In the case of gov'ts ratings, I have much less problem with gov't rating things than disallowing them. If a church is not accommodating of transgender people, they probably wouldn't mind the gov't rating them as non-accommodating.

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.

"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.

"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 ..."
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.

The government is saying, "If you have a public building, then you have to meet these common standards." See my comments below to Old Ugly Carl.

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 ...

So, are you opposed to building codes? Does the government have the right to disallow the construction or later use of a building that does not meet safety standards?

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).

Sorry, my bad. I read and wrote while still on my first cup of coffee. I was actually referring to Olduglycarl (never typed that out before, seems harsh).

"This is, as CG points out, government moving into a social matter which happens to be protected by the First Amendment."
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.

You guys seem to me making this out as a segregation issue, which it is not. This is, as CG points out, government moving into a social matter which happens to be protected by the First Amendment.

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 rejection of Male/Female is a temptation of the bicameral brain, Taught at a young age by another, Taught to question who one is by a misguided culture; taught to reject one's Self and now forced upon everyone else to reject what is self evident in existence...North attracts south...+ goes to - (or ground), it's the same for life as it is for elements...without this process there would be no electricity and therefore...no existence.

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 I attended the College of Charleston, South Carolina, in 1967, I was shocked to see a public restroom with separate signed entrances for Men -- Women -- Colored.

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.

The issues are over-complicated and entangled because of the mixed-premise philosophies of the parties who claim involvement. Any Objectivist worth their salt (or gold) will tell you that just because you have a political right to use heroin does not mean that it is a good plan. You are free to treat people almost anyway you want. You have a political right to be rude. Rudeness is just an expression of low self-esteem; and Objectivists do not value low self-esteem.

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...