So it Begins: This State Forces LGBT “Accommodation” Rules on its Churches

We were told this would never happen...EVER!

I'm agnostic, but even I see how the left has cast its evil eye of hate on Christianity and this is the result. We all known damn well this was the plan all along and it will probably get worse and worse until Islam is the only religion left in the country, because for some reason the left doesn't want to take that on. And I can't wait to see how many LGBTers go to a mosque for a spaghetti dinner, but you know they'll be busing them in for one being held at a church.

 

Can a church have a whites only bathroom and claim it is for religious reasons? Why not?

 

Is white a religion?

 

No. Why does the religion matter?

 

More facism from the "tolerant".

 

Why is my question so hard to answer?

 

What an asinine question.

What does it even have to do with the topic? Oh... and BTW... LOL

 

Such anger. So you admit a church can not avoid public accommodation laws based on religious belief. Thanks

 

Is there some verse in the Bible about whiteness? Do Christians have some common belief about whiteness? No, they don't, so find a comparison that's more relevant and less race-baity.

 

The sooner all religions are discarded into the dust bin of mythology... the better off mankind will be!!

 

There is simple way to avoid this hold no "open to the public" events then the law doesn't apply so no more open to the community meals, fall festivals, street preaching with invitations for non-members of the church or holy place and avoid public charity. Then you can do as you wish within those rules.

 

Do you know how a forum works?

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, screw freedom of religion!

 

Thing is, I still believe in a thing called separation of church and state.

 

Mormonism does. Can they?

 

Yes many Christians consider the mark of the cain to refer to back people

At some point after the slave trade in the United States began, many[citation needed] Protestant denominations began teaching that the mark of Cain was a dark skin tone, although early descriptions of Romani as "descendants of Cain" written by Franciscan monk Symon Semeonis suggest this belief had existed for some time. Protestant preachers wrote exegetical analyses of the curse, with the assumption that it was dark skin.[19]

Early church exegesis[edit]

In Syriac Christianity, early exegesis of the "curse" and the "mark", associated the curse of Cain with black skin, although not in a racial sense.[20]

In an Eastern Christian (Armenian) Adam-book (5th or 6th century), it is written: "And the Lord was wroth with Cain. . . He beat Cain's face with hail, which blackened like coal, and thus he remained with a black face".[21] Again, this indicating that his face, and not his body, being changed had no bearing on any racial or ethnic group.

Baptist segregation[edit]

The split between the Northern and Southern Baptist organizations arose over doctrinal issues pertaining to slavery and the education of slaves. At the time of the split, the Southern Baptist group used the curse of Cain as a justification for slavery. Some 19th- and 20th-century Baptist ministers in the Southern United States taught that there were two separate heavens; one for blacks, and one for whites.[22] Baptists have taught or practiced various forms of racial segregation well into the mid-to-late-20th century, though members of all races were accepted at worship services.[23] In 1995, the Southern Baptist Convention officially denounced racism and apologized for its past defense of slavery.[24]

The curse of Cain was used to support a ban on ordaining blacks to most Protestant clergies until the 1960s in both the United States and Europe[citation needed]. The majority of Christian churches in the world, including the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox churches, Anglican churches, and Oriental Orthodox churches, did not recognize these interpretations and did not participate in the religious movement to support them. Certain Catholic dioceses in the Southern United States adopted a policy of not ordaining blacks to oversee, administer the sacraments to, or accept confessions from white parishioners. This policy was not based on a "curse of Cain" teaching, but was justified by the widely held perception that slaves should not rule over their masters. However, this was not approved of by the Pope or by any papal teaching.[25]

Latter-day Saints[edit]

Main articles: Black people in Mormon doctrine, Black people and early Mormonism, Black people and Mormonism, and Black Mormons

Like many Americans of the era,[citation needed] Mormons of the 19th century commonly assumed that Cain's "mark" was black skin,[26] and that Cain's descendants were black and still under Cain's mark. Mormonism began during the height of white Protestant acceptance of the curse of Cain doctrine in America, as well as the even more popular curse of Ham doctrine, which was even held by many abolitionists of the time.[citation needed] This belief seemed to be confirmed by a scriptural passage in the Book of Abraham which suggested that Cain's bloodline was preserved on the ark through Egyptus (wife of Ham),[27] an interpretation now rejected by the LDS Church.[28][29] While Joseph Smith indicated his belief in the curse of Ham theory in a parenthetical reference as early as 1831,[30] the only early reference to the curse or mark of Cain was in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, which included the following statement: "And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them."[31]

There is evidence that Joseph Smith did not consider the restriction between blacks and the priesthood to be relevant in modern times, since he himself (and other church leaders close to him) did ordain black men to the priesthood,[32] notably Elijah Abel and Walker Lewis.

Priesthood ban[edit]

After the death of Joseph Smith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) was the largest of several organizations claiming succession from Smith's church. Brigham Young (the second President of the Church) accepted the idea that people of African ancestry were generally under the curse of Cain, and in 1852 he made a statement that people of black African descent were not eligible to hold the church's priesthood.[33] The ban on priesthood was not used as a reason for segregation of congregations, which was common in churches in the southern United States during this time period, but it affected black members differently than in other churches because the LDS Church has a lay priesthood in which virtually all worthy male members become priesthood holders.

While Young never made clear the reasons for the priesthood ban, several of his successors defended it as being a result of the curse of Cain, though some disagreed. Sterling M. McMurrin reported that, in 1954, church president David O. McKay said: "There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro. We believe that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that's all there is to it."[34]

In 1978, LDS Church president Spencer W. Kimball reported receiving a revelation from God allowing all worthy male members of the church to receive the priesthood without regard to race or color.[35][36] The news was greeted with joy and relief from Mormons. Although the church had previously been criticized for its policy during the civil rights movement, the change seems to have been prompted by problems facing mixed race converts in Brazil.[37]

There has neither been an official and explicit church repudiation of its policy nor an admission that it was a mistake. Many black church members think giving an apology would be a "detriment" to church work and a catalyst to further racial misunderstanding. African-American church member Bryan E. Powell says: "There is no pleasure in old news, and this news is old." Gladys Newkirk agrees, stating: "I've never experienced any problems in this church. I don't need an apology .... We're the result of an apology."[38] Many Black Mormons say that they are willing to look beyond the former teachings and cleave to the doctrines of the church, in part because of its powerful, detailed teachings on life after death.[39]

The LDS Church has issued an official statement about past practices and theories regarding skin color, stating: "[t]oday, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, ... Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."[

- - - Updated - - -

So then answer my question.....can they?

 

Why are there blacks amongst the mormon church membership?

- - - Updated - - -

Typical. Progressives can never live in the present moment, they always have to go digging up the past when talking about the present.

 

If a church claims they need a whites only bathroom can they have that? Yes or no

 

I see a constitutional battle coming up which an anti-democratic state like Massachusetts cannot win.
It cannot force the churches of that state to violate their own tenants to accommodate secular bullies. This is anti Freedom of Religion power grab in spades!

 

The question can not be more relevant. Can a church deny a group access to their bathrooms based on religious belief?

- - - Updated - - -

Boy this is a tough question

 

Tell us, please, of any church that makes that claim in the real world.

 

They got over the past.

Progressives are actually quite conservative. While they push for some changes to appeal to their particular morals, they never get over the past and they believe their morals justify violence against those who don't agree.

 

Okay. Thanks for that strange little detour. My comment about the constitution remains unamended.

 

This is exactly how you destroy the moral fiber of a country.....turn it in on itself.

" Top down...Bottom up...Inside out "


[video=youtube;3iiiD-Fh32Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iiiD-Fh32Q[/video]


And " WE " are letting " THEM " do it to " US " right under " OUR " noses........

 

Then WTF did you even ask the racist question, "If a church claims they need a whites only bathroom can they have that?"

 

I did. Thanks for playing