LGBT Militants To Churches: Bow To Us, Or Else

As the LGBT agenda continues to try and force men into women’s restrooms, one thing has become clear: “tolerance” has been left in the dust. For the most vocal and most effective advocates of changing Americans’ view of sexuality and family, nothing short of state-sanctioned enforcement of their sexual values is acceptable.

Not even for churches. As I reported on Sunday for The Stream:

A draft form of gender identity regulations released by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination says churches that hold “secular” events “open to the public” must conform to gender identity pronouns and not challenge gender identity with respect to housing, employment and restrooms.

Released earlier this month and set for implementation on October 1, the updated version of the state’s “Gender Identity Guidance” declares that “places of public accommodation may not discriminate against, or restrict a person from services because of that person’s gender identity.”

As is typical for a movement that wants to redefine words, the “Guidance” is a mandate, complete with major consequences:

A footnote explains, “Violation of the law shall be punished by a fine of not more than twenty-five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both…. In addition, the violator shall be liable to the aggrieved person for damages.”

So far, so bad – churches aren’t safe from the state’s new definitions of sex and gender. But it gets worse:

Additionally, the “Guidance” states, “Moreover, it is a violation of the law for any individual to aid or incite another in making a distinction, discriminating against or restricting an individual from a place of public accommodation on the basis of gender identity.”

The Washington Post’s Eugene Volokh didn’t mince words in highlighting the scary implications of this latter part:

Indeed, a church might be liable even for statements by its congregants (and not just its volunteers, who are acting as agents) that are critical of transgender people. Tolerating such remarks is generally seen as allowing a “hostile environment,” and therefore “harassment.”

PJ Media’s Tyler O’Neil expects the regulations, which were instituted thanks to state legislators, to be challenged to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The speed at which the so-called “transgender” movement is overtaking the supposed Land of the Free is breathtaking, especially given leftists’ past calls for “tolerance” and “separation of church and state.” But at least the lines are clearly drawn – unlike conservatives in North Carolina, who passed HB2 to allow freedom for people on both sides of this social debate, leftists are using government to make disagreement illegal.

Maybe Cardinal Francis George was right. I, for one, cannot wait to see what the re-education camps look like.

About the author

Dustin Siggins

View all posts