Churches now exempt from Massachusetts anti-discrimination law

Four churches have agreed to drop their lawsuit against Massachusetts after the state updated the anti-discrimination law to remove houses of worship as places of public accommodation.

In September, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) released an updated Gender Identity Guidance that prohibited public places from discriminating against any person based on gender identity, The Stream reported.

The guidance would have forced churches to allow any person to use bathrooms that conform to their gender identity instead of their biological sex.

The original guidance stated that "even 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 public." Those who are found be in violation of the law could be fined $2,500 or face up to a year in jail.

However, the state reconsidered the guidance after the four churches, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), filed the lawsuit in early October.

"Your lawsuit caused us to focus on these issues and to make this revision," the Massachusetts Civil Rights Division said in a letter to ADF.

The guidance has since been revised to say that the "law does not apply to a religious organization if subjecting the organization to the law would violate the organization's First Amendment rights." The state also removed "houses of worship" from the list of places of public accommodation from the Attorney General's website.

"The comments of commonwealth officials gave these churches reason for great concern, and so we are pleased wording changes have been made to respect the constitutionally protected freedoms these congregations and pastors have," ADF Senior Counsel Steve O'Ban said in a press release.

ADF attorneys filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit on Monday. According to MassLive, the lawyers wrote in their motion that they still do not fully agree with the language in MCAD's rules, but they are satisfied enough with the changes.

They further stated that they could still challenge the law if the state officials apply it against a particular church in a way that ADF deems unconstitutional.