Of COURSE we won't start regulating what you can do in your Church sanctuary...

[makattak]

Until they do:

https://icrc.iowa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/2012/SOGIPublicAccom.pdf

Sometimes. Iowa law provides that these protections
do not apply to religious institutions with respect to any
religion-based qualifications when such qualifications
are related to a bona fide religious purpose. Where
qualifications are not related to a bona fide religious
purpose, churches are still subject to the law’s provisions.
(e.g. a child care facility operated at a church or
a church service open to the public).

No worries, though. It's just about public accommodation. As we all know, that means the government can decide what you do on your own property, in your own building, holding a religious service.

What's that? Something about the "First Amendment"?? Pshaw, you can still believe whatever you want, you're just not allowed to act on those beliefs.

[RevDisk]

In case anyone's confused, this has to do with doing away with restricting bathroom usage to folks' birth rather than chosen identity.

Like most things, I'd prefer it be left up to individuals rather than enforced by the government.

[Ron]

In this current climate the "church" church will eventually once again have to revert to home based gatherings of small groups who continue to believe and practice historic Christianity in defiance of our government.

[Perd Hapley]

Are they saying that a church service doesn't have a bona fide religious purpose? So much for freedom of religion freedom of worship.

In this current climate the "church" will eventually once again have to revert to home based gatherings of small groups who continue to believe and practice historic Christianity in defiance of our government.

Not sure why you put it in quotation marks, but one can see that possiblity not far off. They've been telling us for years that religion is something private, for the family and the home, but not appropriate for "the real world."

We have to reject the division of life into a sacred realm, limited to things like worship and personal morality, over against a secular realm that includes science, politics, economics, and the rest of the public arena. This dichotomy in our own minds is the greatest barrier to liberating the power of the gospel across the whole of culture today.

Moreover, it is reinforced by a much broader division rending the entire fabric of modern society — what sociologists call the public/private split. "Modernization brings about a novel dichotomization of social life," writes Peter Berger. "The dichotomy is between the huge and immensely powerful institutions of the public sphere[by this he means the state, academia, large corporations] . . . and the private sphere" — the realm of family, church, and personal relationships.

The large public institutions claim to be "scientific" and "value-free," which means that values are relegated to the private sphere of personal choice. As Berger explains: "The individual is left to his own devices in a wide range of activities that are crucial to the formation of a meaningful identity, from expressing his religious preference to settling on a sexual life style."

http://www.summit.org/resources/essays/total-truth/

[dogmush]

Regardless of how one feels about the bathroom brouhaha, this is one where I feel the church should tell Iowa to FOAD, and enforce whatever rules they feel their conscience demands on their church services.  Not do an end run by requiring "membership", not try and conform with the letter of the law, just say that it ain't gonna happen.

Of course the SJW's and .gov will push back, but if it's going to come down to the men with guns, then let's do it.  Be the church that YouTube's a SWAT team coming in, stopping a service, and escorting a man into the woman's room.  Make the SJW's hit the endgame.

[Ron]

You're point about the quotations is taken Fistful, I've modified the post for clarity.

[Ben]

Regardless of how one feels about the bathroom brouhaha, this is one where I feel the church should tell Iowa to FOAD, and enforce whatever rules they feel their conscience demands on their church services.  Not do an end run by requiring "membership", not try and conform with the letter of the law, just say that it ain't gonna happen.

Of course the SJW's and .gov will push back, but if it's going to come down to the men with guns, then let's do it.  Be the church that YouTube's a SWAT team coming in, stopping a service, and escorting a man into the woman's room.  Make the SJW's hit the endgame.

Yes, all that there.

[Perd Hapley]

Regardless of how one feels about the bathroom brouhaha, this is one where I feel the church should tell Iowa to FOAD, and enforce whatever rules they feel their conscience demands on their church services.  Not do an end run by requiring "membership", not try and conform with the letter of the law, just say that it ain't gonna happen.

This, plus:

First they came for the businesses, but I did not speak up, for I did not own a business...

[230RN]

This, plus:

First they came for the businesses, but I did not speak up, for I did not own a business...

Excellent!

Regardless of how one feels about the bathroom brouhaha, this is one where I feel the church should tell Iowa to FOAD, and enforce whatever rules they feel their conscience demands on their church services.  Not do an end run by requiring "membership", not try and conform with the letter of the law, just say that it ain't gonna happen.

Of course the SJW's and .gov will push back, but if it's going to come down to the men with guns, then let's do it.  Be the church that YouTube's a SWAT team coming in, stopping a service, and escorting a man into the woman's room.  Make the SJW's hit the endgame.

Like^11ty.

How may I contribute to your Think Tank?

Terry, 230RN

NOTE:  See also
 
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=52093.msg1063213#msg1063213

for more "forcing them into their end game" implications.

[Balog]

Regardless of how one feels about the bathroom brouhaha, this is one where I feel the church should tell Iowa to FOAD, and enforce whatever rules they feel their conscience demands on their church services.  Not do an end run by requiring "membership", not try and conform with the letter of the law, just say that it ain't gonna happen.

Of course the SJW's and .gov will push back, but if it's going to come down to the men with guns, then let's do it.  Be the church that YouTube's a SWAT team coming in, stopping a service, and escorting a man into the woman's room.  Make the SJW's hit the endgame.

1. Absolutely correct.
2. Sadly, too many local congregations are soft, fat, gutless little btches who just pay lip[ service to their faith.
3. What the hell is wrong with Iowa? Seems like they generate a lot of lefty nonsense you'd expect from Berkeley not a flyover state.

[Ben]

3. What the hell is wrong with Iowa? Seems like they generate a lot of lefty nonsense you'd expect from Berkeley not a flyover state.

Indeed. It seems like a lot of "Berkeley light" (and not so light) stuff coming out of there lately. I blame Charby.

[Scout26]

I blame Charby.

The Marco Rubio of the Midwest. 


 

[Ron]

1. Absolutely correct.
2. Sadly, too many local congregations are soft, fat, gutless little btches who just pay lip[ service to their faith.
3. What the hell is wrong with Iowa? Seems like they generate a lot of lefty nonsense you'd expect from Berkeley not a flyover state.

The seeds of post modern thought are finally bearing fruit in the churches of the heartland.

Their seminaries have been hollowed out theologically and now the pastors are passing along the post modern feelz religion they've been taught.

[charby]

Indeed. It seems like a lot of "Berkeley light" (and not so light) stuff coming out of there lately. I blame Charby.

Don't blame me, Iowa has always been a progressive state. We just don't do it with the gusto of other progressive states.

[lupinus]

Regardless of how one feels about the bathroom brouhaha, this is one where I feel the church should tell Iowa to FOAD, and enforce whatever rules they feel their conscience demands on their church services.  Not do an end run by requiring "membership", not try and conform with the letter of the law, just say that it ain't gonna happen.

Of course the SJW's and .gov will push back, but if it's going to come down to the men with guns, then let's do it.  Be the church that YouTube's a SWAT team coming in, stopping a service, and escorting a man into the woman's room.  Make the SJW's hit the endgame.

This. Very much this.

Every non hippy church ought to make a very public, very united proclamation that the state can sit on a transgender manifesto and rotate. 


Sent from my iPhone. Freaking autocorrect.

[RoadKingLarry]

Even as an atheist the entirety of the 1st Amendment is very important to me. If the "powers that be de jour" can force churches and religions to subjugate the free exercise of their religion to align with the societal trend of the week then it opens the doors for the next "powers that be de jour" to swing the pendulum the other direction.
I fully support the church telling the state to pack sand.

[grampster]

Don't blame me, Iowa has always been a progressive state. We just don't do it with the gusto of other progressive states.

Why that's just a corny statement.

[Perd Hapley]

The Marco Rubio of the Midwest. 

Little Charbo

[zxcvbob]

I read the state's PDF, and I don't see where a church service is a public accommodation -- because no goods or services are offered.  If they charged admission, then it might be a PA.

I think the churches can just ignore the whole thing; don't tell the state where to shove it until the state asks.

In my little church, we have a men's room and a ladies' room, but we really don't care who uses what (they are both one-holers); if your "proper" room is occupied and the person in there is taking a long time, you use the other one.  Happens frequently.

[Mannlicher]

liberals have always hated two things.  The Second Amendment, and Christians. 

[dogmush]

I read the state's PDF, and I don't see where a church service is a public accommodation -- because no goods or services are offered.  If they charged admission, then it might be a PA.

Really?  I did.  Twice.

Once in the OP's quote:

Where qualifications are not related to a bona fide religious purpose, churches are still subject to the law’s provisions. (e.g. a child care facility operated at a church or a church service open to the public).

and again:

WHAT IS NOT A PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION ?
Any private club or other place which is distinctly private
by its nature. However, if it offers some services, facilities,
or goods to the general public, it will be treated as
a public accommodation for those services

It's been some years since I was in a Christian service, but I recall the public could pretty much walk in and sit down.  Isn't one of the main concepts of a Christian service that it's open to the public?

[zxcvbob]

It is open to the publicThe public is invited , but no services, facilities,or goods are offered.  It's just an open public meeting.  Sometimes we have donuts; I hope we don't have to give that up to stay legal...

Minnesota doesn't have this foolishness yet, but when it gets here out church will ignore it.  Hopefully, quietly ignore it.

[MechAg94]

It is open to the publicThe public is invited , but no services, facilities,or goods are offered.  It's just an open public meeting.  Sometimes we have donuts; I hope we don't have to give that up to stay legal...

Minnesota doesn't have this foolishness yet, but when it gets here out church will ignore it.  Hopefully, quietly ignore it.

I don't think they define it as having to sell something or provide something, but they did mention day care for small children during the Church services. 

[makattak]

I don't think they define it as having to sell something or provide something, but they did mention day care for small children during the Church services.  

No, there's an OR there. Those were two separate ideas.

"A day care operated at a church OR a church service open to the public."

Basically, unless you make your church "members only", they plan on regulating what you can do there.

[zxcvbob]

No, there's an OR there. Those were two separate ideas.

"A day care operated at a church OR a church service open to the public."

Basically, unless you make your church "members only", they plan on regulating what you can do there.

They can plan all they want.