Massachusetts Backs Off Churches on Transgender Law
The state of Massachusetts, having been duly notified that its transgender law trampled upon the First Amendment, has apparently pulled an Emily Litella, according to the Daily Caller:
Four churches dropped their lawsuit against Massachusetts after the state clarified its transgender law would only apply to them in limited cases.
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a lawsuit in October alleging the state’s anti-discrimination law for transgenders would infringe on churches’ religious freedoms, reports Mass Live.
Now, the group announced Monday it dropped the lawsuit against Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination after receiving a letter from the AG’s office.
The attorney general’s office sent a letter to the ADF last month explaining that it removed “house of worship” as an example of a public place. Healey noted, though, if a church hosts a “public, secular function,” then it will be considered a public place.
“We accomplished what we set out to do, to ensure pastors and churches across the state of Massachusetts were free to teach their religious beliefs and operate their houses of worship in a way consistent with those beliefs,” Christiana Holcomb, legal counsel with the ADF, said.
Personally, I think that the phrase “public, secular event” still muddies the waters. MassLive has this in its report of the agreement:
The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination also updated its guidelines. MCAD removed the sentence in its guidelines that referred to a church being a place of public accommodation if it holds a secular event like a spaghetti supper. It replaced that by writing that the law applies to a religious organization if it engages in or its facilities are used for a public, secular function. The law does not apply to an organization in any way that would abridge its First Amendment rights, as defined by the Donaldson case.
Admittedly, I’m not a lawyer, but out here in the hinterland where actual English is spoken, I can see nothing justifying a distinction in that description between saying that a church is not a place of “public accommodation” when it hosts a “secular event” like a spaghetti supper that’s open to the public, but it is when it is used for an undefined “public, secular function.” Maybe a lawyer can parse that, but I’m betting he or she would have to be named “Clinton.”
If the ADF is satisfied, then I’m OK. But it’s still worth keeping an eye on the lizard people who populate the Massachusetts attorney general’s office to make sure they keep their hands and their warrants where they belong.
Share this story:
Recent Related Posts
Are you reading this?
Advertising on Stand Firm works!
Click here for details.