The slippery slope.

[Elijah John]

It seems to be happening, with liberalism running amuck. In a previous post, I expressed concern that unfettered liberal judges and beaurocrats would eventually force churches to perform gay weddings against their own values.

It hasn't reached that stage....yet.

But in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, things seem to be heading in that direction.

Exibit A:

Churches in Massachusetts are now forced to accomodate "gender identity" meaning whatever sexual identity a person embraces for themselves, biology notwithstanding.

In practical terms, this means that churches must now:

a) allow persons of either gender to use whichever bathroom they consider in line with their chosen gender identity. (again, with no regard to biology, or even reassignment surgery)

This means that a man who "feels like he is a woman" can now use the women's bathroom, locker room etc. And vice versa.

OR

b) the church must now install gender neutral bathrooms, at church expense.

For debate:

Do you consider this govenment intrusion on the separation of church and state?

Where does it end? How far will "progressives" go in order to force their values on churches?

How do you feel about this law?

Please address any combination of the above OP questions.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/ ... throom-rul

Also, am I understanding the new Massachusetts law correctly?

[catnip]

It seems to be happening, with liberalism running amuck. In a previous post, I expressed concern that unfettered liberal judges and beaurocrats would eventually force churches to perform gay weddings against their own values.

It hasn't reached that stage....yet.

But in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, things seem to be heading in that direction.

Exibit A:

Churches in Massachusetts are now forced to accomodate "gender identity" meaning whatever sexual identity a person embraces for themselves, biology notwithstanding.

In practical terms, this means that churches must now:

a) allow persons of either gender to use whichever bathroom they consider in line with their chosen gender identity. (again, with no regard to biology, or even reassignment surgery)

This means that a man who "feels like he is a woman" can now use the women's bathroom, locker room etc. And vice versa.

OR

b) the church must now install gender neutral bathrooms, at church expense.

For debate:

Do you consider this govenment intrusion on the separation of church and state?

Where does it end? How far will "progressives" go in order to force their values on churches?

How do you feel about this law?

Please address any combination of the above OP questions.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/ ... throom-rul

Also, am I understanding the new Massachusetts law correctly?

I have done a bit of research and I cannot find where it says that churches will be required to provide for restroom facilities for transgender people. Buzz Feed, your link--which as far as I know is more of a gossip column--is the only place where I have seen it in the news except where Conservatives are claiming their fears about these laws. When I checked the Massachusetts law, I saw that it says that public places will be required to, like shopping malls. I saw no mention of churches and I don't think they fall under laws for "public" places.

Due to Obama's law about public schools providing such bathroom facilities, many states are claiming that they will insist on the designation of what sex the child is to be determined according to their birth certificate. Conservative are pointing out some logical fears about such as possible sexual offenders making a pretense at being transgender. Although, I partly can't see how that is if a transgender has had treatment and is no longer apparently their former sex. If a sexual offender is going to just dress up as the opposite sex, they could do that now without any laws.

[Elijah John]

It seems to be happening, with liberalism running amuck. In a previous post, I expressed concern that unfettered liberal judges and beaurocrats would eventually force churches to perform gay weddings against their own values.

It hasn't reached that stage....yet.

But in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, things seem to be heading in that direction.

Exibit A:

Churches in Massachusetts are now forced to accomodate "gender identity" meaning whatever sexual identity a person embraces for themselves, biology notwithstanding.

In practical terms, this means that churches must now:

a) allow persons of either gender to use whichever bathroom they consider in line with their chosen gender identity. (again, with no regard to biology, or even reassignment surgery)

This means that a man who "feels like he is a woman" can now use the women's bathroom, locker room etc. And vice versa.

OR

b) the church must now install gender neutral bathrooms, at church expense.

For debate:

Do you consider this govenment intrusion on the separation of church and state?

Where does it end? How far will "progressives" go in order to force their values on churches?

How do you feel about this law?

Please address any combination of the above OP questions.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/ ... throom-rul

Also, am I understanding the new Massachusetts law correctly?

I have done a bit of research and I cannot find where it says that churches will be required to provide for restroom facilities for transgender people. Buzz Feed, your link--which as far as I know is more of a gossip column--is the only place where I have seen it in the news except where Conservatives are claiming their fears about these laws. When I checked the Massachusetts law, I saw that it says that public places will be required to, like shopping malls. I saw no mention of churches and I don't think they fall under laws for "public" places.

Due to Obama's law about public schools providing such bathroom facilities, many states are claiming that they will insist on the designation of what sex the child is to be determined according to their birth certificate. Conservative are pointing out some logical fears about such as possible sexual offenders making a pretense at being transgender. Although, I partly can't see how that is if a transgender has had treatment and is no longer apparently their former sex. If a sexual offender is going to just dress up as the opposite sex, they could do that now without any laws.

If churches hold events that welcome the general public, (such as spaghetti dinners) they are then considered "public places" and will be subject to the new law.

That''s how I understand it anyway..apparently the pastors who are suing the Commonwealth see it that way too.

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Seems sad that a church wouldn't try to encompass different people altogether. Could they not make single stall restrooms? My church was like that basically. Granted it wasn't a multi-million dollar mega church (our pastor didn't have a Rolls, Bentley of private jet) so maybe that's asking too much of them.

Did the government force an end to black & white bathrooms decades ago? If so, this is no different.
If there wasn't a need to because those didn't exist in churches, then churches have an internal moral issue that needs to be dealt with.

As far as I'm concerned, if there's politics influencing the government, the government should influence who can use what church bathroom.

We should abolish the days where churches can hide behind their gods and their 'freedoms' while influencing the lives of people who don't want to have anything to do with them.
But that's probably another topic altogether.

As far as the law goes...UGH. Politicians are just about worthless these days. Who knows what they're thinking or their end goals are. Or even if they have any. Seems it's either a morally charged law or political bandwagonning.

[JehovahsWitness]

Transgender bathrooms is a bit of a non issue here were I live in France as most facilities, especially the smaller ones, have gender neutral bathrooms with stalls.

I'm curious how the Americans are dealing with changing rooms and showers etc in schools and hospitals...

I don't think as Jehovah's Witnesses having a third "transgender" bathroom would be a problem, if that it what it takes to get planning permission but I doubt if that could be impossed - and even if it were it would end up just being another bathroom for the girls...

I don't see it as being a "slippery slope" to state imposed homosexual marriages - weddings are usually religious ceremonies, and the State rarely obliges particular religious rites on groups. In America I do believe that would violate the constitution.