[Jim from C-Town]

No he couldn't. And no it isn't ecclesiastical law that one would allow an open, unrepentant sinner to avoid the consequences of that sin. In this case it is the loss of position, wages and all benefits that stem from that employment.

The lawyers who brought the case to the Supreme Court where slapped down like the simpletons that they are. The Constitution trumps local statute.

[muir_redwoods]

What sin? Prove sexual activity is taking place. It can’t be done without witnesses. You are missing my point entirely that most churches are on record saying the sinner is loved and accepted while the sin is hated. There is no objective evidence of sin in this case, only putative inference. It’s an interesting legal conflict.

I really don’t give a rats south side how you would decide the matter; like mine your opinion of how the courts will rule means nothing. Less even.