Posted on 05/03/2017 2:37:23 PM PDT by Ennis85
A mortuary in Mississippi is being sued by the husband of a gay man for allegedly refusing to cremate him because of his sexuality. John "Jack" Zawadski, 82, and his nephew filed the lawsuit after being told that the funeral parlour did not "deal with their kind". Their legal team argue the response of staff at the Picayune mortuary devastated Mr Zawadski and his family. But the co-owner of the funeral home has tearfully denied the allegations. "We just didn't do that," a weeping Henrietta Brewer told Mississippi Today.
Mrs Brewer said that her mortuary had handled the funerals of "well over a dozen" gay people since she and her husband opened it in 2006. She said one gay man had even been buried in the funeral home's privately-owned cemetery. "We're the ones that treat everyone good," Mrs Brewer said, arguing that none of her staff was homophobic.
Mr Zawadski and his nephew, John Gaspari, are seeking unspecified cash compensation from the Brewer Funeral Home for "breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation and the intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress", Lambda Legal said in a press statement. The lawsuit says that Mr Gaspari had completed all the arrangements for the funeral of his uncle, Robert Huskey, who died in a hospice shortly after celebrating his 86th birthday. They argue that the funeral parlour suddenly declined the use of their facilities - including the storage and transport of Mr Huskey's body - after they found out he was married to a man.
Mr Zawadski said that the alleged action of the funeral home left him feeling as "if the air had been knocked" out of him.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.com ...
Didn’t happen. This is attempted extortion.
Until respectable citizens stand up to this type of behavior it will continue. The accused appear to have not even represented anything like an anti-gay policy. No valid evidence was presented. The funeral home should counter sue Lambda and the two accusers for potential loss of earnings and duress. They can’t be allowed to make unsubstantiated allegations.
“What’s wrong is that a useful word has been rendered useless.”
Actually, in the “gay” culture, there was NEVER anything wrong with “partner” to them, as couples until the “gay activist” agenda to deconstruct marriage as it’s always been known. In the context of how it was used it was unequivocally understood as “partners” in romantic couple. Neither “wife” nor “husband” was needed or commonly used, to no one’s dismay.
They deny it and I believe them. The only prerequisite to getting planted is being dead.
My point is that there is now no word for a business partner, songwriting partner, comic partner.
Mississippi juries will vote for which side gives them the most money. #JackpotJustice.
One might think that a New York City jury (just to pick one example) would rule in favor of this pervert while a Mississippi jury would rule against.
I work in the industry...no funeral home would say no to a paying customer. I call BS on this story.
I’m astounded the paper used that headline. Guess the Gaystapo libs haven’t taken over the press there.
Not for long. This particular church's case hung on the "ministerial exception," a horrific concocted precedent that makes unconstitutional state involvement in churches the RULE except for some ministerial positions, which the state will determine.
Church's unassailable right to conduct themselves according to their faith's dictates ought to be the absolute, presumed rule, not the exception. At least in a constitutional America.
It would seem easy enough to prove the breach of contract part. Because there would be an actual legal instrument. I’m eager to see if there was one.
Hopefully, their attorneys will suggest that.
A Mississippi jury will vote for whoever offers the most money.
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.