Case 1:16-cv-12034-PBS Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 1 of 39

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
EASTERN DIVISION

Horizon Christian Fellowship, a nonprofit
religious corporation; George Small;
Swansea Abundant Life Assembly of God, a
nonprofit religious corporation; David Aucoin;
House of Destiny Ministries, a nonprofit
religious corporation; Esteban Carrasco; Faith
Christian Fellowship of Haverhill, a nonprofit
religious corporation; and Marlene Yeo,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Jamie R. Williamson, Sunila T. George, and
Charlotte G. Richie, each in her official capacity
as a Commissioner of the Massachusetts
Commission Against Discrimination; and Maura
Healey, in her official capacity as the Attorney
General of the State of Massachusetts,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 1:16-cv-12034
)
)
)
)
)
Verified Complaint for
) Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

INTRODUCTION
1.

This is a civil rights action to stop the Commissioners of the Massachusetts

Commission Against Discrimination (“MCAD”) and the Massachusetts Attorney General from
punishing four Massachusetts churches and their pastors because they wish to communicate their
religious beliefs regarding human sexuality and use their buildings in a manner consistent with
their religious beliefs.
2.

In July 2016, the Massachusetts Legislature enacted S.B. 2407, which added

“gender identity” as a protected class to the public accommodation laws (Massachusetts General

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 1

 

 Case 1:16-cv-12034-PBS Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 2 of 39

Laws chapter 272 § 92A and § 98, hereinafter, “Act”) and directed MCAD and the Attorney
General to issue regulations or guidance by September 1, 2016, to effectuate the new law.
3.

On that date, MCAD issued its “Gender Identity Guidance,” which states that “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.”1
4.

The Attorney General also issued its “Gender Identity Guidance for Public

Accommodation”2 and stated on its website that “houses of worship” are places of public
accommodation.
5.

MCAD

and

the

Attorney

General

interpret

Massachusetts’s

public

accommodation laws, as amended by S.B. 2407, to force churches to allow individuals access to
church changing rooms, shower facilities, and restrooms based on their gender identity, and not
their biological sex, in violation of the churches’ religious beliefs.
6.

Because the public accommodations laws also prohibit covered entities from

making statements intended “to discriminate” or to “incite[]” others to do so, MCAD and the
Attorney General also intend to force churches and pastors to refrain from religious expression
regarding biological sex and gender identity.
7.

The Legislature and MCAD failed to provide an exemption for religious

institutions, nor did MCAD attempt to define the “secular activities” that it believed might
subject a church to the Act, other than the woefully inadequate and confusing “spaghetti supper”
test.

                                                            
1

Available at http://www.mass.gov/mcad/docs/gender-identity-guidance.pdf, last viewed October 10, 2016.

2

Available at http://www mass.gov/ago/docs/policy/2016/ag-healey-gender-identity-guidance-for-publicaccommodations-9-1-16.pdf, last viewed October 10, 2016.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 2

 

 Case 1:16-cv-12034-PBS Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 3 of 39

8.

Indeed, MCAD expressly stated that it would not provide an objective standard,

but would review a charge “involving religious institutions or religious exemptions … on a caseby-case-basis.”3 Thus, a pastor, other church leader, or a court must guess as to which of the
church’s activities subject it to the severe sanctions of the Act, which include fines of $50,000
per violation, up to 365 days in jail, and attorneys’ fees.
9.

Applying public accommodations laws to churches grossly misunderstands the

religious purposes and beliefs of Plaintiffs Horizon Christian Fellowship (“Horizon”), Swansea
Abundant Life Assembly of God (“Abundant Life”), House of Destiny Ministries (“Destiny”),
and Faith Christian Fellowship of Haverhill (“Faith Christian”), (collectively, “Churches”).
10.

The Churches engage in religious expression and practice in every activity they

open to the public: during communal worship, other formal religious services, Sunday school
classes, Bible studies, youth-oriented activities, offering help from their food pantries, the meals
they serve to the homeless at Thanksgiving, Christmas, and during other outreach opportunities,
including spaghetti suppers.
11.

The Churches welcome the public to all of their activities because they believe

that to be faithful followers of Jesus Christ they must invite members of their communities to
hear the good news of God’s compassion and forgiveness offered freely to everyone, they should
teach those beliefs to the world, and they should be a blessing to all who pass through their
doors, just as Jesus Christ, the founder of their faith, extended forgiveness, fed the hungry, and
showed compassion to all who came to Him for aid.

                                                            
3

Available at http://www mass.gov/mcad/docs/gender-identity-guidance.pdf, pg. 5, n.13, last viewed October 10,
2016.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 3

 

 Case 1:16-cv-12034-PBS Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 4 of 39

12.

Even activities the Churches undertake that do not contain overt religious

inculcation are religious in nature because they are motivated by the Churches’ religious mission
and engender other important elements of religious meaning, expression, and purpose, such as
mutual encouragement, relationship-building, demonstrating the Churches’ interest in the
welfare of others, and nurturing spiritual gifts to be used for the benefit of church members and
the community.
13.

In all the Churches’ activities, they are communicating their understanding of

God’s truth, and refraining from communicating messages that violate the Churches’
understanding of God’s truth.
14.

As a result, there are messages, practices, and activities that the Churches would

not sponsor, host, or otherwise communicate because those messages, practices, and activities
would violate the Churches’ understanding of God’s truth.
15.

The activities that the Churches allow in their facilities must be consistent with

their understanding of God’s truth, and must not present a message that contradicts the
Churches’ understanding of God’s truth.
16.

The Churches believe and teach that when God created humankind, He made each

person as either male or female, and that the two complementary halves of humanity—biological
males and biological females—together reflect the image and nature of God.
17.

The Churches believe and teach that maleness or femaleness is designed by God

and is tied to biology, chromosomes, physiology, and anatomy.
18.

The Churches’ religious beliefs are that sex is an immutable trait from which

springs the natural and healthy desires for physical privacy and modesty in states of partial or full
undress, such as in showers, changing rooms and restrooms.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 4

 

 Case 1:16-cv-12034-PBS Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 5 of 39

19.

The Churches recognize that some individuals do not identify with their

biological sex, and the Churches welcome those individuals, want to be a blessing to them, and
want to minister to them.
20.

The Act prohibits the Churches from making statements that might cause

individuals to believe that they will not be permitted access to sex-specific changing rooms,
showers, and restrooms.
21.

The language of the Act is broad enough to include within that prohibition written

sermons, theological expositions, educational presentations, newsletters or church worship
bulletin text, or other statements from the Churches, Pastors, and other religious leaders.
22.

The Churches desire to preach and post on their websites sermons addressing

God’s design for human sexuality and the Churches’ beliefs about “gender identity,” but
reasonably fear that if they were to do so they would violate the Act’s prohibitions.
23.

The Act’s prohibitions would also apply to a church bulletin and website that

included an explanation that the women’s restrooms are reserved for biological females, while
the men’s restrooms are reserved for biological males.
24.

The Act’s prohibitions would also apply to Plaintiff George Small of Horizon,

Plaintiff David Aucoin of Abundant Life, Plaintiff Esteban Carrasco of Destiny, and Plaintiff
Marlene Yeo of Faith Christian (collectively, “Pastors”) who frequently speak within and outside
their churches to gatherings drawn from the general public. They also are asked to write articles
for publications on a variety of religious subjects and speak on the radio and in other venues.
25.

The Pastors have spoken and written about their understanding of God’s truth

concerning the immutability and complementariness of biological sex, and the importance of
religious leaders adopting facility use policies consistent with that teaching, and they intend to do

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 5

 

 Case 1:16-cv-12034-PBS Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 6 of 39

so at future religious meetings in their churches, other houses of worship, meeting halls,
auditoriums, and other places MCAD may consider to be public accommodations.
26.

The Act is written broadly enough to encompass such oral and written statements

by the Pastors and thereby subject them to the penalties of the Act.
27.

The Act’s prohibitions thus cause the Churches and Pastors to self-censor and

chill their speech, while permitting other churches and ministers to freely express beliefs
regarding biological sex that are consistent with the Act.
28.

This case is also about stopping MCAD and the Attorney General from forcing

the Churches to use their facilities in a way that violates their religious beliefs about human
sexuality.
29.

In light of their religious beliefs, the Churches have always maintained an

unwritten policy and actual practice that sex-specific private spaces—including changing
facilities, showers, and restrooms—may be used only by members of the designated biological
sex.
30.

But in light of recent cultural developments, and the passage of S.B. 2407, the

Churches felt it necessary to put that unwritten facility policy into writing.
31.

Abundant Life and Destiny adopted written changing room, shower and restroom

use policies limiting access based on one’s biological sex, but the plain reading of the Act
prohibits them from publicizing their policies, and subjects them to substantial penalties.
32.

Requiring the Churches to allow individuals to use the facilities reserved for the

opposite biological sex contradicts the Churches’ message about God’s intention and purpose for
human sexuality.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 6

 

 Case 1:16-cv-12034-PBS Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 7 of 39

33.

Requiring the Churches to allow individuals to use the facilities reserved for the

opposite sex forces the Churches to speak a message that they do not want to speak; namely, that
sex is fluid, that it is based on subjective experience, and that God approves of biological males
using restrooms and showers with females, and vice versa.
34.

The Churches’ desired conduct will, as described more fully below, violate the

Act’s publication ban, conspiracy ban, and facility use mandate, subjecting them to substantial
fines, damages, costs, legal fees, and even imprisonment.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
35.

This action raises federal questions under the United States Constitution,

particularly the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 et seq.
36.

This court has jurisdiction over the federal claims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and

37.

This Court has jurisdiction to award the requested declaratory relief under 28

1343.

U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57.
38.

This Court has jurisdiction to award the requested injunctive relief under 28

U.S.C. § 1343 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.
39.

This Court has jurisdiction to award reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees under 42

U.S.C. § 1988.
40.

Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the Defendants

reside in this district and/or the acts described in this Complaint occurred in this district.
PLAINTIFFS
41.

Horizon Christian Fellowship is a nonprofit corporation organized under

Massachusetts law with its principal place of ministry in Fitchburg, MA.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 7

 

 Case 1:16-cv-12034-PBS Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 8 of 39

42.

Plaintiff George Small is the pastor of Horizon Christian and sues in his

individual capacity.
43.

Plaintiff Swansea Abundant Life Assembly of God is a nonprofit religious

corporation organized under Massachusetts law with its principal place of ministry in Swansea,
MA.
44.

Plaintiff David Aucoin is the pastor of Abundant Life and sues in his individual

capacity.
45.

Plaintiff House of Destiny Ministries/Iglesia Casa de Destino is a nonprofit

corporation organized under Massachusetts law with its principal place of ministry in
Southbridge, MA.
46.

Plaintiff Esteban Carrasco is the pastor of Destiny and sues in his individual

capacity.
47.

Faith Christian Fellowship of Haverhill is a nonprofit corporation organized under

Massachusetts law with its principal place of ministry in Haverhill, MA.
48.

Plaintiff Marlene Yeo is the pastor of Faith Christian and sues in her individual

capacity.
DEFENDANTS
49.

Defendants Jamie R. Williamson, Sunila T. George, and Charlotte G. Richie are

Commissioners of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (“MCAD”).
Defendants are sued in their official capacities only.
50.

In their official capacities with MCAD, Defendants are responsible for receiving,

investigating, initiating, and enforcing complaints, alleging violations of the statute challenged in

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 8

 

 Case 1:16-cv-12034-PBS Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 9 of 39

this case, and for interpreting the statute challenged in this case. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B §
3.
51.

Defendant Maura Healey is the Attorney General of the State of Massachusetts

and is sued in her official capacity only. Defendant Healey has the express power under state law
to initiate complaints under the statute challenged in this case. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B
§5.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff Horizon Christian Fellowship
52.

Horizon’s mission is “to see Christ glorified in our lives, church, and community

as we allow Him to use us to reach the world around us.” Horizon’s community is warmly
invited to all the Church’s services, activities and events.
53.

The Church holds two worship services and a prayer service on Sundays, and a

mid-week service and activities for all ages on Wednesday evenings.
54.

The Church holds concerts throughout the year, serves an annual Thanksgiving

meal to the homeless, and hosts a Harvest Fest for the community on October 31.
55.

The Church also operates an alcohol and chemical addiction recovery ministry for

the community out of the church building and that it promotes on the radio.
56.

The Church owns and operates 11 radio stations heard in Massachusetts and parts

of New Hampshire and Rhode Island. The programming consists of live and recorded teaching
by Pastor Small and clergy from other churches, contemporary religious music, and a national
talk program of ministers discussing current events. Pastor Small and the other clergy address a
variety of religious topics, including their understanding of the biblical teaching on human
sexuality.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 9

 

 Case 1:16-cv-12034-PBS Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 10 of 39

57.

The Church has sex-specific, multi-user restrooms for each sex off the sanctuary,

and sex-specific, multi-user restrooms for children only near the children’s ministry-area.

Plaintiff Swansea Abundant Life Assembly of God
58.

Abundant Life is affiliated with the Assemblies of God denomination and is

located in Swansea, MA.
59.

Abundant Life’s mission is to enfold members of its community into the life of

the church by believing in, belonging to, and becoming followers of Christ Jesus.
60.

The Church offers weekly religious ministries, worship services, and other events

and activities to members and the general public.
61.

It publicizes its weekly worship services, activities, and events on its public

website page, Facebook page, reader board, and through other means.
62.

Abundant Life invites the public to participate in its regular worship services,

Bible studies, youth activities, events, and other religious programming. On Sundays, it holds a
worship service, and provides Sunday school for all ages, and a mid-week Bible study.
63.

The Church sponsors various activities throughout the year to which the general

public is invited on its public Facebook page: concerts, special dinners, movies, the Fall
Harvest/Halloween Festival, Christmas festival and banquet, a July 4th celebration, and other
special events. It also sponsors a regular men’s breakfast, marriage seminars, and activities, and
makes its facility available for weddings and funerals. Specifically, the Church hosts a spaghetti
supper periodically for members and the public, and plans to do so again.
64.

Abundant Life has two multi-user restrooms, one for men and one for women,

and a single-user restroom in the children’s area and in the office area for authorized personnel.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 10

 

 Case 1:16-cv-12034-PBS Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 11 of 39

Plaintiff House of Destiny Ministries
65.

Destiny is a rapidly-growing, ethnically diverse congregation serving the

community of Southbridge, MA and conducts its services in English and Spanish.
66.

Destiny’s religious mission is to impact its community by sharing the love and

grace of God thorough Jesus Christ, and to be a blessing to its community.
67.

Destiny offers religious ministries, services, and other events and activities to the

general public.
68.

Destiny publicizes its weekly worship services, religious ministries, and other

events and activities on its public Facebook page, and by other means.
69.

On Sundays, Destiny offers a worship service, alternating in English and Spanish,

and Sunday school for all ages. During the week, it hosts a prayer service, and other special
events for youth, men’s groups, and seniors.
70.

Consistent with the church’s mission to demonstrate God’s love and compassion

and to be a blessing to its community, Destiny opens its facility regularly to the public for
weddings, funerals, and community activities, such as serving meals to the homeless at
Thanksgiving, hosting concerts, and sponsoring a food pantry for the hungry.
71.

Each Christmas the community is invited for a special event, during which a meal

and gifts are provided to all who attend.
72.

In August of each year, the children of the community are invited to a “back to

school night” during which children play games, food is served, and they are given needed
school supplies.
73.

Quarterly, Destiny offers a “Life Skills Workshop” to the public where it

addresses such topics as anger management and conflict resolution from a biblical perspective.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 11

 

 Case 1:16-cv-12034-PBS Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 12 of 39

74.

Destiny is currently leasing its building, which consists of a sanctuary, Sunday

school space, offices and single-sex restrooms, one for biological males and the other for
biological females.
75.

It has purchased a lot in Southbridge on which it plans to build a new facility

consisting of a sanctuary, a gymnasium, Sunday school rooms, and offices. There will be four
multi-occupancy restrooms, two for males and two for females, and a multi-occupancy shower
room for each sex.
76.

Destiny is currently fundraising for the new structure and expects to begin

construction next year.
Plaintiff Faith Christian Fellowship of Haverhill
77.

Faith Christian is a non-denominational church and its congregation’s mission is

“to demonstrate the love and power of Christ through salvation, healing and deliverance … and
“for everyone in the city of Haverhill to experience the presence of God and to see a tangible
expression of Jesus Christ in their lives today.”
78.

The Church serves a diverse, low income community and is especially focused

on serving the elderly, homeless and at-risk youth. The Church invites the Haverhill community
to all of its weekly services, activities and events. On Sundays, it holds a worship service and on
Wednesdays a discipleship course for new Christians. On Fridays, the Church offers a service,
refreshments, and neighborhood basketball outreach for middle and high school aged youth from
the community. On Saturday evenings, it holds a worship service with signing for the deaf.
79.

Faith Christian has a food pantry that serves over 300 households a month.

80.

It is also actively engaged in a number of other important community service

activities. The Church hosts the Violence Prevention Coalition “Peace Banquet,” the local policy

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 12

 

 Case 1:16-cv-12034-PBS Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 13 of 39

department neighborhood meeting and cook out, the Mt. Washington Alliance dinnerneighborhood outreach, the neighborhood crime watch outreach, and Merrimack Valley Holy
Family Hospital Neighborhood outreach.
81.

Faith Christian also supports the faith-based social service program, Somebody

Cares New England, hosting in its building a number of activities designed to alleviate hunger
and homelessness as well as advocate for children, youth and the elderly. Pastor Yeo is the
director of Somebody Cares New England.
82.

Faith Christian has a single-sex restroom for each biological sex.

Plaintiffs’ Beliefs about Biological Sex and Use of their Changing Rooms and Restrooms
83.

The Churches and Pastors Small, Aucoin, Carrasco, and Yeo

believe that

biological sex is an immutable trait from which, among other things, spring the natural and
healthy desire for physical privacy and modesty in conditions of partial or full undress, including
in showers, restrooms and other private spaces.
84.

The Churches and Pastors affirm the goodness of God’s design in creating only

two sexes, and believe that they are called to help every person embrace his or her distinct, but
complementary, maleness and femaleness.
85.

The Churches and Pastors believe that one’s biological sex was determined by

God at conception.
86.

The Churches and Pastors believe that God intentionally and purposefully created

males male and females female, and that these two complementary halves of humanity reflect
God’s design and plan for humanity.
87.

The Churches and Pastors believe that “sex” is one’s biological sex, which is

determined by such things as biology, chromosomes, physiology, and anatomy.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 13

 

 Case 1:16-cv-12034-PBS Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 14 of 39

88.

These biblically-based beliefs inform the Churches’ operations in everything from

pulpit ministry, to discipleship, to marriage counseling, to the use of sex-specific showers,
restrooms, and changing facilities.
89.

The Churches and Pastors believe that it would violate God’s created order and

command to treat biological males as any other sex than male, and to treat biological females as
any other sex than female.
90.

The Churches believe that it would violate God’s created order and commands to

permit their sex-specific changing rooms, showers, and other sensitive areas to be used by
members of the opposite biological sex.
91.

The Churches have always maintained an unwritten policy and practice that sex-

specific private spaces—including changing rooms and restrooms—may be used only by
members of the designated biological sex.
92.

The Churches’ policies and practices regarding access to their changing rooms

and restrooms flow logically and directly from their religious beliefs concerning God’s design
for biological sex and the desire to use their facilities in a manner consistent with their religious
beliefs.
93.

The Churches want to continue to enforce these facility policies and practices at

all times.
94.

To force the Churches to permit biological males to access female changing

rooms and restrooms or to allow biological females to access male changing areas and restrooms
would violate and distort the Churches’ religious beliefs and teaching on the subject of sex.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 14

 

 Case 1:16-cv-12034-PBS Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 15 of 39

95.

Until recently, the Churches did not consider it necessary to make public their

changing room and restroom policies because the Churches believed they were free to establish
their own facility standards.
96.

But given the increased attention on the issue of access to sex-specific areas like

changing rooms and restrooms based on gender identity, and not biological sex, in the media and
by government officials, including the Massachusetts Legislature, MCAD, and the Attorney
General, Abundant Life and Destiny adopted written policies to clearly set forth their religious
beliefs and practices regarding biological sex and the use of their restrooms and showers. The
policies are attached as Exhibits A and B.
97.

The two churches want to not only present a consistent public message regarding

their beliefs about human sexuality, but they also want to disseminate their policies to avoid any
embarrassing or awkward situations for those who do not identify with their biological sex and
for their own church members.
98.

Abundant Life and Destiny want to publicize and distribute their restroom and

shower policies on their church websites, Facebook pages, as an insert in their weekly Sunday
morning bulletin, and via other means to church members, visitors, and anyone else using the
churches’ buildings. Faith Christian and Horizon also want to clearly state and implement their
changing and restroom policies.
99.

Horizon operates 13 radio stations delivering religious programming, including

teaching and live talk and interviews on current issues, such as human sexuality. Horizon’s
Sunday services are carried live on the radio. Horizon wants to continue its religious
programming, but fears that if its activities are subject to the Act, its religious content regarding
human sexuality carried on radio may violate the Act.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 15

 

 Case 1:16-cv-12034-PBS Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 16 of 39

100.

While the Churches reject MCAD’s interpretation that they are subject to the Act,

the Churches have refrained from publicizing and distributing their beliefs, out of the reasonable
fear that they would be subject to enforcement proceedings. If not for the Act, the Churches
would publicize and disseminate their policies and beliefs in the ways specified above.

The Churches’ Religious Beliefs Concerning the Use of their Buildings
101.

Every event that occurs in the Churches’ facilities is part of the exercise of their

religious beliefs and also an expression of their message about God and His plan for humanity.
102.

The Churches do not allow use of their facilities for any event or use that is not a

part of the exercise of their religious beliefs and consistent with their beliefs about God and His
plan for humanity.
103.

The Churches’ facilities are integral to their ministries. Each room in their

facilities serves a direct ministry purpose. Communal worship takes place in their sanctuaries,
religious instruction in the Sunday school rooms, Christian fellowship and youth group meetings
in the fellowship halls, and spiritual counseling in the pastors’ offices.
104.

Religious art adorns the walls throughout their buildings, large crosses dominate

the front of the sanctuaries, and biblical references are prominent in their narthexes and entry
ways.
105.

The Churches have consecrated their buildings solely for religious purposes.

Their use of their buildings is inseparable from their religious teachings.
106.

It would violate the Churches’ religious beliefs to allow their facilities to be used

in ways that are inconsistent with or violate their religious beliefs.
The Act, MCAD, and the Attorney General

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 16

 

 Case 1:16-cv-12034-PBS Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 17 of 39

107.

Massachusetts public accommodations law prohibits a person from discriminating

in three principal ways: 1) making “any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of” a
protected class relative to the “admission of the person, or treatment in any place of public
accommodation,” Mass. Gen. Laws ch. § 98 (“facility use mandate”); 2) “directly or indirectly
… publish, issue, circulate, distribute or display … in any way, any advertisement … book,
pamphlet, written or painted or printed notice or sign, of any kind or description, intended to
discriminate against or actually discriminating against persons” based on a protected class in a
place of public accommodation, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. § 92A

(“publication ban”); and 3)

“aid[ing] or incit[ing]” the violation of the facility use mandate or “aid[ing] in or incit[ing] … in
whole or in part” a violation of the publication ban, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. §§ 98, 92A
(collectively, “conspiracy ban”).
108.

The Act is to be construed broadly to effectuate its purposes. See Joyce v. Town of

Dennis, 705 F.Supp.2d 74, 83 (D. Mass. 2010).
109.

The Act broadly defines “public accommodation” as “any place … which is open

to and accepts or solicits the patronage of the general public….” Mass. Gen. Laws ch. § 92A.
110.

It goes on to state that “without limiting the generality of the definition,” the

following are examples of public accommodations: “an auditorium, theatre, music hall, meeting
place or hall.”
111.

“Public accommodation” is to be “construed liberally and inclusively.” Mass.

Gen. Laws ch. § 92A.
112.

The public accommodation law does not include a religious institution exemption,

despite the inclusion of such exemptions in the nondiscrimination provisions relating to
employment and education. See, e.g., Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B § 4(18).

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 17

 

 Case 1:16-cv-12034-PBS Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 18 of 39

113.

While the Churches contend the First Amendment prevents Massachusetts from

subjecting houses of worship to the public accommodation laws, the Act is so broadly written
that it encompasses the Churches’ services, events, activities, and other religious programming
open to the public and imposes on them the facility use mandate, the publication ban, and
conspiracy prohibition.
114.

MCAD is empowered to interpret, administer, and enforce the Act. See Mass.

Gen. Laws ch. 151B §3.
115.

MCAD’s guidelines and regulations are given substantial deference by the courts.

See Dahill v. Police Dept. of Boston, 748 N.E.2d 956, 961 (Mass. 2001).
116.

The Attorney General, and any aggrieved party, are also empowered to bring

enforcement actions. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B §3.
117.

The Act provides for substantial penalties, including monetary fines and jail of up

to 30 days for a single violation of the publication ban or inciting or aiding in the violation of the
publication ban, and a year in jail for violating the facility use mandate or inciting or aiding in
the violation of the facility use mandate. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. §§ 92A, 98.
118.

Additionally, after an investigation and hearing, MCAD can award $10,000 for

the first offence, $25,000 for the second and $50,000 for the third. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch.151B
§ 5.
119.

MCAD or the aggrieved party can enforce an order in civil court and obtain an

injunction, actual damages, and attorneys’ fees. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch.151B §§ 6-7.
120.

“Persons,” including entities and individuals, violating the facility use mandate,

publication ban, or conspiracy ban are subject to the severe sanctions of the Act.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 18

 

 Case 1:16-cv-12034-PBS Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 19 of 39

121.

In S.B. 2407, the Legislature directed MCAD and the Attorney General to issue

guidance or regulations by September 1, 2016 to effectuate the law. MCAD issued its nine-page,
“Gender Identity Guidance,” and stated that the new gender identity law applied to a church “if it
holds a secular event, such as a spaghetti supper, that is open to the general public.”
122.

MCAD failed to provide an exemption for religious institutions, nor did it attempt

to define the “secular activities” that it believed might subject a church to the Act, other than the
woefully inadequate and confusing “spaghetti supper” test.
123.

Indeed, MCAD stated that it would not provide an objective standard, but would

review a charge “involving religious institutions or religious exemptions… on a case-by-casebasis.” 4
124.

MCAD did not define “religious institutions” or “religious exemptions,” nor does

the Act.
125.

Thus, a pastor, other church leader, or a court must guess as to which of the

church’s activities subject it to the severe sanctions of the Act.
126.

The Attorney General issued its guidance document and on its website states

without qualification that “houses of worship” are public accommodations.5
127.

The facility use mandate requires public accommodations to, among other things,

open locker rooms, showers, restrooms, changing areas, and other sensitive areas based on one’s
gender identity, rather than biological sex. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. § 92A.

                                                            
4

See http://www mass.gov/mcad/docs/gender-identity-guidance.pdf, p. 4, n.13, last visited October 10, 2016.

5

See http://www.mass.gov/ago/docs/policy/2016/ag-healey-gender-identity-guidance-for-public-accommodations9-1-16.pdf, last visited October 10, 2016.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 19

 

 Case 1:16-cv-12034-PBS Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 20 of 39

128.

If an individual wanted to use the sex-specific facility of the opposite biological

sex, the Churches would inquire and question that individual and prevent the individual from
entering the opposite sex facility.
129.

The publication ban prohibits persons from making written statements intended to

discriminate, or which actually discriminate, against protected persons in the full enjoyment of
the public accommodation. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272 § 92A.
130.

The publication ban prohibits the Churches and the Pastors from making public

statements, including of a religious character, that could be viewed as indicating that persons
who do not identify with their biological sex may be discouraged from accessing the Churches’
sex-specific restrooms and showers before, during, or after the Churches’ religious services,
activities, and events to which the public is invited.
131.

The conspiracy ban prohibits any person from aiding or inciting a public

accommodation to violate the facility use mandate and publication ban.
132.

The conspiracy ban prohibits the Churches and the Pastors from making oral or

written statements of a religious character that could be viewed as supporting the policies of
public accommodations to limit access to showers, restrooms, changing rooms and other private
places based on biological sex, or from opposing policies which allow such access.
133.

The publication ban and conspiracy ban chill the Churches’ and Pastors’ religious

134.

The Churches want to communicate in writing and orally to their members and

speech.

the public their religious beliefs regarding human sexuality and their facility use policies
regarding access to their sex-specific showers and restrooms.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 20

 

 Case 1:16-cv-12034-PBS Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 21 of 39

135.

However, the Churches self-censor their speech out of fear that they will be

sanctioned if they express their religious beliefs regarding biological sex during religious
services, Bible studies, other religious programming, and at various events and activities held in
their buildings. For example, the Churches adopted but did not distribute to members or the
public their restroom and shower use policies.
136.

The publication and conspiracy ban force the Churches to either violate their

deeply-held religious beliefs and self-censor their speech to avoid the Act’s sanctions, or adhere
to and freely express their religious beliefs and face sanctions.
137.

The Pastors frequently speak within and outside their churches to gatherings

drawn from the general public. They also are asked to write articles for publications on a variety
of religious subjects.
138.

The Pastors have spoken and written about their understanding of God’s truth

concerning the immutability and complementariness of biological sex and they intend to do so in
the future in their churches, on the radio, and at other religious meetings held in other churches,
meeting halls, auditoriums, and other places MCAD may consider to be public accommodations.
139.

For example, the Pastors have stated that sex is fixed and determined by God at

birth based on biology and anatomy, that all churches which follow God’s Word must ensure that
the uses of their buildings are consistent with that teaching, and that society’s laws and practices
should reflect biblical human sexuality, even if the government disagrees and insists that sex
turns on one’s gender identity.
140.

However, the Pastors reasonably fear that such oral and written statements critical

of the government’s view regarding gender identity made in or in association with public
accommodations subjects them to the publication and conspiracy bans and have stopped making

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 21

 

 Case 1:16-cv-12034-PBS Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 22 of 39

these statements as a result. If not for the Act, the Pastors would immediately begin to make
these statements again.
141.

MCAD and the Attorney General have not disavowed enforcement of the facility

use mandate, publication ban, and conspiracy ban against churches and pastors, and in fact have
affirmatively stated that the Act applies to churches, and the Act is written broadly enough to
cover such speech and exercise by the Churches and Pastors.
142.

By forcing the Churches and Pastors to self-censor their speech and violate their

religious beliefs, the Churches and Pastors suffer and will continue to suffer irreparable harm to
their constitutional liberties for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
143.

The Churches and Pastors are left with no choice other than to file this action,

seek declaratory and injunctive relief, and challenge as unconstitutional the following provisions
of the Act as applied to them: Massachusetts General Laws §§ 92A and 98.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of the Religion Clauses
of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
144.

Plaintiffs reallege all matters set forth in paragraphs 1-143 and incorporate them

145.

The Act as-applied violates the Churches’ rights under the Religion Clauses of the

herein.

First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
146.

The Free Exercise and the Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment

together invest in churches the power to order their own affairs, including to decide for
themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government, faith, doctrine, the
communication of that doctrine, and operation of their own institutions.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 22

 

 Case 1:16-cv-12034-PBS Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 23 of 39

147.

This freedom extends to the Churches’ and Pastors’ use, direction, and control of

their own houses of worship and their speech and exercise outside of the four walls of the
Churches.
148.

The Churches’ leaders determined that the use of church changing facilities,

showers, and restrooms must be consistent with their religious beliefs concerning sex and
conditioned access to those areas of its facilities on biological sex, not on gender identity.
149.

MCAD’s interpretation that the Act will be applied to churches on a “case-by-

case-basis” invests in itself the power to decide which religious beliefs, practices, and doctrines
of the Churches regarding sex are acceptable, and which ones are not.
150.

The Act directly and substantially interferes with the Churches’ First Amendment

right to order their own internal affairs in matters involving church government, faith, doctrine,
the communication of that doctrine, and the operation of their own institution and violates the
First Amendment, and entangles the government in the internal affairs of the Churches.
151.

The Act is not neutral or generally applicable because it allows MCAD to make

individualized assessments as to its application and MCAD has admitted in its interpretive
guidance document that it intends to apply the law to religious institutions on a case-by-casebasis.6
152.

The Act substantially burdens the Churches’ and Pastors’ exercise of their

religious beliefs.
153.

Laws that are not neutral or generally applicable must be justified by a compelling

governmental interest that is advanced in the least restrictive means available.

                                                            
6

 See http://www mass.gov/mcad/docs/gender-identity-guidance.pdf, p. 4, n.13, last visited October 10, 2016. 

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 23

 

 Case 1:16-cv-12034-PBS Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 24 of 39

154.

The Act is subject to strict scrutiny because it implicates more constitutional

rights than just the Free Exercise rights of the Churches.
155.

The Act may not infringe on the Churches’ rights under the Religion Clauses of

the First Amendment, absent a compelling governmental interest.
156.

The government has no compelling government interest that would justify

infringing upon the Churches’ and Pastors’ free exercise and antiestablishment rights by
interfering with matters of internal governance.
157.

Any interest the government does possesses in infringing the Churches’ and

Pastors’ free exercise and antiestablishment rights is not advanced in the least restrictive means
available.
158.

The Defendants have violated the Churches’ and Pastors’ rights under the Free

Exercise and Establishment Clauses.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of the Due Process Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
159.

Plaintiffs reallege all matters set forth in paragraphs 1-143 and incorporate them

160.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the

herein.

Churches and Pastors due process of law.
161.

The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits Defendants from censoring speech or

penalizing behavior based on vague standards.
162.

Laws that interfere with First Amendment freedoms require a high level of

specificity.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 24

 

 Case 1:16-cv-12034-PBS Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 25 of 39

163.

The Act’s definition of public accommodations is broad and vague: “any place …

which is open to and accepts or solicits the patronage of the general public….” See Mass. Gen.
Laws ch. 272 § 92A.
164.

The Act goes on to state that “without limiting the generality of the definition,”

the following are examples of public accommodations: “an auditorium, theatre, music hall,
meeting place or hall.”
165.

Though the Legislature charged MCAD with adopting regulations and guidelines

to interpret and enforce the Act, instead of providing an objective standard to determine when a
church or other religious institution is exempt, MCAD promulgated impossibly vague “secular
event” and “spaghetti supper” language, and adopted a subjective, “case-by-case” approach to
determine under what circumstances a church would come within the meaning of a public
accommodation and be subject to the severe sanctions of the Act.
166.

Additionally, the publication ban states it is unlawful to “directly or indirectly …

publish, issue, circulate, distribute or display … in any way, any advertisement … of any kind or
description, intended to discriminate against or actually discriminating against persons of any …
gender identity.” Mass. Gen. Laws ch. § 92A.
167.

The Act and Commission fail to define the vague terms “directly or indirectly” or

“intended to discriminate” in the context of a church, nor does the surrounding statute offer a
narrowing context for these terms.
168.

For example, the Churches have no way of knowing or determining whether the

language that they would like to place near shower room and restroom doors and include in the
worship bulletin—regarding who may use the women’s restroom and who may use the men’s
restroom—will violate the Act.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 25

 

 Case 1:16-cv-12034-PBS Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 26 of 39

169.

As a result, neither the Plaintiffs nor anyone else can know what statements might

qualify as “indirect[] advertis[ing],” or might be “intended to discriminate.”
170.

Additionally, the conspiracy ban is vague.

171.

The Churches and Pastors are left to guess which speech and conduct may

constitute “aid[ing] or incit[ing]” the violation of the facility use mandate or “aid[ing] in or
incit[ing] … in whole or in part” a violation of the publication ban. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272
§ 98, § 92A.
172.

For example, if the Pastors are invited to speak at a public forum and they teach

about their understanding of God’s plan for human sexuality, and urge attendees to adopt facility
use policies consistent with that teaching, the Pastors fear that based on the language of the Law
they will have violated the conspiracy ban.
173.

The Churches and the Pastors are left to guess what expression and conduct

MCAD and the courts may determine violate the Act, and so may differ in their understanding as
to what constitutes “a secular event” or activity, what it means to “indirectly … advertise,” or
“intend[] to discriminate,” and what speech and conduct may constitute “aid[ing] or incit[ing]”
the violation of the facility use mandate or the publication ban.
174.

The definition of public accommodation, MCAD’s interpretation of it, the

publication ban, and the conspiracy ban are vague as applied to the Churches and Pastors.
175.

In addition to MCAD and the Attorney General, any person claiming to be

aggrieved by the Churches’ or Pastors’ actions can file a complaint.
176.

As a result, Plaintiffs fear that, even if MCAD or the Attorney General would not

independently initiate an enforcement proceeding against them, someone attending one of their
services, activities, or speeches may do so.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 26

 

 Case 1:16-cv-12034-PBS Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 27 of 39

177.

In such a situation, even if MCAD ultimately determined that the Plaintiffs’

sermons and bulletin text, or statements regarding human sexuality conveyed through other
means, had not violated the Act, the Plaintiffs would still be forced to expend scarce resources to
defend themselves.
178.

The Act’s definition of public accommodation, MCAD’s interpretation of the

definition of public accommodation, the publication ban, and the conspiracy ban are vague as
applied to the Churches and the Pastors, and as such constitute violations of the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of the Right to Expressive Association
of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
179. Plaintiffs reallege all matters set forth in paragraphs 1-143 and incorporate them
herein.
180. The Churches and Pastors engage in extensive expressive activity as religious
congregations; in fact, all of the Churches’ services and other religious programming involve
forms of religious expression.
181. The Churches and Pastors believe they must regularly gather congregants and
members of the public in communal prayer, worship, fellowship, discussion, mutual
encouragement, and other religious speech and for other religious purposes.
182. The Churches and Pastors have a strong theological interest to engage in
communal expression concerning their biblical understanding regarding human sexuality.
183. The Churches and Pastors only use their facilities in ways that further their
religious beliefs and communicate their religious message, and do not use their facilities in ways
that violate those beliefs.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 27

 

 Case 1:16-cv-12034-PBS Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 28 of 39

184. Forcing the Churches to open their changing rooms and restrooms to persons of
the opposite sex would substantially burden the Churches’ and Pastors’ right to associate for the
purpose of expressing their religious beliefs regarding human sexuality.
185. The government has no compelling interest—unrelated to the suppression of
ideas—that is served by infringing the Churches’ and Pastors’ expressive associational rights,
nor can any such interest be achieved by the least restrictive means available.
186. Accordingly, the Churches’ and Pastors’ First Amendment right to expressive
association prohibits the government from imposing the facility use mandate and the publication
and conspiracy bans on the Churches and Pastors.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of the Free Speech Clause
of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
187.

Plaintiffs reallege all matters set forth in paragraphs 1-143 and incorporate them

188.

The Act as-applied is an unconstitutional abridgment of the Churches’ and

herein.

Pastors’ free speech because it: 1) is a content-based speech restriction; 2) is a viewpoint-based
restriction on speech; 3) is overbroad; 4) compels the Churches and Pastors to speak a message
that violates their religious beliefs; and 5) forces the Churches and Pastors to engage in selfcensorship.
189.

Religious speech is fully protected by the First Amendment.

190.

The Churches and Pastors engage in religious speech in every aspect of their

ministries, including use of the Churches’ facilities.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 28

 

 Case 1:16-cv-12034-PBS Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 29 of 39

191.

The Churches’ and Pastors’ religious beliefs are grounded in the biblical doctrine

of God’s creation of humankind in two distinct and immutable sexes, and that He has revealed
His image in the complementariness of both sexes, and not in a single sex.
192.

Further, the Churches and Pastors believe this doctrine must be taught from the

pulpit during its Sunday worship services, during other religious services, in other public
gatherings, and communicated through their public witness.
193.

One way the Churches give concrete expression to their religious doctrine is

through the manner in which they operate their facilities.

The Act is Content-Based
194.

The publication and conspiracy bans draw distinctions based on the idea or

message a speaker conveys.
195.

MCAD must examine a statement’s content to determine whether it is

objectionable and so punishable under the Act.
196.

The publication and conspiracy bans are content-based speech restrictions.

197.

Content-based speech restrictions are presumptively unconstitutional and can

survive only if they serve a compelling government interest that is advanced in the least
restrictive means available.
198.

The government has no compelling government interest that justifies punishing

the Churches’ and Pastors’ protected religious speech.
199.

Any interest the government may have in punishing the Churches’ and Pastors’

protected speech is not advanced in the least restrictive means available.
The Act is Viewpoint-Based

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 29

 

 Case 1:16-cv-12034-PBS Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 30 of 39

200.

The Act permits churches and others to distribute and disseminate religious

statements that support or condone policies permitting access to showers and restrooms based on
one’s gender identity, but punish religious statements that support or condone access to showers
and restrooms based solely on one’s biological sex.
201.

The Act’s preference for certain religious statements that favor access to showers

and restrooms based on gender identity, while punishing religious statements conditioning access
on biological sex, violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause, which prohibits
viewpoint discrimination.
202.

The Act may not punish protected speech on the basis of its viewpoint, absent a

compelling governmental interest that is advanced in the least restrictive means available.
203.

The government has no compelling government interest to justify punishing the

Churches’ and Pastors’ protected religious speech based on their viewpoint.
204.

Any interest the government may have in punishing the Churches’ and Pastors’

protected speech based on viewpoint is not advanced in the least restrictive means available.
The Act Imposes Over-Broad Restrictions on Speech
205.

The Act is unconstitutionally overbroad on its face because it burdens

substantially more protected speech than could be justified by any compelling government
interest.
206.

The government may not achieve its purposes by means which sweep

unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade citizens’ protected freedoms.
207.

The speech of Churches and Pastors regarding biological sex is protected

religious speech.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 30

 

 Case 1:16-cv-12034-PBS Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 31 of 39

208.

There is a realistic danger that MCAD’s publication ban applies to thousands of

Massachusetts churches and pastors, not before this Court, who hold religious beliefs about sex
that are similar to those of the Churches and Pastors.
209.

Because the publication and conspiracy bans applied to Massachusetts churches

and pastors punish a substantial amount of protected religious speech without constitutional
justification, it is an unconstitutional regulation of speech and is facially void.
The Act Violates the Compelled Speech Doctrine
210.

Through the threat of sanctions, the Act compels the Churches and Pastors to

communicate two distinct government messages: 1) that the Churches’ changing areas, showers,
and restrooms must be opened to persons of the opposite biological sex, and 2) that sex is fluid
and based on one’s subjective experience.
211.

The Churches and Pastors object to both messages.

212.

They believe that their houses of worship should be operated in a manner

consistent with their religious beliefs that God created two immutable and complementary sexes,
and that maleness and femaleness are not fluid but based on biology and anatomy that God
created with intention and purpose.
213.

Government-compelled speech is per se unconstitutional.

214.

The government lacks a compelling interest to force the Churches and Pastors to

communicate its favored messages, nor does the compulsion of speech serve any interest the
government may possess in the least restrictive means available.
215.

The facility use mandate is invalid as applied to Plaintiffs.

The Act Results in Self-Censored Speech.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 31

 

 Case 1:16-cv-12034-PBS Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 32 of 39

216.

The Churches and Pastors have refrained from declaring the Bible’s teaching

regarding God’s design of two immutable and complementary sexes in sermons, theological
expositions, educational speeches, newsletter, church worship bulletin text, and other public
statements from the Churches and the Pastors.
217.

The Churches adopted shower and restroom use policies for distribution and

dissemination to its members and to the public, but declined to distribute or disseminate them out
of a reasonable fear that MCAD and the Attorney General would prosecute them for doing so.
218.

The Act’s imposition of sanctions on public statements that may be viewed as

discriminatory in violation of the publication ban and conspiracy ban, places a direct and
substantial burden on the Churches’ and Pastors’ right of free speech, including their freedom to
teach their religious beliefs regarding God’s design for human sexuality and to publicly
distribute and implement shower and restroom use policies.
219.

The Churches and Pastors are objectively, reasonably chilled from exercising

their First Amendment right to free speech due to the risk of MCADs’ enforcement of the Act
and the substantial penalties, including punishing fines and up to a year in jail.
220.

The Churches’ and Pastors’ free speech rights are violated by the Act on its face,

and as applied to the Churches and Pastors.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of the Right to Peaceably Assemble
of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
221.

Plaintiffs reallege all matters set forth in paragraphs 1-143 and incorporate them

222.

The Act violates the Churches’ constitutional right to peaceably assemble as the

herein.

Churches are subject to the publication ban and facility use mandate because they make their

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 32

 

 Case 1:16-cv-12034-PBS Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 33 of 39

services and other religious programming open to the public, thus forcing the Churches to either
violate their deeply held religious beliefs and exclude nonmembers from their religious services
and programming to avoid the application of the Act, or adhere to and freely express their
religious beliefs to all who wish to attend their services and ministry activities and face
substantial sanctions.
223.

The Act violates the Churches’ right to assemble with like-minded or other

interested individuals and the government has no compelling interest to interfere with such right.
224.

Any interest the government has in interfering with the Churches’ First

Amendment right is not advanced in the least restrictive means available.
225.

The Defendants have violated the Churches’ right under the First Amendment to

freely assemble.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter judgment against Defendants as follows:
1.

That this Court enter a temporary restraining order and a preliminary and

permanent injunction restraining all Defendants, their officers, agents, employees, and all other
persons acting in concert with them, from enforcing or applying Massachusetts General Laws
chapter 272 sections 92A and 98 against the Plaintiffs;
2.

That this Court enter a declaratory judgment declaring that Massachusetts General

Laws chapter 272 sections 92A and 98, as applied to Churches and Pastors, violates the First and
Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution as-applied;
3.

That this Court issue the requested injunctive relief without a condition of bond or

other security being required of Plaintiffs;

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 33

 

 Case 1:16-cv-12034-PBS Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 34 of 39

4.

That this Court award Plaintiffs’ costs and expenses, including their attorneys’

fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and
5.

For such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 34

 

 Case Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 35 of 39

Veri?cation

1, David Aucoin on behalf of Abundant Life Church, and myself, verify under penalty of
perjury that I have read the above complaint and its contents. I also verify that, to the best of my
knowledge and recollection, the matters stated in the complaint are true and correct.

Executed this day of October, 2016.

Davig Aucoin, Pastor

I, Esteban Carrasco, on behalf of House of Destiny and myself, verify under penalty of
perjury that I have read the above complaint and its contents. I also verify that, to the best of my
knowledge and recollection, the matters stated in the complaint are true and correct.

Executed this day of October, 2016.

 

Esteban Carrasco, Pastor

I, Marlene Yeo, on behalf of Community Christian Fellowship-Haverhill and myself,
verify under penalty of perjury that I have read the above complaint and its contents. I also
verify that, to the best of my knowledge and recollection, the matters stated in the complaint are
true and correct.

Executed this day of October, 2016.

 

Marlene Yeo, Pastor

1, George Small, on behalf of Horizon Christian Fellowship and myself, verify under
penalty of perjury that I have read the above complaint and its contents. I also verify that, to the
best of my knowledge and recollection, the matters stated in the complaint are true and correct.

Executed this day of October, 2016.

 

George Small, Pastor

DATED: This 10th day of October, 2016.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 34

n-n lot In

Case DBEiJme'nt'iniIed 10/11/16 Page 36 of 39

Veri?cation

l. David Aucoin on behalf of Abundant Life Church. and myself. \erif)? under penalty of
petjiur} that have read the above complaint and its contents. I also verify that. to the best of my
knowledge and recollection. the matters stated in the complaint are true and correct.

lixecuted this da)? oft)ctober. 20%.

David Aucoin. l?astor

l. lfsteban (?arrasco. on behalf of louse of Destiny and myself. verify under penalty of
perjur} that have read the above complaint and its contents. 1 also verify that. to the best of my
knowledge and recollection. the matters stated in the complaint are true and correct.

[Executed this day of October. 2016.

 If 

<11 
ligtul?tz?t Carr?ca. Pastor

 

l. Marlene Yco. on behalf of Community Christian Fellowship-Haverhill and myself.
verify under penalty of perjury that have read the above complaint and its contents. 1 also
verify that. to the best ofmy knowledge and recollection. the matters stated in the complaint are
true and correct.

Executed this day of October. 2016.

 

1' Pastor

I -.

  
  
  

.,
behalf of Horizon Christian Fellowship and myself. verify under

- {to ibove complaint and its contents. 1 also verify that. to the
\i'V?z it? .
 (- =lzt< stated in the complaint are true and correct.


.
 art 
*2 

Veri?cation

Case Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 37 of 39
I. David Aucoin on behalf of Abundant Life Church. and myself, verify under penalty of
perjury that I have read the above complaint and its contents. 1 also verify that, to the best of my
knowledge and recollection. the matters stated in the complaint are true and correct.

Executed this day of October. 2016.

 

David Aucoin, Pastor

I. Esteban Canasco. on behalf of House of Destiny and myself. verify under penalty of
perjury that I have read the above complaint and its contents. I also verify that. to the best of my
knowledge and recollection. the matters stated in the complaint are true and correct.

Executed this day of October. 20 6.

 

Esteban Carrasco. Pastor

I, Marlene Yeo. on behalf of Community Christian Fellowship-Haverhill and myself.
verify under penalty of perjury that I have read the above complaint and its contents. 1 also
verify that. to the best of my knowledge and recollection. the matters stated in the complaint are
true and correct.

Executed this day of October. 2()l6.

 

Marlene Yeo, Pastor

1. George Small. on behalf of Horizon Christian Fellowship and myself, verify under
penalty of perjury that have read the above complaint and its contents. I also verify that. to the
best of my knowledge and recollection. the matters stated in the complaint are true and correct.

this ?0 dz

70f October. 2()l6.

  
  

 

 

eorge Pastor

DATED: This 10th day of October. 2()l6.

Complaint for Declaratory and lnjunctive Relief - 35

Case Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 38 of 39

Veri?cation

1, David Aucoin on behalf of Abundant Life Church, and myself, verify under penalty of
perjury that I have read the above complaint and its contents. I also verify that, to the best of my
knowledge and recollection, the matters stated in the complaint are true and correct.

Executed this day of October, 2016.

 

David Aucoin, Pastor

I, Esteban Carrasco, on behalf of House of Destiny and myself, verify under penalty of
perjury that I have read the above complaint and its contents. I also verify that, to the best of my
knowledge and recollection, the matters stated in the complaint are true and correct.

Executed this day of October, 2016.

 

Esteban Carrasco, Pastor

I, Marlene Yeo, on behalf of Community Christian Fellowship-Haverhill and myself,
verify under penalty of perjury that I have read the above complaint and its contents. I also
verify that, to the best of my knowledge and recollection, the matters stated in the complaint are
true and correct.

Executed this day of October, 2016.

Marlene Yeo, Pas

1, George Small, on behalf of Horizon Christian Fellowship and myself, verify under
penalty of perjury that I have read the above complaint and its contents. I also verify that, to the
best of my knowledge and recollection, the matters stated in the complaint are true and correct.

Executed this day of October, 2016.

 

George Small, Pastor

DATED: This 10th day of October, 2016.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 34

Case 1:16-cv-12034-PBS Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 39 of 39

DATED: This 10th day of October, 2016.
COUNSEL:
s/Philip D. Moran
Philip D. Moran
(Bar No. 353920)
Law Office of Philip D. Moran
415 Lafayette Street
Salem, MA 01970
Tel.: (978) 745-6085
philipmoranesq@aol.com
Steven O’Ban*
Erik Stanley*
Jeremy Tedesco*
ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM
15100 N. 90th Street
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
Tel.: 480-444-0020
Fax: 480-444-0028
soban@ADFlegal.org
Christiana Holcomb*
ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM
440 First Street NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20001
Tel.: 202-393-8690
Fax: 202-347-3622
cholcomb@ADFlegal.org
Not licensed in DC
Practice limited to federal court

*Pro hac vice application to follow

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
 

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 36