Skip to comments.Churches 'Could be Sued for Refusing to Agree to Gay Marriages'
Posted on 01/16/2013 9:15:45 AM PST by marshmallow
The Prime Ministers plans for gay marriage could leave churches facing legal action unless they agree to same-sex unions, it emerged today.
Legal advice reportedly sent to David Cameron warns that church could be sued under human rights legislation if they refuse to allow the services to proceed.
Exemption granted to the Church of England by the Coalition Bill to prevent it having to conduct gay marriages is eminently challenge-able in the European Court of Human Rights.
It also warns that the Government's insistence that protections put in place for other religious groups who don't want to marry homosexuals could be undermined by evolving European human rights law.
The warnings, written by Aidan O'Neill, a leading human rights lawyer at centre-left Matrix Chambers, argues that churches that refuse to marry homosexuals would be banned from using council facilities such as village halls.
Details of the legal advice are contained in a letter Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, to the Prime Minister, the Daily Mail reported.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
It should go to court and then get this issue settled.
With headlines like this, “The Twilight Zone” could make a comeback. Our country is all but lost to libtard freaks.
The line in the sand is forcing churches to comply.
Gays should start their own church and denomination and then they are free to worship their god whoever that might be that goes along with their lifestyle and supports it. Have their own bishops, their own bylaws, their own mission outreach, their marriage, their funerals and whatever else they want their church to meet their desires.
Will happen here. The plan is to bankrupt the churches.
They've always had that option. It's not about their freedom to worship as they choose. They crave acceptance so much that they want to force everybody else to validate them. As self-loathing narcissists, they will always be bothered by the notion that someone, somewhere does not approve of their lifestyle.
On the disgusting series The New Normal, one of the homos on the show likened your advice to being told to "sit at the back of the bus".
Does this apply to MUSLIM churches in ENGLAND as well ?
The 'plan' is to force Christian churches to accept homosexuality, so that the MUSLIMS have another reason to kill Christians.
My pastor was at a pastor's conference last fall - they were told to expect to go to jail in the near-future.
Paul had counted it as a joy to be imprisoned for the Gospel.
I'm a Protestant, but my bet is that four out of five Protestant churches will roll over. And for the record, I don't intend to stay in a church that rolls on this issue.
So I assume you’re British?
Old Roger has gotten much more canny since he tangled with Saint Paul. Few pastors are going to go to jail. But plenty of pastors and church employees are going to be stripped of their livelihoods, pensions and children's college funds, plenty of missionaries and hospitals are going to lose their financial support, plenty of grand old church buildings are going to be sold at auction and plenty of hopes, dreams and futures are going to be sacrificed on the altar of butt-sex.
A martyr's cell would be preferable to the financial and social ruin that is going to be visited on our pastors and priests.
Nope. I was so pissed when I read the headline that I missed the ‘Daily Telegraph’ part. Probably coming soon here though.
And, He is abundantly clear regarding this sort of sin, chapter and verse clear, along with its consequences. Best not to push it.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but does "tolerance" even appear in the Bible? I don't think it does.
What does appear is that God is one serious serial killer when pushed very far. Men, women, children are all wiped from the planet for crossing the line, even His own people, and not just in the biblical past. That's part of the plan for the future.
Jesus didn't change that fact, he reiterated it.
I don't even like to hear the term, "Lutheran" because it means no more than the term, "Christian".
I know this is Britain; but, I have been waiting for this to happen someplace ever since the “gay marriage” thing got going. At some point, some gay couple will sue a church for not marrying them on the grounds of a “hate crime”. It will happen here.
Which is why we are focusing on "home churches" - getting people used to meeting in homes instead of churches - prep. for coming persecution.
South Vietnamese pastors had thier congregations read "Tortured for Christ" by R. Wurmbrandt (founder of VOM) in preparation of takeover by the communists (Jane Fonda and Ted Kennedy's Red friends).
Home churches are a great idea, but to work they have to be strictly under the radar: no paid staff, no insurance, no property or trusts, nothing that could create a paper trail. The pastor would need to be a tentmaking pastor, which is a demanding way of life.
Perhaps a FReeper with more legal acumen than me could speak to the possiblity of the hosting homeowner being named a party in a civil rights lawsuit. To the point: could you be financially or otherwise liable for hosting a home church that refuses to marry homosexuals? My gut says yes.
Saw the suggestion in a column in Today’s Catholic here in the Fort Wayne-South Bend diocese regarding how to deal with many issues going forward here in the US that the church should get out of the business of having anything to do with civil marriage. Conduct Catholic marriages and do not deal with a civil issued marriage license. I have no idea how doable that is or how it affects the marriage that is performed this way.
“....hosting a home church that refuses to marry homosexuals?”
Like Peter said - all believers ARE priests - we can all lay hands - lead prayer - give sermons - teach Bible studies.
A lot of people think the building is the church - but it’s the people - WE are the body of Christ - WE are the church.
Out of the boat and into the water....
“Home churches are a great idea, but to work they have to be strictly under the radar: no paid staff, no insurance, no property or trusts, nothing that could create a paper trail. The pastor would need to be a tentmaking pastor, which is a demanding way of life.”
Just like the Apostle Paul. We’re returning to the book of Acts.
“Perhaps a FReeper with more legal acumen than me could speak to the possiblity of the hosting homeowner being named a party in a civil rights lawsuit. To the point: could you be financially or otherwise liable for hosting a home church that refuses to marry homosexuals? My gut says yes.”
Legally speaking, how could they sue someone for a private group in his private home?
Being a member of a church is not required so I don’t see the legal standing where a church could be sued.
If a secular option is available, I fail to see where someone could show they were harmed and show damages.
Doesn’t make sense.
My eyebrows shot up on that one. Odd advice in the run-up to the Flood. Your boat is apparently not an Ark!
This is already happening. “Home churches” are being sued and shut down on the grounds they violate zoning laws. There have been a couple of notable cases in the past year.
It already is. The argument is that churches are “places of public accommodation,” and thus subject to the civil rights laws (e.g., you can’t legally refuse to serve someone in your restaurant if he’s black, etc.)
The proponents of this theory argue that if a church ever lets non-members in to worship (for example, at a Christmas or Easter service, just as an example), it becomes subject to the civil rights laws and cannot discriminate against homosexuals. The only way for churches to avoid this, they argue, is essentially to become a private club, where only members are permitted to worship there.