myriad appropriate names for transgenders? Did you bother to  even read the OP?

[TitanTiger 20,708]

30 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

No, you are now being disingenuous.  You are attempting to narrow the discussion to suit your narrative that portrays the church as an innocent victim.

No, you are the one trying to pull the discussion into another area instead of dealing with the subject and situation at hand.  That you'd then turn and call me disingenuous is laughable.  The issue is rather simple in this case.  I'm sorry that you don't wish to actually discuss that and instead would prefer a different subject.  Perhaps starting a new thread might be the better course of action for you.

 

30 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Use politics as part of your crusade against homosexuals and transgenders all you care to but, don't expect me to see you as some sort of martyr.  This is one of those instances when I believe as a Christian, we should stop listening to politicians, pastors, and even the Bible.  I believe we would be better served listening to Christ in our hearts.

Yes.  This refrain of yours is getting to be like the joke about George W. Bush from Ann Richards.  She said if you asked him what time it was, he'd reply "tax cuts."  You've become such a caricature here.  Someone says "Christian" and "homosexual" or "transgender" in the same thread and your auto-reply spits out.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

ICHY,

This is a pretty straightforward issue and your or my views on Christians and how/whether they should be engaged politically simply isn't part of it.

What is at issue is coerced speech and whether the government is overstepping its bounds in dictating to a religious institution (be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist or whatever) how it can address certain matters related to sexuality and sexual morality under threat of lawsuits, fines, prosecution and so on.  They've attempted to word this in a way that makes it sound neutral, but really is not if it is given a moment's thought as to how most churches actually operate.  By default, virtually every gathering, service, or event a church holds is a public event.  So in effect, this law and the Massachusetts state commission that handles these matters, is putting churches in danger of legal action for simply adhering to and teaching the tenets of their faith as they understand it.  Don't allow biological men to use the ladies' room?  You could be in trouble.  Preach a sermon that affirms the traditional, orthodox Christian understand of sexuality?  That could constitute harassment.  Put on a men's retreat that is isn't open for women to attend but don't permit a transwoman to come to it?  That could be discrimination.  The pertinent section:

 

Quote

 

A place of public accommodation is defined as “any place, whether licensed or unlicensed, which is open to and accepts or solicits the patronage of the general public.” parks, beaches and public roads. The statute includes businesses that provide services and is not restricted to a person's entrance into a physical structure. Businesses that provide services that have been found to be covered by the public accommodation law include loan companies , cab services, and insurance companies, companies that provide long term disability benefits, and businesses that actively provide testing services.
G.L. c. 272, § 92A. This definition includes a wide variety of private and public places, such as retail stores, restaurants, malls, public agencies, public parks, beaches and public roads. The statute includes businesses that provide services and is not restricted to a person's entrance into a physical structure. Businesses that provide services that have been found to be covered by the public accommodation law include loan companies , cab services, and insurance companies, companies that provide long term disability benefits, and businesses that actively provide testing services.

Currier v. National Board of Medical Examiners, 462 Mass. 1 (2012). The law also covers denying an individual access to a public place, benefit, process or proceeding. For example, a public agency that denies an individual the opportunity to apply for a taxi driver’s license based on the person’s protected class would be inviolation of G.L. c. 272. MCAD & Adam Apache v. City of Springfield Police Department, 34 Mass. Discrimination Law Rptr. 59 (2012) (dismissed on other grounds). For example, a public agency that denies an individual the opportunity to apply for a taxi driver’s license based on the person’s protected class would be in  The law also covers denying an individual access to a public place, benefit, process or proceeding Currier v. National Board of Medical Examiners, 462 Mass. 1 (2012).

Even a church could be seen as a place of public accommodation if it holds a secular event, such as a spaghetti supper, that is open to the general public.Under G.L. c. 272, § 98, places of public accommodation may not discriminate against, or restrict a person from services because of that person’s gender identity. For example, a hotel or motel may not refuse to book a room for a person because of the person’s gender identity.

All persons, regardless of gender identity, shall have the right to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation.

 

The law is vaguely written and would cover all kinds of gathering and events a church might hold, all of which is would view as part of its mission and ministry - not as some "secular" event.  Just because something isn't a formal worship service doesn't make it secular in nature.

In effect, it becomes a way for the state of Massachusetts to censor churches or coerce certain types of speech from them, even if doing so would essentially force them to affirm or give the appearance of agreement with a paradigm on human sexuality and sexual morality that they do not hold.  

[icanthearyou 4,468]

I understand, appreciate, and agree with your point.  However, there is a reason why you have a fight on your hands.  In my opinion, it is because there are many "Christians" who are more political than religious, who want this fight.  They have actively provoked this battle.  

The loss of any "freedom" becomes less meaningful if we lose the love of Christ as the core of our faith.  Neither the government, nor liberals, will destroy the church.  Money, politics, and those who wish to make them a part of the church will.

[Grumps 3,706]

On ‎9‎/‎9‎/‎2016 at 3:16 PM, icanthearyou said:

I understand, appreciate, and agree with your point.  However, there is a reason why you have a fight on your hands.  In my opinion, it is because there are many "Christians" who are more political than religious, who want this fight.  They have actively provoked this battle.  

The loss of any "freedom" becomes less meaningful if we lose the love of Christ as the core of our faith.  Neither the government, nor liberals, will destroy the church.  Money, politics, and those who wish to make them a part of the church will.

Any "Christian" or Christian (or anyone else) who persecutes homosexuals or transgenders or blacks or Muslims,etc. should be punished. Has anyone said otherwise? What does this post have to do with having the love of Christ as the core of our faith? It seems like you are saying that it is ok for Massachusetts to make a likely unconstitutional law that would prevent persecution that either: 1) is not happening, or 2) is happening and is already punishable.

When states want to make laws to prevent seemingly obvious unintended consequences like making it easy for a heterosexual male pervert to enter a women's restroom, the left cries about solving a non-existent problem. But when the left wants to do a similar thing then it is portayed as protecting the innocent. I just don't see the difference.

[AcUmen 242]

On 9/9/2016 at 9:32 AM, TheBlueVue said:

Sadly, the Constitution seems to mean less and less to the progressive movement especially when it comes to the kinds of speech that get in the way of their agenda.

As much as I would hope to be wrong, I'm of the opinion this is just the beginning, especially in a Hillary Clinton administration. Call me crazy but this looks suspiciously like the beginnings of the criminalization of Christianity.  She is on record  publicly stating that Christians are going to have to change some of their fundamental beliefs and I don't see it being a big stretch to believe she'll do everything in her power to make that happen should she be elected.

Meanwhile she will completely ignore Islam's strong stance on gay hating and the suppression of women.  Not one peep.  Weird, huh?

[homersapien 11,812]

12 hours ago, AcUmen said:

Meanwhile she will completely ignore Islam's strong stance on gay hating and the suppression of women.  Not one peep.  Weird, huh?

It's pretty weird that you would make an absurd prediction and comment as if it's already happened.

There is no reason to believe Hillary would be silent about radical Islamic misogyny.  None at all.  Just the opposite in fact.

[homersapien 11,812]

On 9/14/2016 at 0:16 PM, Grumps said:

Any "Christian" or Christian (or anyone else) who persecutes homosexuals or transgenders or blacks or Muslims,etc. should be punished. Has anyone said otherwise? What does this post have to do with having the love of Christ as the core of our faith? It seems like you are saying that it is ok for Massachusetts to make a likely unconstitutional law that would prevent persecution that either: 1) is not happening, or 2) is happening and is already punishable.

When states want to make laws to prevent seemingly obvious unintended consequences like making it easy for a heterosexual male pervert to enter a women's restroom, the left cries about solving a non-existent problem. But when the left wants to do a similar thing then it is portayed as protecting the innocent. I just don't see the difference.

That's just BS.  What do you mean by heterosexual male pervert anyway - a rapist?

Transgender woman have been using women's bathrooms forever.  And they aren't presenting as men when they do it. No one knows they have the physiology of a man.  That's the whole point.  

This reminds me of the argument promoting segregation in order to "protect" our white women.