Angel4Truth
Legend
It was a wedding pavillion where religious ceremonies were held. Any church should be able to deny any wedding gay or straight. Anyway there are loads of other incidents as well .Thank you for the link. The state AG's determination (.pdf here) is an interesting read. It seems that the issue there hinged on whether or not the rental of the pavilion (not a chapel) was considered a public accommodation, or was restricted to members of the religious organization in question and hence, private (like a club's facilities would be). It looks as if the organization made the pavilion otherwise publicly available, thus was subject to anti-discrimination laws connected with public spaces in that given jurisdiction.
If the couple had been barred from marrying in a Methodist chapel, that would have been one thing: churches often restrict weddings to members only, as is their clear right as private organizations. Seems the above pavilion was in a rather more gray area: a space privately owned, but offered to non-members for public use. It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.
When same-sex marriage is legalized I suppose more suits will happen. But oddly enough, I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing: such suits can serve the purpose of working out where the boundaries of church and state are. And I think that still benefits both, in the long run, though it may be troublesome in the short run.
But eh, that's just me.
Thank you again for the link. Let me know if you have others.
First its said "we would never do that" then its "we have a right to do that"
See its hypocrisy to me - we (christians and churches) are being demanded to accept something that is against our religion with claims that we are violating "their " rights while they could give a hoot that they violate ours in forcing it. Thats why youll always see christians standing against this because we already know they cant wait to force it into our churches.
Upvote
0