Posted on 01/16/2013 9:15:45 AM PST by marshmallow
The Prime Minister’s 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 ...
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.