The Fort Des Moines Church of Christ on Wednesday filed for voluntary dismissal of its lawsuit against the state of Iowa and the city of Des Moines challenging an antidiscrimination law church leaders believed could force them to operate their restrooms under "transgender bathroom rules."

The church sought an injunction to keep the city and state from applying the antidiscrimination law to churches, saying it violated free exercise of religious rights.

U.S. District Judge Stephanie Rose denied the injunction Oct. 14 saying it’s uncertain whether the law would be applied to the church.

The Iowa Civil Rights Commission says it’s never enforced the law against churches and made it clear churches are generally exempt.

Meanwhile four Massachusetts churches have challenged a new state anti-discrimination law for much the same reason.

Horizon Christian Fellowship, Swansea Abundant Life Assembly of God, House of Destiny Ministries and Faith Christian Fellowship of Haverhill are arguing that the law violates their constitutional rights to religious expression and free speech,

The law did not provide exemptions for religious organizations, with the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office saying on its website that "houses of worship" are public places.

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination were named as defendants in the case. Neither could be reached for comment.

We are pleased that we finally have a law in place that protects transgender people from discrimination in public places. This law is about civil rights and is critical for people who were without full protection and equality under the law for too long.

--Jillian Fennimore, Healy spokesperson

The secretary of state has confirmed that opponents had gathered enough signatures to place a repeal of the law on the ballot in 2018.

This is bigger than bathrooms. This law is eliminating rights that have existed for as long as this country has been in existence — fundamental rights to privacy, to modesty and safety, now constitutional rights to religious freedom.

--Andrew Beckwith, president of the conservative Massachusetts Family Institute and a central player in the lawsuit and the repeal effort

The co-chairs of Freedom Massachusetts, the coalition that pushed for passage of the public accommodations law this year, issued back-to-back statements condemning the lawsuit as “a last-ditch scare tactic to single out transgender people for attack” and the ballot measure as an attempt by a small group of people to overturn a law passed “with the overwhelming support of thousands of businesses, faith leaders, women’s advocacy and anti-violence groups, and fair-minded residents across the state.”

The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination recently issued guidance on how to comply with the law and found 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 general public."

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit argue that any activities in church buildings, even if they don’t include “overt religious inculcation,” are “religious in nature because they are motivated by the churches’ religious mission” and are aimed at “nurturing spiritual gifts.” And they say the commission should not be allowed to decide otherwise.

Joseph Singer, a professor at Harvard Law School, said the suit presents “a really interesting, hard issue.” Churches that hold spaghetti dinners may be thinking about converting members of the public, “but if they really are inviting anyone in the public to come in, without any religious test, then it looks like it’s not really a religious thing.

The courts then have to figure out, “how do they draw a line between what seems more secular-oriented, open to the public ... versus having something that’s more central to their religious mission.

--Singer