• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

If your congregation isn’t unisex, get ready to be sued

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
It eliminates the protection with respect to claims under the Equality Act.

A synagogue or church isn't a place of public accommodation, so the Equality Act wouldn't eliminate protections the way you're suggesting. You're free to discriminate and segregate within your congregation to your heart's delight.

Where this will affect synagogues and churches is when they operate - secondary to their worship functions - a place of public accommodation... for instance, a banquet hall.

So if a church has a hall they rent out for, say, wedding receptions or community group meetings, they can't discriminate based on sex (including sexual orientation or gender identity) when it comes to that.

There will be a number of churches that will have to decide between renting out their parish hall or whatnot to everyone or not renting it out at all, but this law seems crafted to not affect worship services.

Short version: it doesn't affect actual places of worship, but it gets rid of some of the "this business is owned by a church, so it gets all the freedom to discriminate that a church gets" nonsense.
Your analysis is incorrect. Any organization that is not exclusively private falls under the purview of this. Religious congregations that are open to attendance by the public (most are) could be required to not have any gender exclusive accommodations.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Your analysis is incorrect. Any organization that is not exclusively private falls under the purview of this. Religious congregations that are open to attendance by the public (most are) could be required to not have any gender exclusive accommodations.
I'm sure you think you're right.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
As nice as that would be, you're just wrong on this one.


Public Accommodations and Equal Rights - FindLaw.
I am not wrong on this. A religious property that is not open to the public (for example a monastery) would not be subject to public accommodation. However a religious congregation that openly allows, indeed actively seeks out, the public to attend is a public accommodation.

You are quite eager to have it that this bill will allow suits against religious organizations that are currently exempted. I sincerely wish that were true. Unfortunately it isn’t. That is precisely why religious people, such as on this board, should be made aware in this looming threat to their organizations.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Your analysis is incorrect. Any organization that is not exclusively private falls under the purview of this. Religious congregations that are open to attendance by the public (most are) could be required to not have any gender exclusive accommodations.
Won't happen, especially as this was not indicated or outlined.
Religious organizations themselves will still be allowed to continue to be hateful and backwards all they want.
 

Aštra’el

Aštara, Blade of Aštoreth
Yeah, well, some time before that the law eliminated the right of religious groups to cut the living hearts out of unwilling virgins, too. We got over it.

Modern laws are just taking all the thrill out of religion, aren’t they? You can’t cut the living hearts out of virgins. You can’t toss them into a volcano either, or simply chain them up and offer them as a sacrifice to the sky dragon. You can’t go conquer a city or even a small town in the name of the storm god. You can’t burn heretics or even bbq your sheep on the altar anymore without people freaking out.

No wonder people are leaving religion. All the action is going away!
 

capumetu

Active Member
It's often because they feel directed by God to do it.

Say you were a Catholic woman who sincerely believed you were being called to the priesthood. You pray and reflect on it until you're absolutely sure... but the local diocese won't even talk to you because they say women can't be priests. Would the word of some bishop be enough for you to - as you understand it - disobey God?

I actually ended with I can answer that. I fully believe Jehovah's witnesses are the one and only people of God. I was disfellowshipped, and most of them treat me very unlovingly, yet I have chosen to remain among them forgiving them for their mistreatment, and begging Jehovah to forgive them. Why? Because I serve Jehovah, and that is where I believe He wants His people Zech 8:23
 

capumetu

Active Member
OK, but the same religions shouldn't expect tax relief/exemption.
Following your suggestion, Rastafarians should be allowed to smoke dope but I can't.
Religious exclusion is not good

Legally established religious faiths should all be dictated by the same laws. Interestingly many Amish around my area do not wear masks in non-Amish stores, although we are dictated by law to do so in this state. I think they are under law as well just not getting caught, and I don't particularly care, I feel it should be up to them.

I did see the government force them to put slow moving vehicle triangles on the back of their buggies though. They put up quite a fight, but ended up giving in.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
The so-called Equality Act[sic] has passed the House. One of it’s provisions is to allow any religious congregation that has separate sections based on gender to be open to being sued. In other words, destroyed by litigation.

Instead of being on the defense, each time the Democrats try to pervert the Constitution, the impacted people need to go on the offense, by pushing the law to its irrational limits, but in their own favor. The mistake that is always made by Conservatives ,is to accept the nonsense premises that come from the perverted Left They then stay on the defensive, complaining and back peddling. This allows the criminals to push the nonsense, uncontested, until it becomes the norm.

The way you deal with this is by going on the offense and using the law, in large numbers, in ways that can backfire on the Democrats. The dummies never think these things through, but historically assume they will remain on the offense.

For example, Nancy Pelosi has her own restroom in Congress, and since this restroom is a paid for by tax payer dollars, does she now have to share at risk of litigation? Or did the hypocrites in Congress add provisions to exempt themselves with dual standards? Republican members of Congress, for example, can push this to the limit, since they are inside the security wall of defense, that may have been added to justify her exemption.

Teenage boys, in public high schools, always have sex on the brain. Now they have right to use all female facilities, such as locker rooms, sports, bathrooms and even teacher lounges. They can push the law by pretending to be semi-transient he-shes, for the day or week. This allows them be legal peeping Toms, who can be trusted not to look, for that day.

Gender is now sold as being fluid, so transient is consistent with that. Once enough females get very uncomfortable and fear using the restrooms and lockerrooms, full of transient gender he-shes, they will sue and defeat the law, blaming the Democrats for the cultivation of perversion. They should have known boys will be boys.

The quota system for hiring could be made more complicated if the discriminated males become gender fluid for the day or month up to employment decision. Now this law can be used return the system so it is based on the best qualified "gender fluid", person. Gender is not a choice, but can grab you at anytime, right?

Most of alimony in our culture goes to females. Does this violate the new law, and should all future alimony payments and obligation better reflect the demographics in terms of sex and gender? The fluid gender defense can now be used by the males to alter alimony law. This could be used to peel away female vote, since females will not like losing the dual standard that they currently, have.

The fluidity of gender means you can use this defense when you need it. Any lawyer defense against this fluid choice, can then be used against everyone who claims gender differences. This will force Congress to define gender in a definitive way. The way you deal with this is to require science to set the standard, since they will be trusted to be more objective, than self serving politicians who lie for a living. Hard data will need to be presented so anyone can draw the same conclusions. Science will need to reverse this policy, since this is all nonsense and has no biological and genetic basis. This is all about choice and will power, albeit based on the superego of culture; fad. This fad affects the left more, which is expected, since they are more likely to become herd animals; they like herd orientations like socialism.
 
Last edited:

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
And yet the government forced Catholic adoptions agencies to violate their faith as well as force faith organizations to provide services on abortions they didn't believe in.

What are the details? Did those organizations receive state or federal subsidies? Religious organizations are often far from blameless in complaints of being victims of government persecution.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
Legally established religious faiths should all be dictated by the same laws. Interestingly many Amish around my area do not wear masks in non-Amish stores, although we are dictated by law to do so in this state. I think they are under law as well just not getting caught, and I don't particularly care, I feel it should be up to them.

I did see the government force them to put slow moving vehicle triangles on the back of their buggies though. They put up quite a fight, but ended up giving in.
What is a 'legally established religious faith"? How do you become legally established.
Which faiths are not legally established?

When their actions possibly effect the rest of the population you must obey the rules or face punishment.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Some seem to forget that there are places called "courts", thus if a law seems to go against what's in the 1st Amendment, for example, courts can strike those specific provisions down.

Thus, the main consideration with this thread is are we going to discriminate on the basis of sex: yes or no? If "yes", then there's gotta be a good reason established under the law and the Constitution.

Oh, btw, why is bathroom use such a hang-up with so many Americans? If ya don't like what ya see, then maybe just don't look.
 

JustGeorge

Not As Much Fun As I Look
Staff member
Premium Member
Oh, btw, why is bathroom use such a hang-up with so many Americans? If ya don't like what ya see, then maybe just don't look.

Seriously! Just potty and leave... Its not a place to congregate.

Though from hearing all the complaints about men's rooms, you guys could probably use a little more privacy in there...
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Seriously! Just potty and leave... Its not a place to congregate.
Agree.

Though from hearing all the complaints about men's rooms, you guys could probably use a little more privacy in there...
Some apparently feel that way as we see here on this thread, but I've been in unisex bathrooms in Quebec and Europe, and it's simply not a sexual thingy.

Even here in the Detroit area, whereas I was at a hockey game some years ago, two women asked if they could come in and use the men's bathroom since there was a large line for the women's, and they were desperate. We said "yes", they came in, did their "thing", and no one payed much attention.
 

Suave

Simulated character
The so-called Equality Act[sic] has passed the House. One of it’s provisions is to allow any religious congregation that has separate sections based on gender to be open to being sued. In other words, destroyed by litigation.

Does your God have a problem with transgenders?
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
The so-called Equality Act[sic] has passed the House. One of it’s provisions is to allow any religious congregation that has separate sections based on gender to be open to being sued. In other words, destroyed by litigation.

Law is a complicated balancing of freedoms. One freedom may interfere with another.

Unless there is compelling reason to force a church to comply, why should one freedom interfere with another?

I suppose that courts could force free speech. If so, while a pastor is trying to deliver a speech in church, another speaker, from outside of the church, with an entirely different religion (perhaps Satanism) could force the pastor to stop talking so he could have his say. Then free speech would take precedence over freedom of religion.

One could argue that we should maximize all freedoms. Does that mean have speeches from pastors and Satanists at the church at different times? Christians paid for those churches, so why should a Satanist be able to use their facility?

Some judges are appointed, and some are elected. When we vote for a particular party for president, we vote for all of his appointments, as well. Many judges are appointed for life. Some are appointed to do the Christian thing (use the bible, not the law books). They might rule to end abortion, or end the death penalty, or somehow alter the laws of the United States (illegally legislating from the bench, rather than letting Congress legislate). Those politically appointed judges could have devastating effects on religion for decades to come.

Our modern society is passing laws to allow little boys to be able to use girls' restrooms. That's carrying freedom too far. The freedom you give the little boys takes freedom from little girls.

Our politicians seem to have nothing better to do than to make weird laws. COVID is rampant (while politicians open classes and businesses), they focus on weird laws, instead of focusing on the important issues. While hoards of homeless people poop and pee in public, there is a pandemic sweeping the world, and no one helps or sanitizes the homeless, but instead, they focus on weird laws.

It is as though the whole world went crazy.

Berkeley, then Harvard, published a study about rising CO2 levels affecting brains. Superimpose crime charts and CO2 charts, and you will find that the two graphs are identical.

I think that the world is CO2 crazy (another consequence of Global Warming that most scientists haven't noticed).

So, the loopier we get, the less attention we pay to getting loopy (Global Warming/ CO2), and the less attention we pay to the important issues while we make stupid laws.

We could have done something about the CO2 levels (Global Warming), but President W. Bush worshiped mammon and oil over God and compassion. W. Bush got his lawyers to destroy the nation's environmental report, then used a phony report to dupe other nations. The lies, the greed, and the cruelty are now affecting us in unforeseen ways (though God warned us, but that's because God knew the future).
 

capumetu

Active Member
What is a 'legally established religious faith"? How do you become legally established.
Which faiths are not legally established?

When their actions possibly effect the rest of the population you must obey the rules or face punishment.

Good question. It would be one who is established and recognized as a religious organization by a government, adhering to the laws established for religious faiths.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
The so-called Equality Act[sic] has passed the House. One of it’s provisions is to allow any religious congregation that has separate sections based on gender to be open to being sued. In other words, destroyed by litigation.

Father shocked jury ruled to allow ‘transitioning’ of 7-y-o son despite plans to ‘cut off penis’

Link says: Court ordered 7-year-old to have penis cut off.

So, we not only have gender neutral organizations (including those with supposed religious freedom), but we are allowing the mutation of tiny tots, to forever alter their gender identity.

Shouldn't we at least wait until his male hormones kick in before we permanently decide which gender he should be?

Laws are being passed, somewhere in the US, to allow boys dressed in drag into girl's bathrooms.

Sadly, voting for Republicans won't make things better.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
But, the law of the land must be sacrosanct.
What if a religion says, "It is ok to kill (say) black people" - would an exemption of conscience be applicable?
Socrates made sacrosanct laws that forced him to drink poisonous hemlock and die.
 
Top