Posted on 03/20/2014 7:35:27 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
A Roman Catholic diocese in Massachusetts that refused to sell a historic mansion to a gay couple is facing mounting legal pressure.
Massachusetts' Attorney General Martha Coakley recently filed a brief in support of the gay couple who are suing the Diocese of Worcester alleging discrimination.
Filed before superior court earlier this month on behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Coakley argued that the diocese's actions constituted "sexual orientation discrimination."
"The commonwealth's compelling interest in protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination derives from their status as a politically vulnerable minority that has suffered a history of discrimination, which continues to this day," reads the brief in part.
"… though the diocesan defendants assert a sincerely held religious belief, their free exercise claim fails the rest of the compelling interest test, and they are not entitled to an exemption."
The Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General provided The Christian Post with a press release sent out last Thursday, wherein Coakley stated that her office respects the freedom of religion.
"Our laws provide important protections for religious organizations and people of faith. … These laws also strike a balance between religious freedoms and the rights of individuals to be free from discrimination," said Coakley.
"In this case, we believe that this family was unfairly discriminated against by the diocese when it refused to sell them property based on their sexual orientation."
A couple years ago, James Fairbanks and Alain Beret sought to purchase a historic mansion in Northbridge that the Worcester Diocese used as a nonprofit church-affiliated retreat center.
According to Fairbanks and Beret, although the diocese initially accepted their offer for a sale in spring 2012, the Catholic officials changed their minds and ended negotiations.
The alleged reason came through a leaked email in which diocesan officials expressed concern that gay marriages might be held at the mansion, reported Lisa Wangsness of the Boston Globe.
"The couple sued the diocese in September 2012. The parties moved for summary judgment last month, and oral arguments are scheduled for April 22," wrote Wangsness.
Gavin Reardon, attorney for the Worcester Diocese, told CP that the decision to reject Fairbanks and Beret's offer had to do with finances rather than sexual orientation or gay marriage.
"From the diocese's perspective, this is a failed real estate sale and really doesn't have anything to do with discrimination," said Reardon.
"The negotiations had ceased prior to any information about the possibility of same-sex marriages being conducted at the property."
Reardon said that Fairbanks and Beret had "made an offer for approximately half as much money for less than the whole property and the diocese rejected that offer."
"These people never came up with the money," said Reardon, who added that the leaked email had been sent out two days after the deadline for negotiations on the mansion.
Reardon also told CP that both the Worcester Diocese and the plaintiffs are seeking a summary judgment, which means they are requesting a decision by the judge without a trial based on the facts already present.
This is because they stick their gayness in our faces and demand special treatment.
They are only special because they're sick depraved individuals who seek out
sexual relief in perverted ways. They deserve to be Spat on by all who want a civil society.
No, they'd just have refused to do business with me, which is their right. I didn't have to say "white."
Now lets assume for the sake of argument that's what I meant, and the realtor (who knew what I meant) brought me an "unqualified" buyer. I'd terminate the real estate contract with that realtor for breach of contract.
If they were dumb enough to sue for my terminating the contract. they'd have to defend their acceptance of the contract in court in the first place.
No real estate agent wants to go on record as having to defend themselves from discriminating against proposed buyers, that'd put them out of business.
As for me, I'd list it with another agent with the same terms. Which again, they're free to refuse to do.
You just have to know how to play the game, and you'd be naive to think real estate agents don't do it all the time.
The real estate agent who sold me this house I'm in now (a dear friend of the family) also showed me plenty of others that I initially liked. Anytime I said I liked a house, she'd take me for a drive around the surrounding area and start asking me questions about what I was seeing. In essence, she was showing me how to "qualify" a neighborhood before In purchased a house in it.
As I said happens all the time.
This is so hypocritical, when RC priests and their live-in lovers jointly own condos all over the Miami Diocese and in Key West. In Rome, too.
Ridiculous!
If a qualified black buyer had showed up with the proper documentation/money you’d have had to either sell to them or take the property off the market.
No realtor in their right mind would attempt to sue because they'd have to defend the fact that they were also breaking the law.
The realtor wouldn’t sue. The prospective buyers might though.
visit ‘Fair Housing Act’ to see what happens...
By the way, did you know that three years ago the Obama Administration made a move to try and implement a "neighborhood diversity review" for all homes purchased and funded through Fannie and Freddie?
It's true. They wanted to make it so any prospective buyer of any house was "reviewed and approved" before approving a loan. If they didn't like you or I selling a home to another white person, they'd refuse to loan the money. But if a black buyer came along, the'd pass the "diversity review" and the sale of your or my home would then be "approved."
Now since Fannie and Freddie hold more mortgages than anyone else in the country, how would you like them apples?
Imagine, FORCING "diversity" in real estate. Absolutely ridiculous.
Is my home MY home or the Governments? It's mine - free and clear - paid cash. If they want "divesity" in my neighborhood the Government can buy me out full price first. Make the bastards expose their horseshit agenda of trying to force people who don't want to live in "racially diverse" areas and then see what happens.
My property, I'll do with it as I wish.
Of course I know about the neighborhood diversity review.
You don’t really own your property. You just rent it for the property tax amount.
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.