Massachusetts government issues transgender guidance — and what it says about churches has some worried


#1

After all, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, the state’s primary civil rights agency, released a document on Sept. 1, titled, “Gender Identity Guidance.” The document defined a public accommodation as “any place, whether licensed or unlicensed, which is open to and accepts or solicits the patronage of the general public” . . .

“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,” the guidance reads. “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” . . .

That said, any event that is hosted in a church and is for “purely secular purposes” could fall under public accommodations regulations.

newsok.com/article/5519678

Hopefully, this issue about the Massachusetts Commission Against Discriminationand its wider implications gets some coverage from the Catholic Press because hardly anyone out there is covering it.

There is such a thing as Freedom of Association under the First Amendment.


#2

Freedom of Association means no more to the left than does anything else in the Constitution.


#3

Why shouldn’t your church welcome people with gender issues to its spaghetti supper? I would be as glad to sit down, share a meal, and talk with them as with my pals from the Men’s Bible Study.


#4

I think the bigger issue may be SSA wedding receptions, commitment parties and the like.


#5

It doesn’t mean much to the right either. Almost everyone agrees you have no such right. The disagreement is only on the criteria by which you can be penalized.


#6

Pretty much every church welcomes all people, regardless of religion, to their services, or mass, or whatever, so would that technically make them “public” events as well?

This is what the left talks about when they use the phrase “freedom of worship” rather than “freedom of religion”. First, they just wanted people’s belief and religion out of the public sphere. Now that’s not enough, and they even want to limit how religions exercise their rights on their own property. If this isn’t proof that the leftists want nothing less than the eradication of all religious belief in this country, then I don’t know what is. This is just the beginning of the persecution.


#7

:confused:


#8

Liberalism run amok. Vote Democrat and that is what you will get. But of course we know that they will always make an exemption for Muslims.


#9

The Constitution, what is that? We really haven’t followed it for the last 100 years - it means very little any more.


#10

Nailed it. It is not about toleration it is about having to publicly participate in the derangement or else. It makes everyone complicit in their lies.


#11

I think that particular fear is premature. The guidelines say nothing about the type of events that a church must host. Long before same sex receptions, they would have to force Jewish receptions, or Protestant receptions, or birthday parties. These choices have always been at the discretion of the church, and nothing in these guidelines say anything different along those lines. The guidelines are specifically about how individuals should be treated - in this case as regards a place to pee.


#12

I don’t think so, as the explanations issued with the guidelines specifically mentions “secular events, like a spaghetti dinner”. That is a strong indication that sacred events are not the subject of these guidelines.


#13

And if your parish rents out their hall for a Ladies Bingo Night, or local middle school dance, then it will be forced to rent out the hall for a Transgender Bingo Night or dance.

This is covered in flowery language, but underneath this is a monstrous bill.


#14

Massachusetts pioneered legal “gay marriage.” Just give us time, and our state Supreme Court will find a way.


#15

No, and it is not a bill, and it does not say anything that implies they would have to rent out the hall to anyone who asks. You are trying to build a straw man. If you have an argument about where someone should pee at a spaghetti dinner, then make it.


#16

Monstrous? It simply says that if you provide a service to the public, for which you have to be licensed, you can’t discriminate.


#17

Wedding receptions (indeed, parties of any sort) are hardly “sacred events.”

There are a lot of things buried in Massachusetts’ public accommodations law… as this link reveals.


#18

Fine, grammatical error. Government fiats instead of bill.

It’s not a strawman when these types of laws have been, are being, and will be used as a legal weapon to attack Christians with. There will be legal challenges to churches very soon. Churches who host secular events, like an elementary school play, in their buildings will be threatened that they must allow all kinds of evil events in their buildings.

That you are pretending this won’t happen is just silly.

This govt regulation is just another attack on the Christian faith. We should all openly admit that is what is happening and then openly choose which side we stand with.


#19

Our governor is Republican.


#20

There used to be such a thing as freedom of association, but it has long since been beaten down; I doubt if means anything to anyone anymore. And the law will increasingly treat freedom of association as inherently discriminatory, hateful, and mere bigotry.

I suppose that at some point a transgender group will test the latest ruling by coming to a local spaghetti dinner hosted by the parish Boy Scouts at the parish hall.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.