Handicap Access...

[Famine]

The Preface to the 39 Articles of the Church of England describes the monarch as 'being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the Faith and ... Supreme Governor of the Church of England'.

Yep. Appointed by God. Where does it say "representative of God" again?


You might find this interesting too.

Land Owned by the Church of England

Churches and churchyards
Generally owned by the relevant rector or vicar as 'Church property' (as opposed to the parsonage, which is 'benefice property') and maintained by the Parochial Church Council.

 

[JacktheHat]

Yep. Appointed by God. Where does it say "representative of God" again?

Nowhere, but that is what it alludes to.

Where does it say that the "monarch is god"?

 

[Famine]

Nowhere on your link. Then again your link is to defend your point - which is neither stated nor alluded to on the evidence you provided.


Nevertheless, however you want to cut it, in reality a church is private land. This makes it immoral to force it to accept everyone through its doors.

 

[JacktheHat]

Nowhere on your link. Then again your link is to defend your point - which is neither stated nor alluded to on the evidence you provided.


Nevertheless, however you want to cut it, in reality a church is private land. This makes it immoral to force it to accept everyone through its doors.

My link was intended to prove you wrong. The monarch is not god, and if you google you'll find many references to the monarch being god's representative.

Yes in reality a church is private land, but we are not dealing with reality and in the church's eyes they are houses of god and are open to all god's children.

 

[Famine]

Yes in reality a church is private land

So... what have you been yammering about for the last page?

but we are not dealing with reality

I am. I have NO idea what you're dealing with.

and in the church's eyes they are houses of god and are open to all god's children.

So if the church decides it DOESN'T want to be open to all God's children..?

Yep - the government forces it to be.

 

[Grand Prix]

Before I answer this, I will inform you that I spent a summer in rehab because I was paralyzed on my left side due to a stroke. I know what it feels like to be handicapped and bound to a wheelchair. I still deal with the residual effects every day.

That said, I did not find this offensive or discriminatory because it is, for the most part, true. In order to be handicapped or disabled you must have a handicap or disability of some form. If handicapped people didn't have trouble with these things it would not be necessary to create special circumstance for them to have equal access.

I guess my high school Acting teacher was a poor performer then, because he was severly hearing impaired.

Don't bother putting in "for the most part", because I can read through these kind of statements. "Many" must equal "all", otherwise the person would say nothing. Yes, I know you want to be polite, but the thoughts behind the statement are questionable.

 

[JacktheHat]

So... what have you been yammering about for the last page?

Why not read it and find out?

I am. I have NO idea what you're dealing with.

Swift's original post.

So if the church decides it DOESN'T want to be open to all God's children..?

Then it isn't a christian church

 

[Famine]

Why not read it and find out?

You started off saying that a church isn't private land. Now you say it is.

Which is it?

 

[JacktheHat]

You started off saying that a church isn't private land. Now you say it is.

No I didn't. What I did say was that the church was open to the public and therefore had to be accessible by all.

 

[FoolKiller]

I guess my high school Acting teacher was a poor performer then, because he was severly hearing impaired.

Don't bother putting in "for the most part", because I can read through these kind of statements. "Many" must equal "all", otherwise the person would say nothing. Yes, I know you want to be polite, but the thoughts behind the statement are questionable.

For me performing would mean general physical movement. Your high school acting teacher does not have a problem performing but he does have a handicap in that he cannot hear without an aid of some form.

I used for the most part because of situations like his and mine. I am no longer in a wheelchair, I can run, jump, play football, baseball, whatever. However I am labelled disabled because my left hand did not recover 100%, I still suffer ffrom epilepsy due to the stroke, and I have a heart condition which acts as a sword over my head because no one can say when it will kill me, but if I avoid accidental death long enough it will.

So, when I say for the most part or many that is what I mean. There are exceptions to every rule. I am labelled disabled but do not qualify for a handicap parking tag, but I do have a Medic Alert necklace. I take over 20 pills a day just to stay alive but if you met me on the street you wouldn't notice. For the most part means for the most part because I am the least part and know it.

I say what I mean (a downfall according to my wife) and anyone who knows me knows that I don't hold back just to be polite. If I want to be rude, you will know it.

 

[Danoff]

If a Church claims tax free statis it is in effect being subsidised by the government . Its public now the taxpayers demand it !

Some people claim tax free status, does that make them public? Farmers get subsidized by public funds, does that mean that their farmland is public property? I doubt that's what it says on the deed.

Our government does some very strange things with taxes, but until the government owns the land - ie: until the church is owned and operated as part of the government (which would not be good), it is private property.

And regardless of what dictionary.com says churches are - if it is owned privately, they shouldn't be forced to install lifts, admit white people, practice christianity, or paint it purple.

 

[JacktheHat]

And regardless of what dictionary.com says churches are - if it is owned privately, they shouldn't be forced to install lifts, admit white people, practice christianity, or paint it purple.

Not according to the law.

 

[Danoff]

Not according to the law.

Yes well that law is a bad one.


(Edit: By the way, that's the whole point of this discussion. We can all go look up the law on our own - and many of us knew what it was to begin with.)

 

[Swift]

Our government does some very strange things with taxes, but until the government owns the land - ie: until the church is owned and operated as part of the government (which would not be good), it is private property.

How about all those private companies that build these huge complexes and get a 7 year break on taxes? Should anyone then be able to walk into them 24/7?

I'd like to thank Famine, Foolkiller, Danoff, TM and others for seeing my point.

Jack, there is a huge difference between a church, a building where we come to worship and praise. And THE church being the body of Christ. The body of Christ is open to anyone/everyone 24/7. To have a building like a church open to anyone/everyone 24/7 doesn't make a lot of sense unless your a convinence store, other retail market or entertainment.

I'll say it one more time for the record. Having disabled access to the stage and I'm not against it at all. I'm against the government forcing it to be a certain way with certain specifications.

They APPROVED the orginal blueprints but then didn't approve the final build. So now we have to go back and rip things up and bring it up to what they consider acceptable code.

(Edit: By the way, that's the whole point of this discussion. We can all go look up the law on our own - and many of us knew what it was to begin with.)

Word! 💡

 

[JacktheHat]

Jack, there is a huge difference between a church, a building where we come to worship and praise. And THE church being the body of Christ. The body of Christ is open to anyone/everyone 24/7. To have a building like a church open to anyone/everyone 24/7 doesn't make a lot of sense unless your a convinence store, other retail market or entertainment.

So you can't have a religious crisis unless it's during office hours?

 

[Swift]

So you can't have a religious crisis unless it's during office hours?

Hey, Jack. A public school is a public building is it not? If you're having trouble with algebra at 3am, you can't just run down to the school and ask the teacher. Why, because they're not there!

The leadership of a church doesn't LIVE at the church. Well, not in the case of my faith. So you call the Pastor at home.

Use some reason here Jack, come on.

 

[Famine]

No I didn't. What I did say was that the church was open to the public and therefore had to be accessible by all.

But you've just said it's private land.

You can't have it both ways. Either it is private and thus should (note "should") be subject to the owner's fiat, or it is public and should be accessible by all. We should (note "should") not be forcing accessibility laws on private property.

But the whole point of this thread is that this is exactly what is happening.

 

[JacktheHat]

But you've just said it's private land.

You can't have it both ways. Either it is private and thus should (note "should") be subject to the owner's fiat, or it is public and should be accessible by all. We should (note "should") not be forcing accessibility laws on private property.

But the whole point of this thread is that this is exactly what is happening.

A church is not the same as private property such as a house or place of business. That is why it is defined as a church. It's not having it both ways, it's a different situation.

 

[FoolKiller]

A church is not the same as private property such as a house or place of business. That is why it is defined as a church. It's not having it both ways, it's a different situation.

Is it owned or run by the government in any way, shape, or form? No. Hence, it is private, just as any non-profit organization building is.

 

[Famine]

A church is not the same as private property such as a house or place of business. That is why it is defined as a church. It's not having it both ways, it's a different situation.

Why is it?

It is a building which is owned by an individual or group of individuals. And of course every church is also a business.

 

[JacktheHat]

Why is it?

It is a building which is owned by an individual or group of individuals. And of course every church is also a business.

But not every business is a church and, therefore, do not enjoy the same privileges.

 

[Famine]

Whu?

What has that got to do with anything at all?

It sounds like you're now arguing that a church should be exempt from the access laws because not all businesses are churches...

 

[JacktheHat]

Whu?

What has that got to do with anything at all?

It sounds like you're now arguing that a church should be exempt from the access laws because not all businesses are churches...

Churches aren't businesses. That's my point.

Check a bible, Jesus threw all the trader's out.

 

[Famine]

Churches, in fact, ARE businesses. Companies' House certainly think so too.

They receive monies from patrons. They give monies to creditors. They have income and outgoings, assets and deficits, all documented, just like any other business.

So, what makes you think a privately-owned, privately-run church cannot be (or just is not) a business?

 

[Grand Prix]

For me performing would mean general physical movement. Your high school acting teacher does not have a problem performing but he does have a handicap in that he cannot hear without an aid of some form.

I used for the most part because of situations like his and mine. I am no longer in a wheelchair, I can run, jump, play football, baseball, whatever. However I am labelled disabled because my left hand did not recover 100%, I still suffer ffrom epilepsy due to the stroke, and I have a heart condition which acts as a sword over my head because no one can say when it will kill me, but if I avoid accidental death long enough it will.

So, when I say for the most part or many that is what I mean. There are exceptions to every rule. I am labelled disabled but do not qualify for a handicap parking tag, but I do have a Medic Alert necklace. I take over 20 pills a day just to stay alive but if you met me on the street you wouldn't notice. For the most part means for the most part because I am the least part and know it.

I say what I mean (a downfall according to my wife) and anyone who knows me knows that I don't hold back just to be polite. If I want to be rude, you will know it.

Ah, fair enough. 👍 Sorry to hear about your condition...

 

[Swift]

Jack, just in case you missed this one...

Hey, Jack. A public school is a public building is it not? If you're having trouble with algebra at 3am, you can't just run down to the school and ask the teacher. Why, because they're not there!

The leadership of a church doesn't LIVE at the church. Well, not in the case of my faith. So you call the Pastor at home.

Use some reason here Jack, come on.

What would your response be to that?

 

[FoolKiller]

Jack, just in case you missed this one...



What would your response be to that?

I think Jack has quit using the term "public." I haven't seen it used in a while. However, I think that he is trying to question the validity of a church to be free from government control.

He seems to have this idea that because a church is not a type of business in that it does not charge for services that it must be a government run entity in some way. However Jack seems to have forgotten that there is a third type of entity, not for profit organizations. This covers all religious groups, charities, and PACs (I'm sure there are others) that meet a certain criteria. These are considered private entities in the US, despite that their purposes are related to the public at large. As long as they meet the criteria of being not for profit they receive a special tax exemption but are not distinguished in any other way from a private business.

I might be wrong in some this, but it is how I understand it.

No matter how you want spell it out the US does have the concept of seperation of church and state. The government does not have the ability to control churches as if it were a division of government. It is very hands-off, much like it is with private businesses.

That said, I believe the government interfering with the working of any organization not owned by the government, when the practices of that organization do not create harm to an individual, is just plain wrong.




Grand Prix: No problem. You just got the summarized version. Details would take a couple of pages.

 

[JacktheHat]

Jack, just in case you missed this one...



What would your response be to that?

I would say it's not as church then, it's a place of worship but not a church.

 

[JacktheHat]

I think Jack has quit using the term "public." I haven't seen it used in a while. However, I think that he is trying to question the validity of a church to be free from government control.

He seems to have this idea that because a church is not a type of business in that it does not charge for services that it must be a government run entity in some way. However Jack seems to have forgotten that there is a third type of entity, not for profit organizations. This covers all religious groups, charities, and PACs (I'm sure there are others) that meet a certain criteria. These are considered private entities in the US, despite that their purposes are related to the public at large. As long as they meet the criteria of being not for profit they receive a special tax exemption but are not distinguished in any other way from a private business.

I might be wrong in some this, but it is how I understand it.

No matter how you want spell it out the US does have the concept of seperation of church and state. The government does not have the ability to control churches as if it were a division of government. It is very hands-off, much like it is with private businesses.

That said, I believe the government interfering with the working of any organization not owned by the government, when the practices of that organization do not create harm to an individual, is just plain wrong.




Grand Prix: No problem. You just got the summarized version. Details would take a couple of pages.

My point is that this is supposedly a church.

I am saying that it is, therefore, hypocritical of them to want to deny access to disabled people.

 

[FoolKiller]

My point is that this is supposedly a church.

I am saying that it is, therefore, hypocritical of them to want to deny access to disabled people.

But the point of this thread is whether or not you are of the opinion that the government should have the right to dictate what type of access the church provides as a private entity.

Saying the church wants to deny access is an error anyway since they do have a ramp that is apparently usable but does not fit with what the government says they have to do. No one has ever said, "Well, we don't want them up there anyway. Screw them!" It has been said repeatedly that there is a ramp.

All Swift is trying to say is that if the ramp is there and appears to do the job to the point that no wheelchair bound members complain then what is the deal? Because the ramp does not meet some code the government is interfering and it brings about the question of whether a government should have that power over a private entity. If the church did (but they don't) say "They are paying for their sins! Let them rot outside!" Why can the government interfere? Why can they interfere with any business? All private businesses are required to meet these accesibility codes.

On that same note, can they interfere with my home in the same way? If a wheelchair bound salesman came by he could not perform his business because I have a step up into my house. Am I discriminating against his business because of his disasbility or just making my home how I want it to be? A home and a business are different, but they do have building regulations for homes too. Could they suddenly decide that I have to have it wheelchair accesable?