Mass. gay couple sues Worcester Diocese for denying opportunity to buy church-owned mansion

[qui_est_ce]

A church is not housing - there is no violation of the Fair Housing Act.

Our “old” church is for sale. It has restrictions on who can buy it and covenants that limit what can be done with the property.

Yes, we have the same for selling closed churches

 

[fix]

This is a matter of law and it is not, by law, their “right.” You can’t say “fair housing be darned” because it’s the law. It’s Federal Law. Are we all going to decide what laws get obeyed depending on if we like them or not? The Church’s problem is: they didn’t say it was for “whatever reason” - they gave their reason in an email and it places them squarely in violation of Federal law.

As matter of fact we do not obey unjust laws.

 

[exnihilo]

A church is not housing - there is no violation of the Fair Housing Act.

Our “old” church is for sale. It has restrictions on who can buy it and covenants that limit what can be done with the property.

I’m not an attorney but I have doubts. Besides what falls under the law is a matter that judges decide and judges are usually happy to expand their authority and interpret the laws liberally. Even if something does not fall under the law today it could in the near future. I do know that some covenants are judged unenforceable.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Adding to the complexities, the diocese requires any buyer to sign a deed **restriction that bans him from using the property for any purpose that would go against church teachings. This obviously eliminates businesses such as strip clubs, but can make others, such as a medical office, for instance, leery because it could cover so many things, Abramson said. The diocese says it addresses each property on a case-by-case basis. **

 

[qui_est_ce]

Note: here are the deed restrictions on the church properties. Original is here.

2. Religious Artifacts and Fixtures. Seller reserves the right to remove religious artifacts and fixtures from the Property prior to closing, provided that any damage caused by such removal shall be repaired in a workmanlike manner.

[If the property is not being sold to a church, the following clause should be inserted: Seller also reserves the right to remove stained glass windows from the church building, provided that the windows are replaced in a workmanlike manner with glass windows.]

3. Deed Restrictions. Purchaser agrees and covenants that:

(a) It will not use the name ________________________________ or any derivative thereof in connection with any operations or activities on the subject Property.

(b) It will not (unless and until the church structure on the subject Property is demolished), without the prior written authorization of the Archbishop of St. Louis use, permit others to use or lease or otherwise transfer the use of the subject Property or any portion thereof to any person who uses or will use the Property or any portion thereof as a facility, place of business or other place in which:

(i) a congregation, society or other assemblage of persons meets for worship or other religious observances or activities, promoted or defined as Roman Catholic, but not possessing the express ecclesiastical approval of the Roman Catholic Church;

(ii) human abortion, sterilization, euthanasia or other acts which are contrary to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services promulgated by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops are performed, or promoted through public advocacy or for which counseling is given which promotes and/or encourages individuals to obtain such services;

(iii) pornographic or soft pornographic books, pictures, discs or other media or materials directed to an adult rather than a general audience or clientele are displayed, sold, rented or available for viewing;

(iv) massages or tattoos are provided;

(v) a tavern, bar, night club, dance club or hall is operated, or in which is operated a restaurant in which alcoholic beverages are served, or

(vi) live performances directed to an adult audience rather than the general public are operated or conducted.

Purchaser further agrees that these covenants will run with the land and be included as restrictions in the Deed of conveyance as binding on the grantee, its successors and assigns.

romeofthewest.com/2005/12/former-saint-louis-catholic-churches.html

 

[SamH]

I’m not an attorney but I have doubts. Besides what falls under the law is a matter that judges decide and judges are usually happy to expand their authority and interpret the laws liberally. Even if something does not fall under the law today it could in the near future. I do know that some covenants are judged unenforceable.

So a judge might make a law that don’t exist.

 

[seekerz]

This has been the law for over fifty years. This issue is the same principle that underlies all Civil Rights laws. As soon as you could sue people for not selling to you, hiring you, renting to you etc for a list of reasons this was going to happen. This is why I oppose all Civil Rights laws. We may object to a man’s reasons for not interacting with people but by making it a matter of law we are violating the rights of men. Society decided that disapproved reasons for not doing things should be illegal. Once we decided that then whatever society disapproves of is illegal. Society disapproves of treating homosexuality as anything but right and good. Society generally disapproves of the Christian ethics, outside of the Social Gospel, so things will only get worse for Christians. The irony is Christians were big supporters of this concept that will now be used against them.

So because the Civil Right laws can be misused, you oppose them? The Constitution can similarly be misused (indeed it has been in the past) - would you dispense with that as well? Just asking…

 

[april32010]

So because the Civil Right laws can be misused, you oppose them? The Constitution can similarly be misused (indeed it has been in the past) - would you dispense with that as well? Just asking…

they can and are,all the time. holly,there is already a thread on this can we merge ?forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=710082

 

[seekerz]

they can and are,all the time.

I see you chose to ignore the question.

 

[scipio337]

Sounds like they might be crying “wolf”:

Sullivan, in a phone interview yesterday, said he did not even know Fairbanks and Beret were gay, and that his e-mail was taken out of context. The talks fizzled, he said, because the men could not secure financing for their first offer, and their second offer was unacceptable to the church.

“They didn’t have the money, that was it,” he said.

It was not until weeks after the financing fell through, he said, that the church’s broker told him that, in her presence, Fairbanks and Beret had mentioned hosting same-sex weddings at Oakhurst.

Per the story, the “gay marriage” issue wasn’t brought up until financing fell through,etc.

I wonder if those same “civil rights law” would apply to other cases:

Sullivan said, however, that the church, as a matter of policy, will not sell properties where Masses have been celebrated to people who plan to host same-sex weddings. The church will not sell to developers who plan to transform them into abortion clinics either, he said — or to bars, lounges, or other kinds of uses that church officials deem inappropriate.

“We wouldn’t sell our churches and our properties to any of a number of things that would reflect badly on the church,” he said. “These buildings are sacred to the memory of Catholics.”

So masses were celebrated at the retreat.

 

[SamH]

I see you chose to ignore the question.

I think it has already been answered.

 

[april32010]

As matter of fact we do not obey unjust laws.

exactly

 

[seekerz]

I think it has already been answered.

Hi Sam. I think I missed that post - has someone explained why we don’t throw out legal principles out simply because they can be or have been misused?

 

[fix]

boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2012/09/09/gay-couple-said-church-denied-northbridge-sale-stop-same-sex-weddings/QrdnHOSuZfWmb6keBwLnxK/singlepage.html

These people are suing this diocese because of this. How sickening. I guess people aren’t allowed to have a conscience they can act on anymore are they?

The new tolerance.

 

[coachdennis]

As in most cases reported in the press, there are a few pieces that are either missing or don’t make sense.

1. If the church has those conditions of sale that were mentioned in the previous posts, those should have been communicated to the potential buyers at the beginning of the process. Of course, the potential buyers could have lied about their intentions for the property, but we don’t know if that discussion ever took place.
2. If the buyers were fianancial risks, they say so. If the reason the sale fell through was because of the future usage of the property, then say so. If it is both, then say so.

As this is a local story, I will throw in my observation: one of the problems has been the Diocese spokesperson has changed or elaborated on the reason or reasons for the failed sale several times. Once again, whoever is getting paid to present the PR for the Church should be fired – they are making the church look like 1) it’s not being totally honest, and 2) that it doesn’t appear to have the “guts” to speak out on its stance on gay marriage. Either way is not good.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

OK, I live here in Massachusetts and this is my dioceses.

If you read the story closely, you’ll see that all the accusations about the dioceses discriminating, come solely from the gay couple bringing the law suit.

Even the email that supposedly came from Monsignor Sullivan, and inadvertently sent to the Beret, comes from him, not the diocesan real-estate broker.

Monsignor Sullivan denies the allegation and has stated that the only reason given to the diocesan broker for not accepting the offer, was because the plaintiffs were short on the desired price and ability to meet it.

In other words, the media is presenting the gay couple’s side of the story, not the dioceses.

That being said, if it is true, that the broker accidentally sent the email as alleged by Beret, then the real-estate broker should pay all the financial cost the dioceses has to pay out, because it was a confidential email, which should not have gone to the buyer.

Jim

 

[scipio337]

OK, I live here in Massachusetts and this is my dioceses.

If you read the story closely, you’ll see that all the accusations about the dioceses discriminating, come solely from the gay couple bringing the law suit.

Even the email that supposedly came from Monsignor Sullivan, and inadvertently sent to the Beret, comes from him, not the diocesan real-estate broker.

Monsignor Sullivan denies the allegation and has stated that the only reason given to the diocesan broker for not accepting the offer, was because the plaintiffs were short on the desired price and ability to meet it.

In other words, the media is presenting the gay couple’s side of the story, not the dioceses.

That being said, if it is true, that the broker accidentally sent the email as alleged by Beret, then the real-estate broker should pay all the financial cost the dioceses has to pay out, because it was a confidential email, which should not have gone to the buyer.

Jim

Actually the article does mention the price negotiations:

Beret said the property originally was listed for $1.45 million, “way overpriced,” he said. The couple, who had previously transformed an old mansion in Brattleboro into an inn and an aging estate in Barre into a wedding venue, reached a preliminary agreement to buy Oakhurst for $1 million.

But after doing extensive due diligence on its needs, he said, various inspectors advised them that they would need repairs totaling about $500,000.

So they decided to offer $550,000 for the house and only the land immediately around it. “With lightning speed,” he said, the church’s broker responded that the diocese had decided to pursue other avenues with the property.

In other words:

“They rejected my offer for 30% of their asking price. DISCRIMINATION!!!”

I loved one of the comments on the website:

“Being gay is not an excuse for being cheap”.

 

[exnihilo]

So because the Civil Right laws can be misused, you oppose them? The Constitution can similarly be misused (indeed it has been in the past) - would you dispense with that as well? Just asking…

No, I oppose the Civil Rights laws because of their very nature and how they were intended to be used. Discrimination of different types may well be bad, but creating laws whereby a man can be sued for not doing something is problematic. The law used to be more limited to punishing bad acts not punishing bad non acts. The realm of bad non acts is wide open and evolving. I disagree with the whole concept of Civil Rights.

The US constitution, in my opinion, was never a very good document. I prefer the Articles of Confederation which I was told in government school was bad because it didn’t allow the government to do much. That sounds wonderful. If the US constitution has within it a right to murder babies then I’d absolutely dispense with it. Even if it doesn’t if it can allow an illegitimate government to form whereby this right can be manufactured then it is still not a very good document.

 

[Bill_Martin]

So because the Civil Right laws can be misused, you oppose them? The Constitution can similarly be misused (indeed it has been in the past) - would you dispense with that as well? Just asking…

I do.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Actually the article does mention the price negotiations:

In other words:

“They rejected my offer for 30% of their asking price. DISCRIMINATION!!!”

I loved one of the comments on the website:

“Being gay is not an excuse for being cheap”.

Beret mentions the price negotiations, not the diocese.

The entire story is from him and his lawyer, not from the dioceses or the diocesan real-estate broker.

The only thing Monsignor Sullivan stated was, he and the Bishop had no idea the buyers were gay.

Jim