COMMENT: Toner, Mike (MC1972) What, exactly, is the problem with providing bathrooms for transgendered people?


Toner, Mike (MC1972)

Last week’s endnote…
ENDNOTE: Massachusetts wants a parish fish fry to be considered “secular”?

What, exactly, is the problem with providing bathrooms for transgendered people? Not sure I understand the threat to our “religious freedom” – unless that “freedom” is interpreted to mean freedom to be mean-spirited and discriminatory…

# – # – # – # – # 


Let me see if I can itemize the problems I have with this Taxchusetts Gooferment diktat.

(1) Private property

(2) Interference with “religion”

(3) Public interest in “transgendered freedom”

(4) The proper role of religion in secular issues

(5) The overall over reach of the regulatory state

That should about do it.

I’m sure that the good people involved in the Church in question would approach every one with charity and provide such toilet facilities as they possibly could. When I had asthma and the bathrooms were downstairs, I was offered the use of the bathroom in the sacristy. I’m sure that discrete arrangements could be made. And would be. BUT, retrofitting a special bathroom would be fantastically expensive in most old structures. Gooferment Skrules have nurses’ offices with bathrooms that can be provided. 

So the diktat improperly infringes on private property, interferes with the free exercise of religion, and is a total overreach into the private social space.

# – # – # – # – # 



Comments are closed.