Attending a Church Dinner in Massachusetts? Watch Thy Pronouns

Sept. 12 2016

At the beginning of this month, a Massachusetts commission issued its official “Gender Identity Guidance.” The document, which explains state regulations prohibiting sex-based “discrimination,” notes that the laws apply to public accommodations—and that “a church could be seen as a place of public accommodation if it holds a secular event, such as a spaghetti supper, that is open to the general public.” Eugene Volokh comments:

Now, churches hold events “open to the general public” all the time—it’s often how they seek new converts. And even church “secular events,” which I take to mean events that don’t involve overt worship, are generally viewed by a church as part of its ministry, and certainly as a means for a church to model what it believes to be religiously sound behavior.

My guess is that most churches would not turn someone away from a generally open spaghetti supper. . . . But some religious leaders, as well as the church employees and volunteers, may refuse to use pronouns that they believe are inconsistent with God’s plan as revealed by anatomy. . . .

Under Massachusetts law, refusing to use a transgender person’s preferred pronoun would be punishable discrimination. . . . 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.” . . .

[In other words], once they open their doors for “secular events,” church leaders have to use the words that the law requires, even when they view them as false or even blasphemous, and have to suppress offensive speech by their congregants.

Read more at Washington Post

More about: American law, Discrimination, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, Religion, Religion & Holidays

 

Expand Gaza into Sinai

Feb. 11 2025

Calling the proposal to depopulate Gaza completely (if temporarily) “unworkable,” Peter Berkowitz makes the case for a similar, but more feasible, plan:

The United States along with Saudi Arabia and the UAE should persuade Egypt by means of generous financial inducements to open the sparsely populated ten-to-fifteen miles of Sinai adjacent to Gaza to Palestinians seeking a fresh start and better life. Egypt would not absorb Gazans and make them citizens but rather move Gaza’s border . . . westward into Sinai. Fences would be erected along the new border. The Israel Defense Force would maintain border security on the Gaza-extension side, Egyptian forces on the other. Egypt might lease the land to the Palestinians for 75 years.

The Sinai option does not involve forced transfer of civilian populations, which the international laws of war bar. As the United States, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and other partners build temporary dwellings and then apartment buildings and towns, they would provide bus service to the Gaza-extension. Palestinian families that choose to make the short trip would receive a key to a new residence and, say, $10,000.

The Sinai option is flawed. . . . Then again, all conventional options for rehabilitating and governing Gaza are terrible.

Read more at RealClear Politics

More about: Donald Trump, Egypt, Gaza Strip, Sinai Peninsula