[Risky Schemer]

So what? The knowledge given to this minister is not the issue here. The issue is whether the content of a sermon is a proper thing to be considered by the courts.

That is not the issue I was addressing. I never mentioned any legal aspect. Here's an excerpt from a subsequent reply of yours (#178):

No, I understand your point that you think the minister shouldn't have said what he said. I may even agree with you on that. But the point remains that the courts have no place in the pulpit.

You "may"? You haven't already decided? You don't know? You think such may be the right thing to do?

That was the issue I was addressing.

[DugwayDuke]

This whole argument with Yeti has been an argument about whether the statements by the preacher found in this article constitutes legal grounds for a suit. I am willing to stipulate that the preachers comments may have been offensive and inappropriate but that is irrelevent to a discussion about whether lawsuits should be allowed on the grounds that one finds a preachers remarks in the pulpit to be offensive, mean-spirited, or inappropriate, etc. Surely, you see that?

Obviously, you are religious persons. Do you really want a preachers remarks made in an official capacity to be subject to lawsuits soley on the grounds that someone's feelings are hurt? Are you aware that laws are already on the books in Canada and Sweden prohibing preachers from preaching certain sections of the bible on the grounds that it is hate speech?