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

[SamH]

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?

Here ya go:

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…

His point is even if they are not “misused” they are still wrong - in his opinion.

 

[Holly3278]

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

Of course they are. The mainstream media will obviously prefer a gay couple over the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ. The mainstream media always seems to prefer immorality over morality and evil over good.

 

[Faithdancer]

Parishes and dioceses need to see the writing on the wall and
Close renting their facilities to any groups that are not already officially sanctioned/sponsored by the parish or diocese
Avoid putting property for sale on the open market, and place perpetual conditions on the use of the property by the buyer or any subsequent buyers

There is a war on between the homosexualist and atheist agendas and the Roman Catholic Church. One is either with the Church, or against it- there is no middle ground.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

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”.

I don’t think its being cheap. If the property is so dilapidated that its appraised value is only a fraction of the asking price and it was scheduled to be demolished then its just common sense to negotiate a reduction. This is commonplace in home sales, especially when dealing with historic areas, when repairs to the property are needed and it was eventually sold for $200,000 less than the couple’s original offer.

 

[Faithdancer]

I find it absurd to think that the homosexual couple in question had innocent motives in instigating the purchase of a property from an organization they must have known disapproves, on moral grounds, of their lifestyle. At any rate parishes and dioceses will need to really think about their policies of selling and leasing properties, to avoid entrapment by those with a militant homosexualist agenda.