Public Accomodation and the "Bona Fide" Religious Activity

In 2014 I wrote the following for a paper in one of my seminary classes:

The overwhelming success of the radical homosexual agenda will result in serious difficulties for churches with stationary buildings.  First, to the extent churches are legally deemed places of public accommodation, they may find themselves running afoul of human rights laws which are already in place, as well as possible future laws which might be passed.  Churches will have to re-think whether they will permit Boy Scouts, civic groups, or any religiously unaffiliated group of any kind, no matter how humanitarian, to use the facilities.  The argument that homosexual activists will make is that if the church opens its doors to the Red Cross for a blood drive, then it can’t close its doors to GLAAD for a meeting.

The State of Massachusetts faced a lawsuit from four churches for making precisely this kind of regulation.  Fortunately, the churches prevailed and the state changed its regulation.  State Abandons Gender Mandate for Churches.  However the Iowa “Civil Rights” Commission has recently interpreted the recent transgender bathroom business as requiring that churches must permit people to use whatever bathroom they want unless the church is engaged in a ”bona fide religious purpose.”  In other words, the only time you can prevent people from using the bathroom of their choice is when the church is actually having a “church” service.  But isn’t it a bona fide religious purpose to offer your church building for use by the Boy Scouts, or other groups, because you have space that might not get used otherwise and it is, therefore, good stewardship?   Moreover, isn’t it neighborly to allow folks to use the facilities?  These are very Christian concepts (stewardship and neighborliness) which churches seek to promote because it furthers their bona fide religious purpose.  Yet, it’s clear states like Massachusetts and Iowa aren’t so sure and are willing to insert themselves into church business like never before.

My suspicion is that many of these laws and regulations get passed by people who know little about Christian theology.  They seem to think that Christianity is no different than the Lion’s Club or some other such do-gooder organization.  They see church buildings as no different than Moose Lodges.  There is also an utter disregard for irony and inconsistency that has become commonplace in our culture.  The First Amendment not only contains the Establishment Clause (the government shall not establish a religion) but also a Free Exercise Clause (nor shall it prevent the free exercise thereof).  Yet, so many today ironically seem to think the government’s obligation to avoid establishing religion compels a requirement that it meddle in religion – thus, the Iowa civil rights regulators feel free to explain to churches what is a “bona fide” religious matter and what is not.  Apparently, hosting a free spaghetti dinner for the community is not a bona fide religious event, even though any church which does so would politely explain that such a dinner serves several functions: first, Christians are commanded by the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) to graciously help those in need; second, it is a way for the church to exercise hospitality, as commanded by the New Testament; finally, it allows the Christians within the church to explain the gospel message to those who come to the dinner.  Events like this are more than a handout – they are full blown, “bona fide” religious events with deep theological significance.  Just because some legislators or regulators fail to understand this doesn’t make it just another food bank.

The premise of the paper I wrote in 2014 was that churches may be in for serious problems because of this “public accommodation” notion.  Secular folks simply aren’t equipped to appreciate or understand why everything churches do has a “bona fide” theological underpinning.  There is no distinction (or certainly ought not to be) between the Christian’s private and public life.  The Christian operates in a sphere in which all his or her activity should be the result of a desire to please God in all matters.  This means the Christian life begins and ends with theological concerns about everything.  Cynics will argue this is just a ruse to hide money from the government or to obscure a desire to discriminate against the LGBTQ crowd, or to engage in some other insidious or nefarious activity.  Yet, the staggering truth is that even mowing the church grass serves a theological function because it is a means of engaging in stewardship of a resource God has provided to the Christians who meet there.  There is no splicing out of the Christian action a so-called “bona fide” religious activity versus something that is not.

Now before I am skewered by critics, I am not suggesting that anything goes.  Clearly no Christian church can act in contradiction to the Bible and still claim it is engaged in a “bona fide” religious activity.  So a church can’t run a brothel or deal drugs on its premises and seek to shelter its activities and income from government intrusion.  Moreover, no one would suggest that a gas station owned by a church and run for a profit would be exempt from taxation or environmental regulations.  But here’s the thing, Christian churches don’t do these things then seek to avoid governmental interference.  Of course, there will always be people engaged in less than scrupulous activities in the name of Christ,  but experience suggests Christians overwhelmingly seek to honor Christ by acting in accordance with the Bible.  That’s why Christians are constantly starting homeless shelters and agencies for transitioning people from drugs, or from the sex industry.  Christians give generously even outside of church to help feed people and provide medical care to those who have trouble affording it.  It’s an odd sort of nefariousness that tries so hard to help others.  Christian churches simply aren’t engaged in some kind of massive conspiracy to dupe anyone.  Quite the opposite is true. 

Christian churches are not perfect.  But that’s not what’s at stake here. What’s at stake is whether our federal, state and local governments are going to recognize that these efforts to parse out every little thing churches do as a bona fide religious activity is (1) a fool’s errand and (2) a violation of the free exercise clause.

We’ll be watching.