Posted on 08/13/2005 1:25:33 PM PDT by schaketo
SANTA ANA, Calif. - A judge tentatively ruled Thursday that a Newport Beach parish that left the Episcopal Diocese in a dispute over a gay bishop's ordination is the rightful owner of its building and property.
Superior Court Judge David Velasquez delayed a final decision until Monday, when he will hear more arguments. His initial ruling sided with attorneys for St. James Church in Newport Beach who argued that a lawsuit in which the Episcopal Diocese is seeking control of the property interfered with St. James parishioners' freedom of speech.
The judge said the church had initially demonstrated that "they are being sued for acts arising from ... their publicly expressed disagreement with the church's views concerning the consecration of homosexual clergy ... "
He also found that the church owned the property and that it was not being held in "trust" for the diocese.
The diocese contends that it is only trying to get its property back, and that the case has nothing to do with free speech. But the judge indicated it was unlikely the diocese would prevail in trial.
St. James announced it was placing itself under the jurisdiction of the Anglican Church in Uganda because of a rift over V. Gene Robinson - a gay priest in a relationship with another man - being elected bishop by the Diocese of New Hampshire.
The Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
Sounds to me like even this parish has not totally learned its lesson.
Still, the parishoners paid for the church so it should be theirs.
pang
It seems to me the issue is one of property law. If the Anglican diocese owns the property, then they can throw anyone off of it for any reason, including differences of opinion about homosexuality. If the congregation owns it, then the diocese can't. I just don't see what freedom of speech has to do with this.
Unfortunately, the judge's decision runs contrary to hundreds of simular cases, and will be overturned.
I believe, from how I read it, that the judge decided that the suit itself was merely an (intimidation) attempt to stifle the congregation's free speech; AND found "the church owned the property and that it was not being held in "trust" for the diocese."
IOW, the ownership ruling was based on property law; the other was a side issue.
Of course, I could be 540 degrees off, too.
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.