It's Getting DARK...U.S. Churces being forced to allow use for homosexuals

[Torie]

I think there may be some talking past each other here, and confusion as to what the nub of the issue is, confusion which I think I may share.

Is the gravamen of the complaint here, that the churches rent their space out for weddings, and thus if they say no to gay weddings, that is discrimination?  Surely, there would be no issue if the churches only had wedding ceremonies for their members, or which were performed by their own clergy, right?  

Assuming they do rent the space out to third parties, I think we have a close case here, with two rights in conflict (freedom of religious expression, and freedom from discrimination), which always makes it tough.

[Torie]

I think there may be some talking past each other here, and confusion as to what the nub of the issue is, confusion which I think I may share.

Is the gravamen of the complaint here, that the churches rent their space out for weddings, and thus if they say no to gay weddings, that is discrimination?  Surely, there would be no issue if the churches only had wedding ceremonies for their members, or which were performed by their own clergy, right?  

Assuming they do rent the space out to third parties, I think we have a close case here, with two rights in conflict (freedom of religious expression, and freedom from discrimination), which always makes it tough.

U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright: "Act 1, thus, contains 'immunity' from fines or penalties if a pastor, such as Harris, refuses to perform a civil union (if such refusal would otherwise constitute illegal discrimination)," the 17-page decision states (parentheses in original). "Act 1 does not, however, contain 'immunity' if a church or other religious organization refuses - on the basis that it is opposed to civil unions - to rent or otherwise allow use of its facilities for performing civil unions or hosting receptions celebrating a civil union."

basically, if the pastor is opposed to it, he is immune and can walk away...but the church itself is not immune if it doesn't allow it's facilities (chapel and/or reception hall) to be used, whether it be rented or otherwise.

so, if a church allows weddings and/or receptions to take place on church property, it would be in violation of the law for refusing to allow gay couples to use the facilities for gay unions.

So the church must rent out its premises for ceremonies which it disapproves, even if the only ceremonies conducted there are for its own members, or where one of its own clergy is performing the ceremony, is that right?  If so, I think we do have a serious first amendment issue here, as well as a property rights issue. A church is not a public accommodation really. It is more in the nature of a private club it seems to me. It's troubling.

As to a pastor being forced to perform ceremonies of which he disapproves, that is really ludicrous. Suppose as a lawyer, I refuse to represent gay clients. Am I guilty of discrimination?  I would assume not. Surely I have a right to spend my personal time in rendering services the way that I choose, no?  Anything less, and we seem to almost be in involuntary servitude territory.

None of this makes much sense to me. What am I missing?

[Torie]

Ok, read the article and your subject line is total crap - no church has been forced to have a civil union on their property. The churches that sued to stop the law were denied due to lack of standing specifically because nobody had tried to force them to have a civil union on their property. If someone actually tries to force them then they can have a lawsuit about it and the likely result will be that the churches win on first amendment grounds.

Thank you. You have filled in the missing link!  Sure, I could have read the article, but I was just too lazy, and decided to go with the flow of the thread. That I guess was a mistake. My bad.

And yes BRTD, to try to overturn a law on first amendment grounds because of some assumed application of the chamber of horrors posited, which has not happened and will not happen, and even if it did happen, SCOTUS could just trim back the scope of the law so that it does not force a Church to host a satanic sadomasochist wedding. 

Btw, when this nice LDS couple knocked on my door to urge me to vote against Prop 8, their main rap was this forcing churches to host gay weddings thing. I could not get them to explain coherently how all of that will "work" to get to this sad state of affairs, but now I guess that I know. It really does not "work," at all, except in the eye of the paranoid who just have no understanding of how the law actually works, and really have no interest in knowing, and are just trying to frighten people.

And so it goes.

[Torie]

Ok, read the article and your subject line is total crap - no church has been forced to have a civil union on their property. The churches that sued to stop the law were denied due to lack of standing specifically because nobody had tried to force them to have a civil union on their property. If someone actually tries to force them then they can have a lawsuit about it and the likely result will be that the churches win on first amendment grounds.

Thank you. You have filled in the missing link!  Sure, I could have read the article, but I was just too lazy, and decided to go with the flow of the thread. That I guess was a mistake. My bad.

You're trusting jmfcst as an unbiased source giving the full story on this type of issue?

No not really, but then I didn't see a post from his "opposition" that just put him away, until Dribble and yourself responded to my little whimperings. Why did you wait so long?  

[Torie]

So the church must rent out its premises for ceremonies which it disapproves, even if the only ceremonies conducted there are for its own members, or where one of its own clergy is performing the ceremony, is that right?  If so, I think we do have a serious first amendment issue here, as well as a property rights issue. A church is not a public accommodation really. It is more in the nature of a private club it seems to me. It's troubling.

agreed.

---

As to a pastor being forced to perform ceremonies of which he disapproves, that is really ludicrous. Suppose as a lawyer, I refuse to represent gay clients. Am I guilty of discrimination?  I would assume not. Surely I have a right to spend my personal time in rendering services the way that I choose, no?  Anything less, and we seem to almost be in involuntary servitude territory.

None of this makes much sense to me. What am I missing?

No, the pastor is EXEMPT, he does NOT have to conduct the cermony. (I'll go back and reread my previous post to make sure I didn't confuse you.)

No I understood that the Pastor was exempt; what I was saying is that to not make him exempt, or for that matter myself exempt from having to represent gay clients, is facially ludicrous and unsustainable, and unconstitutional and on more than one ground, as I outlined.

[Torie]

Ok, read the article and your subject line is total crap - no church has been forced to have a civil union on their property. The churches that sued to stop the law were denied due to lack of standing specifically because nobody had tried to force them to have a civil union on their property. If someone actually tries to force them then they can have a lawsuit about it and the likely result will be that the churches win on first amendment grounds.

I understand they were trying to block the law a few days after the law came into effect.  But the fact is this law WILL be used to sue churches, and most churches are very small and don't have the means to even go to trial.

And since this law exempts pastors, but not churches, it leaves the churches totally exposed.

That is why God invented appellate courts, so that once they set a precedent, rogue trial judges are leashed, and any such lawsuit will be thrown out upon the filing of a demurrer, because it fails to state a cause of action.  So I would not lose much sleep on that one. That Shockolow (sp?)  guy (the Jewish lawyer who went Baptist, and handles a lot of religious litigation, and has won cases for churches before SCOTUS), I sure will handle getting/setting the precedents pro bono.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, that is your contention, but I am now satisfied based on the contents of this thread, that it has no merit, beyond perhaps at the beginning, some litigation to leash those whose primary mission in life is anti-theism.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps you need to read the texts that Dribble, BRTD and I put up about this again more closely. I don't think any of us want to get into broken record territory here.

You also vacillate between churches becoming gay bath houses with pets and the issue of the process by gay marriage is slowly becoming the law of the land. I think it fair to say that you are rather lonely here in your insistence on conflating the two.

[Torie]

Question 1:  Do you deny the goal, whether by legislation or by court ruling, is homosexual marriage equality?  Yes, as is their Constitutional right, and whose agenda I happen to agree with as a matter of public policy, as you well know.

Question 2:  Do you not think, once homosexual marriage equality is reached, that the homosexual activists will not attempt to force churches to accept homosexuality?  A few may, or professional anti-thesists, but they won't get very far, before the courts, or in the case of rogue trial judges, the appellate courts, slap them down.

Are we done now? 

[Torie]

I'm a gay marriage activist. I'm not out there trying to force churches to accept gays; they have to do that from within. You don't really know much about us do you?

apparently, I know more than you think, as this is not even a new issue:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2007/aug/07082104

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Church appears to be operating the campground as a public accommodation, which probably would not even be tax exempt. And therein lies the difference. The same would obtain if a church opened a restaurant. If the Church does not want gays around, it should operate the campground as a private club, you know like the Bohemian Grove "campground" or something, which bars women, so men can be men and let their testosterone run free without constraint.

[Torie]

Yes, there is no Constiutional right to tax exempt status, and in my world, churches would have no such exemption actually. But this does not involve religious activity in any event, but rather recreational activity.

[Torie]

Yes, there is no Constiutional right to tax exempt status, and in my world, churches would have no such exemption actually. But this does not involve religious activity in any event, but rather recreational activity.

regardless, 1) there is legal precendent for homosexuals suing a church for refusing to cater to homosexuals, and 2) there have been cases where the state came after the church for refusing to allow church property to be used for homosexual purposes, and 3) these "gay rights" have been used as a trogan horse to go after churches...basically, everything I have been saying.

And all of which has been addressed more than once by myself and others. So we as per usual will just have to agree to disagree. Life will go on. Having said that, the notion that gay rights is a "trojan horse" to F with churches is just way, way out there. I would think most gays would think that forcing churches to host gay weddings and your host of horribles is simply bizarre, and certainly not what they want or desire. I bet if you put up a poll on this admittedly very gay friendly site, you would find almost unanimous agreement that churches should not be forced to host gay weddings. Really. Put it up and find out if you want.

[Torie]

jmfcst, please listen to me. What I said was hardly what your describe, but rather that any such litigation that you so fear would be frivolous, and soon go away, and in particular  once we have appellate court precedents. To the extent it is not frivolous given the facts, such as that NJ campground case, the Church deserved to lose in all events, for reasons that have nothing to do with gay marriage.

[Torie]

yo jmf, why do you enjoy doing this for hours on end?

I am beginning to think that he is as stubborn as Bushie, and that's stubborn! 

[Torie]

Yes, there is no Constitutional right to tax exempt status, and in my world, churches would have no such exemption actually. But this does not involve religious activity in any event, but rather recreational activity.

regardless, 1) there is legal precedent for homosexuals suing a church for refusing to cater to homosexuals, and 2) there have been cases where the state came after the church for refusing to allow church property to be used for homosexual purposes, and 3) these "gay rights" have been used as a trojan horse to go after churches...basically, everything I have been saying.

j, as far as I am aware, those precedents all involved church owned properties that were being offered as public accommodations for non-church events.  If churches choose to get involved in activities that could be offered by private business, then they should be subject to the same rules and regulations as any other private business would be subjected to.

That said, if a church or any private business or individual does not wish to rent their property to be used for some purpose, that should be their right.  By what right do we force people to give others access to their property?

You think it right and proper that I should have the right to refuse to rent my houses or apartments to Democrats, or gays, or blacks, or Jews, or browns (if I refused to rent to gays given the zip codes the bulk of my "empire" is in, that would constitute financial seppuku, but I digress)?  Actually, it is legal to refuse to rent to lawyers in CA. Yes it is. And I have a tenant from hell who is a lawyer. I learned my lesson! Don't rent to the bastards!

You know why in the end that won't fly don't you? It's because to demean and degrade whole classes of people that way, is just wrong and cruel, and bad for social comity and accord. It cannot stand. Property rights must give way. This balancing test is not a hard one. It just isn't.

We carve out an exception for churches when doing the religious thing, and private clubs (right of free association), because those are just not public accommodations, and the collateral damage is peripheral, and we do have a free exercise clause when it comes to religion. But that exception does need to be limited.

[Torie]

(if I refused to rent to gays given the zip codes the bulk of my "empire" is in, that would constitute financial seppuku, but I digress)

What about if one of your renters was really 'in arrears' as they say.. would you consider taking your rent in.. in 'a rears'?

You just such have such a consuming interest in my personal life don't you opebo? I'm flattered. But to answer your question, it would depend on the particular tenant. I am a fact specific kind of guy.

In general however, it is best to separate business from pleasure in my experience.

[Torie]

Well all I can say Ernest is that when I was refused service because I was ugly right after my face lift surgery at a restaurant (the only one open in Beverly Hills on a Jewish holiday), I was enraged. I was angry. I should have refused to leave and called 911 and the press, and then sued the restaurant's socks off. I'm quite sorry that I didn't. I should have made the restaurant my personal project for the public good, and unleashed my skills and my money on them. Putting aside the morality of it all (and on that we totally differ), as a prudential matter, do you want a lot of angry folks wandering around, because they feel demeaned, humiliated, and degraded? If you want to recruit shock troops for opebo's army, you have a most excellent plan to achieve that. Really.  When you treat folks like sh*t, you reap what you sow. We are still paying the price for well, what your state in particular did back when. Never again I say - never!

[Torie]

Surely it is clear that jmfcst has a lot of psychological energy invested in believing what he has a need to believe. He needs to believe that persons of faith are under siege, and the barbarians are at the gate. Nothing will dissuade him, not a legal analysis, not a political analysis, not anything.

I wonder if that extra piece of land is a separate legal parcel. If it is, it clearly is not being used for religious purposes. Land banking does not meet the test. And the Church used its political influence to get out of paying probably some pathetically small amount of property taxes, maybe what, 2 or 3 grand a year?  I would be embarrassed myself.

[Torie]

Sigh. OK, jmfcst, I will bite. The case that your link and reference was a case of first impression, where there was a claim that the ADA laws were violated when a teacher was fired, and the teacher spent most of her time performing teaching rather than ministerial duties, so the issue was whether or not she was a "minister" given her mixed duties. That suggests to me a rather close case, yet SCOTUS ruled unanimously in the church's favor. On that one, the legal trail should give you comfort rather than feed your paranoia.

I rest my case as to my little armchair "diagnosis" of you. You see what you want to see, and hunger for a sense of persecution, perhaps to gain more of sense of what it must have been like to have been an early Christian, where they were victimized, before they gained power, and became all too often the victimizers.

[Torie]

So jmf, wouldn't it be easier to allow gays to get married in the church than engage in tax dodging?

tax dodging is perfectly legal, you do it every time you check an exemption on your tax return

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/tax-dodge

tax dodge - definition

"a legal way of paying less tax"

My best advice (yes, I know, your world would be a more perfect place without my advice), is that you use the term "tax avoidance," rather than "tax dodge," which at a minimum has a negative connotation, and according to that certain Ivory Tower known as Cambridge, a negative (aka illegal) denotation.

[Torie]

I rest my case as to my little armchair "diagnosis" of you. You see what you want to see...

yep, all of the case law I've mentioned is simply me hallucinating.  People that are against freedom of religion aren't really probing every legal avenue to force churches to accept someone else's version of truth and morality.  In fact, there aren't any people opposed to freedom of religion.

And, don't tell anyone, but I myself wrote the Obama Administrations DOJ brief in order to make Obama look like an enemy of freedom of religion.

Perhaps it would be more useful to revert as I did to the specific facts of the case which you yourself put on the table, rather than just making the same assertion(s) over and over and over again, using different words, some of them admittedly quite colorfully apocalyptic, which perhaps has a certain value in and of itself.

I need to get back to typing this freaking contract now, for which a client is pining. The damn thing involves admitting yet a fourth class of partner, which screws up all the definitions I used in the partnership agreement to distinguish the rights and duties of the existing three piles, and it is getting me irritable. Everybody is irritable today.

[Torie]

I like how you concede the 'political power of the Christian community' when it doesn't benefit you to play the victim.

Yes,  in my world I just review the applicable statutes and regulations, and if the law is clear, swing the bureaucrats my way, per well, persuasion, rather than unleashing the hounds to well, hound. If unclear, well that is why God invented administrative tribunals and courts and all (which in fact would have a wider benefit, because then precedents are set, making what was once unclear, more clear, on which others can rely for guidance). The common law is a beautiful thing really. We each live on our own little planets I guess.

[Torie]

32-0 Indiana in 2014.

Doesn't matter, since the trend is clearly toward 0-50 for your side by judicial fiat. Grats!

Beware of hubris (goes the other way too for the 32-0 citing guy). Sure, pocket it, but don't brag about it. That is not the way gay marriage should become the law of the land. It can be secured the right way, with just a bit more patience, as more and more gays come out of the closet, and one generation is gradually replaced by another. Just my opinion anyway. I suspect on this one, Boomers are the break point. We tend to think more like the youngs than the olds is my perception.