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.
And if they’d met the initial terms of the sale you would have a problem if you rejected it.
Try it sometime.
‘I want to sell a house but I don’t want gays to buy it’.
See what happens.
Call a lawyer first though, just for kicks.
The point is that they did not sell them.
I completely agree with that.
Did you look up Limelight?
Deconsecrated church. Initially sold to a drug rehab program. Subsequently sold to Gatien who turned it into a really debauched nightclub. If only half the stories out of that place are true ...
If the diocese doesn’t want sodomy on the property how on earth would they prevent a ‘straight’ buyer from subsequently selling to a gay one?
And how on earth would they enforce that? Cameras? Drones? Facebook stalking? Inquiring minds would like to know how you’d enforce that. And what you’d do if you caught them at it? Throw them out? Revoke the sale? Years hence?
I did look that up. What a beautiful building, I’d hate to think what the upkeep on that building would be. Also in the background two buildings with the ubiquitous water towers on the roof. I am glad to see they are still taking that precaution.
There are dozens of former Christian churches in just such a predicament.
If the diocese doesn’t want sodomy in a particular building subsequent to having sold that building they should raze the building and simply sell the property.
It would be better had these deconsecrated churches been razed and the property itself sold. Western Europe is full of such ‘churches’.
Agnes, the last sale I was involved in I rejected an all cash, no inspection or contingency, full price offer. It happens all the time in my market.
We had six other offers that were higher LOL It was a wonderful sale.
I guess if you put it that way, there is plenty of sodomy that has gone on (and likely still does) in plenty of houses of worship!
Because they were offered more money. If gays outbid the others it will be tricky to turn them down.
Try stating up front you don’t want gays to buy it.
See what happens.
In that sale a gay couple actually bought it. A rich gay couple. ;-)
And if the prior owners had stipulated ‘no gays’ how would that have worked out for them?
Thanks NorthMountain. Have a good one...
Why not? If it's privately owned property I can sell it to whoever I damn' well please.
If I cannot sell to whoever I damn' well please, then it's not MY property then is it?
This bullshit is way outta hand.
Well, let’s see you ‘decide’ that you won’t sell your property to blacks. Or Jews. Or whoever.
Let me know how much your legal bills run into...
They were $0. Been there, done that. Try again.
Really? Lately?
I’ve sold property as well. You were very lucky.
Was the property offered up for sale publically or through a realtor or was this a ‘private’ sale that wasn’t publicized?
The latter happens all the time. However if you publically offer it for sale you have to deal with whoever comes up with the money.
See my example of business owner forced to admit obvious trannies to the detriment of her business.
Which is morally wrong.
This was well intentioned, but it's become ridiculous.
If you don't like X people, why should you be forced to sell to X people ? No matter who X is. You'll be reducing the number of potential customers with your choices. If you really go wild with it, you'll likely eliminate the possibility of sale entirely.
Kind of my thoughts as well.
last time I sold real estate property was 1992. I specified to the real estate agent verbally and in the contract that I'd only consider pre-qualified offers. That effectively took care of things.
If you’d said ‘prequalified WHITE buyers’ you’d have been in a world of hurt.
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.