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?

[tam]

As far as I understand, churches have to obey the law of the land. If this is a law of the land, then churches cannot be exempt from it. THAT would be a slippery slope, imo.


Just as a church cannot violate the law of the land with regard to the 'rod' for disciplining a child; and cannot violate the law of the land with regard to 'stoning' a lawbreaker or some such thing.

I also believe that churches HAVE to be public (therefore laws for the public must apply to them) because they would otherwise lose their tax-free status.


I don't know about US law with regard to gender equality issues, so the above is based on whether or not this is an actual law.


Peace to you!

[Divine Insight]

For debate:

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

Where is there any actual separation of Church and State?

Churches are already granted tax exemption by the government. Why is that?

Also, the President of the United States is officially "sworn in" to office be requiring them he place one hand on the Christian Bible. If that's not a government endorsement of a specific religion I don't know what is.

We also have printed on our currency, "In God We Trust".

So where is there any separation of Church and State anyway?

Could you imagine the outcry if we asked President elect Trump to swear into office by placing his hand on the Qur'an?

Yet we have no problem at all allowing our presidents to be sworn in on a Christian Bible.

Clearly Christianity already has its claws deep into the Government of the USA.

I'm pretty sure the Armed forces used to issue Christian New Testaments as part of the standard "supplies" for American soldiers. Not sure if they still do that today or whether they allow the soldiers to choose from a selection of holy books. But it used to be the Christian New Testament at one point in time (if not still done today).

And yes, churches should be required to abide by the law just like everyone else. In fact, why are churches so hateful and bigoted anyway? Especially Christian churches. Shouldn't they be more "Christ-Like"?

[Elijah John]

As far as I understand, churches have to obey the law of the land. If this is a law of the land, then churches cannot be exempt from it. THAT would be a slippery slope, imo.


Just as a church cannot violate the law of the land with regard to the 'rod' for disciplining a child; and cannot violate the law of the land with regard to 'stoning' a lawbreaker or some such thing.

I also believe that churches HAVE to be public (therefore laws for the public must apply to them) because they would otherwise lose their tax-free status.


I don't know about US law with regard to gender equality issues, so the above is based on whether or not this is an actual law.


Peace to you!

This law has nothing to do with "gender and equality" Tam, both males and females are already equal under the law.

This has to do with newly legislated gender identity equality. There's a difference. The latter gives licence to transgender, or even people who feel as though they are trangender, to go wherever they want.

Let me put it this way, if you have a daughter, would you be comfortable having a man who claimed he "felt like a woman" use the woman's restroom while your daughter was using it?

Also, where DOES it end. Should churches be forced to perform same-sex weddings?

[tam]

As far as I understand, churches have to obey the law of the land. If this is a law of the land, then churches cannot be exempt from it. THAT would be a slippery slope, imo.


Just as a church cannot violate the law of the land with regard to the 'rod' for disciplining a child; and cannot violate the law of the land with regard to 'stoning' a lawbreaker or some such thing.

I also believe that churches HAVE to be public (therefore laws for the public must apply to them) because they would otherwise lose their tax-free status.


I don't know about US law with regard to gender equality issues, so the above is based on whether or not this is an actual law.


Peace to you!

This law has nothing to do with "gender and equality" Tam, both males and females are already equal under the law.

Whatever the law... if there is a law that requires public places to accommodate transgender people, then the church has to obey the law of the land.

This has to do with newly legislated gender identity equality. There's a difference. The latter gives licence to transgender, or even people who feel as though they are trangender, to go wherever they want.

What is the difference between someone who is transgender and someone who feels transgender?

Let me put it this way, if you have a daughter, would you be comfortable having a man who claimed he "felt like a woman" use the woman's restroom while your daughter was using it?

Doesn't a transgender 'man' identify as female?

Is there any evidence that daughters (or sons) are in greater danger of being violated in some way by transgender people in their bathrooms? Has the rate of abuse and assault risen since the new transgender bathroom laws? Or is it just fear and prejudice speaking?



And of all the abuse of children that goes on INSIDE the churches, it is not being conducted by transgender people.


So... if the issue is with regard to the safety of children re: transgenders in the bathroom,then that is an issue regardless of the location. But it seems to me that the only issue here is forcing churches to accommodate the public laws with regard to who gets to use what bathroom.

Also, where DOES it end. Should churches be forced to perform same-sex weddings?

That is a religious ritual of the church. Going to the bathroom is not, imo. If the building is a public building (for use by the public), then it has to conform to public laws.


Peace again!

[Elijah John]

As far as I understand, churches have to obey the law of the land. If this is a law of the land, then churches cannot be exempt from it. THAT would be a slippery slope, imo.


Just as a church cannot violate the law of the land with regard to the 'rod' for disciplining a child; and cannot violate the law of the land with regard to 'stoning' a lawbreaker or some such thing.

I also believe that churches HAVE to be public (therefore laws for the public must apply to them) because they would otherwise lose their tax-free status.


I don't know about US law with regard to gender equality issues, so the above is based on whether or not this is an actual law.


Peace to you!

This law has nothing to do with "gender and equality" Tam, both males and females are already equal under the law.

Whatever the law... if there is a law that requires public places to accommodate transgender people, then the church has to obey the law of the land.

This has to do with newly legislated gender identity equality. There's a difference. The latter gives licence to transgender, or even people who feel as though they are trangender, to go wherever they want.

What is the difference between someone who is transgender and someone who feels transgender?

Let me put it this way, if you have a daughter, would you be comfortable having a man who claimed he "felt like a woman" use the woman's restroom while your daughter was using it?

Doesn't a transgender 'man' identify as female?

Is there any evidence that daughters (or sons) are in greater danger of being violated in some way by transgender people in their bathrooms? Has the rate of abuse and assault risen since the new transgender bathroom laws? Or is it just fear and prejudice speaking?



And of all the abuse of children that goes on INSIDE the churches, it is not being conducted by transgender people.


So... if the issue is with regard to the safety of children re: transgenders in the bathroom,then that is an issue regardless of the location. But it seems to me that the only issue here is forcing churches to accommodate the public laws with regard to who gets to use what bathroom.

Also, where DOES it end. Should churches be forced to perform same-sex weddings?

That is a religious ritual of the church. Going to the bathroom is not, imo. If the building is a public building (for use by the public), then it has to conform to public laws.


Peace again!

Do you believe in unfunded mandates? The state compeling an institution to make a change and not providing the funding to do so?. In this case, the church may be forced to pay constructions costs to install gender neutral bathrooms, in addition to their existing men's and women's rooms.

[Divine Insight]

Also, where DOES it end. Should churches be forced to perform same-sex weddings?

That is a religious ritual of the church. Going to the bathroom is not, imo. If the building is a public building (for use by the public), then it has to conform to public laws.


Peace again!

I agree. Plus performing a "wedding" and issuing a marriage license are two entirely different things. I believe it is the state that issues marriage licenses. A church merely performs a wedding "ceremony" which is not even required by the state. People can legally be married without having ever had a wedding ceremony performed in a church.

So there's really no reason for the state to require that churches perform wedding ceremonies for anyone. Same-sex or otherwise.

Now if the Church wants to have the power of actually issue marriage licenses then of course they should be required to issue those licenses to anyone the state allows to marry. Because after all, it's actually the state that is making marriage laws in the society, not the church.

Church marriage ceremonies are just a "religious tradition" they have nothing to do with the actual marriage of two people in a democracy. Atheists are free to marry just as anyone from any religion. No religious ceremony required. So religion has nothing at all to do with marriage anymore. It's just a left-over religious tradition, like going to a high school prom. You don't need to go to a high school prom in order to obtain your diploma either. These are just a social traditions totally irrelevant to the actual graduation, or marriage.

Although in a sense, now that I think about it, churches should be required to perform same-sex marriages if any members of their church desire to have a same-sex marriage.

Why? Well, because this would be public discrimination otherwise. It would be no different from a high school refusing to allow gays to attend a prom.

So for a church to refuses to allow same-sex members of their church to marry in that church, that should be seen as "discrimination". Even though the church marriage is just a socially superficial event.

So maybe a law should be passed that churches have to allow same-sex ceremonies in their churches lest they could be liable for a discrimination law suit. In fact, they should be liable for discrimination law suits under current laws. Why should a church be free to discriminate against people?

[Divine Insight]

Do you believe in unfunded mandates? The state compeling an institution to make a change and not providing the funding to do so?. In this case, the church may be forced to pay constructions costs to install gender neutral bathrooms, in addition to their existing men's and women's rooms.

Unfunded mandates exist everywhere. Why should a church be an exemption to that?

The state requires lots of institutions to follow laws and regulations that end up costing the institutions money. Why should the state need to fund the cost of every law they make? That would be something brand NEW.

[tam]

As far as I understand, churches have to obey the law of the land. If this is a law of the land, then churches cannot be exempt from it. THAT would be a slippery slope, imo.


Just as a church cannot violate the law of the land with regard to the 'rod' for disciplining a child; and cannot violate the law of the land with regard to 'stoning' a lawbreaker or some such thing.

I also believe that churches HAVE to be public (therefore laws for the public must apply to them) because they would otherwise lose their tax-free status.


I don't know about US law with regard to gender equality issues, so the above is based on whether or not this is an actual law.


Peace to you!

This law has nothing to do with "gender and equality" Tam, both males and females are already equal under the law.

Whatever the law... if there is a law that requires public places to accommodate transgender people, then the church has to obey the law of the land.

This has to do with newly legislated gender identity equality. There's a difference. The latter gives licence to transgender, or even people who feel as though they are trangender, to go wherever they want.

What is the difference between someone who is transgender and someone who feels transgender?

Let me put it this way, if you have a daughter, would you be comfortable having a man who claimed he "felt like a woman" use the woman's restroom while your daughter was using it?

Doesn't a transgender 'man' identify as female?

Is there any evidence that daughters (or sons) are in greater danger of being violated in some way by transgender people in their bathrooms? Has the rate of abuse and assault risen since the new transgender bathroom laws? Or is it just fear and prejudice speaking?



And of all the abuse of children that goes on INSIDE the churches, it is not being conducted by transgender people.


So... if the issue is with regard to the safety of children re: transgenders in the bathroom,then that is an issue regardless of the location. But it seems to me that the only issue here is forcing churches to accommodate the public laws with regard to who gets to use what bathroom.

Also, where DOES it end. Should churches be forced to perform same-sex weddings?

That is a religious ritual of the church. Going to the bathroom is not, imo. If the building is a public building (for use by the public), then it has to conform to public laws.


Peace again!

Do you believe in unfunded mandates? The state compeling an institution to make a change and not providing the funding to do so?. In this case, the church may be forced to pay constructions costs to install gender neutral bathrooms, in addition to their existing men's and women's rooms.

They don't have to install gender neutral bathrooms. They could just leave things as they are. Right?

If they choose something else, then they can foot the bill.


Peace.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 5 by tam]

I would agree Tammy, except where the laws of the state conflict with the laws of God.

Or do you put the state above the laws of God?

Should the state force Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Evangelical, Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Orthodox Jewish or Muslim doctors/hospitals to perform abortions? They consider abortion to be murder.

Again, where does it end?

Likewise conservative religionists consider homosexuality and trangenderism to be sin.

Drinking is legal, but some Christians and Muslims consider drinking to be sinful. Should churches be compelled to serve alcohol?

Also, getting back to trangender bathrooms. Don't you see the potential for abuse in these situations? A straight man could pretend to be transgender to gain access to women's facilities. There is no sugical proof required. This law as written cannot filter out those with nefarious motivations.

How about the rights of those not comfortable with the situations the law would most probably lead to?

What about women who do not want men in their restrooms and locker rooms?

Don't they have rights too?