Massachusetts Forces LGBT 'Accommodation' Rules on Churches
A while wrote out a short story to add to Fallacies of Vision that show Government limiting free speech and the free exercise of religious liberty to push the homosexual agenda. I didn't add it, I probably should have.
Perhaps I'm old school. If you have a penis you're a guy, a vagina you're a girl REGARDLESS of what you mind tells you and I will treat you accordingly.
Perhaps I'm old school. If you have a penis you're a guy, a vagina you're a girl REGARDLESS of what you mind tells you and I will treat you accordingly.
"Do you believe that a church should be exempt from the building codes, or fire marshal codes?" NO!
"Do you believe that churches should pay taxes?" YES!
"Should a church in a city be allowed to set up a firearms range in their parking lot?" YES, if the law allows it.
"Should a church bus be required to have turn signals and headlights?" YES!
"The question is this: should churches obey the law?"
That is not the question. The question is; does the law obey the constitution? If the law is constitutional then everyone obeys the law. If it is not, then we must replace the Executive branch for not vetoing an unconstitutional bill. We should replace the congress for submitting a bill that is unconstitutional. That means both the Senate and the House.
This government we are dealing with is now the same government with which Dagny had to deal. The prophesy of Atlas Shrugged is here. Argue with the government, they are the real foe! But then, there is no arguing with the government. It's like arguing with an idiot.
"You seem to believe that churches (mosques, synagogues, temples) have some special status that puts them beyond the law."
I do not understand how you arrived at this. Your beef is with the government, not me. You are reading into my comment things that bother you. I forget who said it first:
"What does not pick my pocket nor break my bones should not concern me."
I believe it was Thomas Jefferson. Not sure.
Now, if you disagree with my answer to any of your questions, let me here your facts. Don't assume you know what I am thinking, ask me.
When you assume, you make an
ASS out of U and ME.
What do you expect when someone is violating the rights of another? I fail to understand how the present laws on gender identity are different from earlier laws on racial identity. In the previous generation (before I was 20), public restrooms were labeled "Male, Female, Colored." The US military generally segregated people by so-called "race" to the extent that they would not give a "white" soldier a "colored" blood transfusion.
I perceive the common notions here in The Gulch about gender as being similar to ideas about "race" in the 1940s.
I find one small hole in your argument, however. When the law makes an exception for a group, then that is the law.
I think your question is more on the grounds of where a particularly desired behavior should be forced. This goes back to who makes the laws and what they are basing those laws on.
For instance, almost any law can be passed using public safety as the key objective since almost anything anyone does poses a risk to themselves and potentially others. One may say "that is ridiculous" to say that my smoking in my house is harming the house 5 doors down, but how do you really know? The gov't and some lobbyists and special interest groups now say "we cannot take that chance." At what point is the gov't required to protect us from ourselves? Isn't our ability to commit suicide the ultimate activity that would require protection? Well, unless the gov't values the individual over the group, that would be the case; however, now the group that screams the loudest and is in line with an overall agenda gets the prize of protection.
So I say to you, how do you know what laws should be passed and which should not?
I would argue that unless you base your decision on a standard which is external to man and immutable, you cannot say certainly this or that....it will simply come as a result of your opinion (and even and opinion that may be highly researched and "rationally objective."
No one is telling anyone not to be homosexual nor is anyone telling another how they should think of themselves. Whats being done by Mass govt is forcing acceptance of one small group on another, much larger group to the extent it limits their speech and state seeking to stand at the pulpit and dictate beliefs.
The comparison to segregation laws is, at best, a stretch. You can easily see a color skin difference from a distance whereas in most cases you have to engage a homosexual in conversation to realize they are homosexual.
The salient question, for me, is not the legality, but the morality. As I said, everyone has a political right to be an idiot. Your claim that that right is superior to other rights is questionable. I point to laws against reckless driving, careless driving, endangerment, and so on. We have laws - limited by rights - to enable us to live together.
You do not need to wait for a harm to befall you. I assure you that a transgendered person can be assaulted in a church... or a mosque ...
I question whether a church is truly open to the public as there is first an assumption of similar beliefs or at least an interest. Why should a homosexual or trangendered WANT to be someplace that does not appreciate their existence as a matter of doctrine? Why should laws be constructed to force that compliance?
This is less about morality and more about force.
Those are not my personal beliefs. But they are Christian doctrine. In fact, every religion that I know of teaches some form of the same thing: we are all less than perfect and we all strive for perfection. Being imperfect does not disqualify you from membership.
In baseball, we count errors, but you really have to go a ways to get kicked off the team for one.
I know what the Bible says about men not laying down as women and all that, but the Bible also condemns clothing of two threads, so no cotton-polyester blends for you, I guess... In any case, Jesus said, "I am the Law." In other words following all of those rules will not save you.
As for the rules, if stealing is a sin, then tax collectors should not be allowed in church, right? Do you socialize with the government employees in your congregation or do you demand that they leave the church as being unworthy of redemption?
I don't see anti-LGBT as being part of Judeo/Christian/Islamic doctrine. I think people who want to pick on LGBT people or to respect them can do it in the name of religion.
Georg Ohm was ridiculed for his "law" and denied university status. But no one tried to kill him.
Still, the NT still speaks to the bicameral brain because most had not made the transition into the mind...in fact, much of the world today still hasn't made that transition.
Julian Jaynes gives excellent perspectives upon the bicameral nature of man before consciousness evolved in some.
My church rents space for meetings and events and rents out the sunday school rooms to a preschool. So it's more public than a private club but less public than a gov't building.
When I took the class to become a full member long ago, I remember them saying we're welcoming but to people who would violate the UU principles. So clearly, you're not supposed to come and condemn people for their gender identity.
I try to imagine if the anti-LGBT people were running things and said we weren't up to code as a public building because we allow people to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with. I'm sure people would protest and publicly ignore the law and invite the gov't to arrest them. I guess according to MM's system, if we provided single-occupant "family" bathrooms, in this scenario, for people changing babies and for people who are anti-transgender, we would meet code that way.
It really rubs me the wrong way though. People who want to have meetings or events open to bigots shouldn't host their events at a UU meeting house.
There is a difference between not liking a behavior or someone's character versus hating that person; but most do not apply that dislike with "physical animosity" or would not otherwise help that person if in need.
That's been my observation anyway...I don't hang out with professional democrats as a rule...Laughing.
I don't harbor hate for the left...although I do wonder if a bop upside their heads would cause a reboot of their brain.
I guess I would call that "responsible".
I realize people are sensitive about using the right words. If there is a PC word for this, I would certainly use it.
Did you mean a) that laws protecting LBGT rights in churches prevent assaults or b) that the reason for allowing churches to discriminate is the same as the reasoning for allowing them to assault people?
I certainly don't think people should be allowed to be violent because it's their religion. I do think they should be able to kick you off their property for any reason they like.
I like hearing other opinions/ideas, of course.
You are very insightful in (b). Yes, that is a logical inference and a historical fact. It was a truth that Ayn Rand had a hard time getting across, the unity of reality in human action. Your statement was keen on that.
As for kicking people off your property, it is a basic political right. A man's home is his castle. But as you point out, the church is a social organization. And they rent it out to other groups, as well.
It is not always clear who speaks for whom. I attended a Methodist church for about six months. My wife went a couple of times, but did not like the minister. One of the leaders said to me, "We hire ministers for a two-year contract." So, who speaks for the church? I mean, the person who signs the checks is not necessarily the person who interprets doctrine.
Thank you, but I was repeating what you said without understanding. I don't see not wanting someone around as the same as assault. I would be loath to see someone open a restaurant or other service with a sign saying "no coloreds allowed". The law makes that illegal and saves me from having to see it. I don't think the law is right thought. Having the law control whether someone discriminates means once 50% of the people agree on not discriminating against a group gov't force backs them and no one can openly discriminate. I'm open to other ideas, but that doesn't sound good. It just seems like it masks the problem.
The desires of the churches (and apparently some people here) to discriminate on the basis of gender is indeed based on the same flawed philosophy - mysticism and altruism - that excuses their violence.
When I'm inclined to think what's the harm in being irrational, I should go to whatstheharm.net.
You mean me? I don't remember saying that, but I agree with it.
I think churches should be free to discriminate. Regarding MM's question of whether I think gov't should allow practices like sati or human sacrifice in a church, I am undecided. If someone truly decides to end his life, I think it's his right. But I wouldn't want a radical religious group tricking people who don't have full capacity to make that decision for themselves.
I think a church should be free to discriminate against LGBT, races, or any identity group. People who respect people without regard to LGBT can go to the Methodist or UU churches up the road where I went as a boy. The Methodist church has a big pride flag at the entrance and a children's book on transgender issues prominently displayed at front of the children's library. The UU congregation where I'm going for services tonight has supported LGBT rights all my life and now supports polyamory rights.
I don't want the anti-LGBT people around me in my community, and I'm pretty sure they don't me in theirs. I'm okay with that. If we make them lobby the gov't so they can do things their way instead of my way, they might also lobby to make me do things their way.
Now the Constitution is simply pushed and pulled without amendment....you simply scream, protest, lobby and your politicians will easily change the Constitution unconstitutionally by the use of case law for a set price.
Not only were African-Americans segregated from Whites, but they were not differentiated by sex, but, rather, forced to use the same restrooms regardless. Somehow, that did not cause much ire among the god-fearing religionists who made the laws.
Religion was invented about 7000 BCE. Philosophy was invented about 600 BCE. Science was invented about 1830 CE. It is a long, slow road.
As for the churches, even here in the Gulch, you find people who are nominally secular themselves but who accord special rights to religious organizations. Myself, churches are no different than any other social organization: it is just a business. They should pay taxes and obey all of the other laws we have.
If you do not like the law, you are free to try to change it. You are free to disobey it, accept the consequences and fight it in court. And you are free to dodge immoral laws. That, too, comes from religion. In the US military, no flag ever flies higher than the American flag -- except the chaplain's flag while services are being held. They say "one nation under God" but I just say that the government is always subject to a higher moral law.
That said, though, when ruling against polygamy (Reynolds v. United States, 1878), the Supreme Court said that you can believe what you want, but you cannot do whatever you want because, if we allowed that, it would only be a matter of time before we excused human sacrifice. So, the chaplain's flag to the contrary, religion is not above the law.
"In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control. This being so, the only question which remains is, whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?" -- http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme...
Churches should be doing much more locally for their exempt status, what they were TOLD to do by their doctrine. If all would we would have zero homeless and a lot less welfare.
I know these things because I've networked several churches in Phoenix - small to huge. I've spoken to pastors, priests and office managers and have openly asked about why they don't do more here at home. It always comes back to liability. Even should they give up their exception they'd still be subject to the same liability.
Sad because some had rec centers with full kitchens, bathrooms and shower facilities that sat mostly empty all week, and transportation an d food pantry's. Space that should be being used to help their community.
This is another instance of government needing to get out of the way.
I do not attend and haven't in many years. Still, I see the benefit to their role in society.
"Benefit to society" is not an especially useful concept upon which to base tax policy.
As you say, groups have the resources to do things “on a grand scale” that most individuals do not. But groups do not have any rights apart from the rights of the individuals comprising such groups, and the size of any such group does not confer any extra rights to its members. Plus, it is dangerous for governments to be in the business of deciding which activities are “good for society” and thus eligible for tax exemptions, and which activities are not. As a conservative, you should be especially sensitive to the risk of allowing governments to “play God” in this respect, considering the recent scandals over IRS targeting of conservative organizations.
Yes. People pay taxes to have gov't try to deal with those social problems and clean up the mess. Unlike most people here, I think citizens have a responsibility to help the poor for the same reason we have a responsibility to pay for policing. I would much rather have private organizations doing that work. I don't want gov't handing money to my church b/c strings are usually attached with money. The tax-exempt status is a nice way to compensate them, as you say. I think help given to people through churches, at least mine, is much better than gov't programs. People in a church community know who's really getting their life together and who helping would just be enabling and hurting them in the long-run. It's hard for gov't to do that.
I've been here long enough for most everyone to know my stance on homosexuals. My concern here is the attack on the Bill Of Rights and many championing it as a victory for freedom and equality.
Everyone has a Right to do business with whom they choose, the right of association based upon one's character.
If one cannot be honest with one's self...then how can one be honest with others.
The main point here, as others here and elsewhere have continued to mention....Government has No role, no power, no say in these matters. It is up to the individuals involved, the communities involved and the organizations involved.
One can not make a person, a man. a species or a society, in one's own image...it is what it is...get over it.
When we lived in Albuquerque in 2002, the city inspected restaurants and then stickered them A, B, or C... or "Not Approved." You were perfectly free to eat in a Not Approved restaurant, but "Not Approved" was easy to see on the door, as were A, B, and C.
A socialist professor of mine once said, "You think that a business has the right to discriminate because a man's home is his castle. But I see the Welcome mat as an open contract with the public." That argument came up about 15 years later when Digital Equipment Corporation attempted to prosecute some hackers. The hackers pointed to the Welcome screen and said that it was pretty easy to figure out the username and password, so it must have been DEC's intention to let them in. That court agreed.
In 1972, Edwin Newman interviewed Ayn Rand for his show “Speaking Freely” on NBC-TV. Among other statements, Ayn Rand said: “But on the matter of protecting people from physical danger, if certain conditions of employment, let us say, are unsafe and it can be proved that there is a physical risk – I don’t say that we have to wait until somebody dies – then the employer who is creating this risk can be sued, and can be severely punished financially. In other words, there can be a law protecting a man from physical injury by another man. In this case, the employer who puts men into conditions of danger – not accidentally, but intentionally or carelessly – can be penalized because he is infringing the right of his workers not to be injured physically.”
The entire interview and many others are collected in the anthology Objectively Speaking: Ayn Rand Interviewed, edited by Marlene Podritske and Peter Schwartz (Lexington Books, 2009).
Regarding the DEC case, the analogous case would be a transgender person being prosecuted criminally for entering the church or using a bathroom inconsistent with the church's rules. In this case, the person argues that the unlocked door and appearance of the building as a public place means they were not trespassing. Like DEC, the church would have to put up some measures to let transgender people know they're not welcome before they could accept people to be prosecuted to transpassing.
I'm interested in your comments on the Rand quote about foreseeability of harm. Are you saying we should foresee harm in allowing churches not to accommodate transgender people. I foresee more harm in forcing them to accommodate.
Thanks for giving a different view. I really do believe in the right to discriminate, but perhaps I'm also motivated by wanting to allow the rednecks (or whatever the PC term for them is) their place to congregate so they don't come to place where I go and so I am consistent in my desire to kick them out of my church if they came and created trouble.
Are you saying bars should be treated differently under the law? Or are you saying mainstream churches more elevated and don't want to reject LGBT people?
As far as churches go, I am an outsider, but from what I understand of the Christian religion, the only people in church are sinners. That's why they are in church.
I mentioned the Methodist church I attended. One time, one of the teenage ushers met me and took me to a back pew because churches always fill up from the back first, right? But I said - in a church whisper that everyone could hear - "No, I want to sit down in front with the hypocrites and Pharisees." And the president of the men's club turned around, smiled, and waved me down front to sit with him and his family.
So, why do they discriminate against gays? And a transgendered person is not gay, so that's a whole other issue. It's like an organ transplant. You can't join our church because you had a cow aorta put in.
You are picking up on that I have two views of religion. One is that it's people's "olive tree", the traditions of their grandparents. The other is when people take it literally. I say they're the stories that inform people world view and should be respected, until they start hearing voices saying they should bind and murder their son.
I'm tempted to wonder which kind of religion is Christianity: the magnanimous and humble one you described in your story, or the ones that just want to make people feel uncomfortable out of meanspiritedness. The premise of my question is wrong. Religions are not religions of peace or war. They're a broad set of stories that can mean almost anything. So does that mean religion really isn't anything, can't be defined? I don't know. My understanding of this is unclear.
But the issue has nothing to do with whether or not I will do business with someone of poor character or behavior.
Does a restaurant have the right to reject a person that is drunk or high on drugs...is it not in their best interest to protect their patrons.
Do I not have the right and maybe the responsibility to not tempt others by endorsing, encouraging or participating in aberrant behavior?
You raise an interesting issue in the harms caused by government (in)action. It might be that laws against discrimination - race, gender, source of income - should apply only to the government itself. The government cannot favor some citizens over others.
On the other hand, we have some such onerous laws now: here in Texas, everyone has to pay their employees on time except the government. By June 1 I had gone 45 days without a paycheck. Right now, September 11, I have yet to be paid for August 1-31. That would be illegal for a private employer.
OUC: "...whether or not I will do business with someone of poor character or behavior." Well, that is the point of Galt's Strike, is it not? Should you do business with your destroyers? What constitutes good character or good behavior is pretty much up to you in your own life. The problems arise from having a business that is open to the public. See my comments above to CircuitGuy about Digital Equipment., and his cogent reply. (https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...)
I can agree that someone who is drunk or high could be a danger to others, but are you saying that being queer is potentially harmful to others? Do cross-dressers typically pick fights with strangers?
I can see the sign on your bar.
Carl's: Where Everyone Knows What You WIll Do Next.
Character and behavior is not relative to a persons thoughts, wishes or desires nor society...we have some basis for what constitutes these things in general; however half or more of the world still lives in the bicameral brain and the other half lives in the mind and naturally behaves accordingly.
So for the mean time we live with "Man made rules" that punish the many, in favor of a few, because of a few and most definitely to aggrandize the men that make the rules.
Hope you get paid soon...your living the dichotomy of the haves and the have nots...those that have conscience and those that have not.
I also think that in the greater scheme of things, the harm is cumulative and possibly in a quantum way as well...although I see the possibility...It just can't be proven right now...but as you might know...North and South attract for a reason.