Posted on 07/09/2015 5:32:28 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
In the aftermath of Obergefell v. Hodges, pastors and church members are experiencing a wave of anxiety over what many of them deem the “nightmare scenario”: lawsuits or government action designed to force them to perform or recognize same-sex marriages. While there are — so far — no meaningful judicial precedents that would permit such dramatic interference with churches’ core First Amendment rights, lawsuits challenging church liberties are inevitable.
Indeed, the Iowa Civil Rights Commission has declared that prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity “sometimes” apply to churches and has stated that a “church service open to the public” is not a “bona fide religious purpose” that would limit application of the law. In 2012 a New Jersey administrative-law judge ruled that a religious organization “closely associated with the United Methodist Church” wrongly denied access to its facilities for a same-sex wedding.
Churches, like virtually every functioning corporation, protect against liability risks and the potentially ruinous costs of litigation through liability insurance. With same-sex marriage now recognized as a constitutional right — and with news of Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries awarding a lesbian couple $135,000 in damages for “emotional, mental and physical suffering” after a Christian bakery refused to bake their wedding cake — pastors are reaching out insurance companies to make sure they’re covered. And at least one insurer has responded with a preemptory denial: no coverage if a church is sued for refusing to perform a same-sex wedding.
On July 1, David Karns, vice president of underwriting at Southern Mutual Church Insurance Company (which “serve[s] more than 8,400 churches”), wrote an “all states” agents’ bulletin addressing same-sex marriage. It begins: “We have received numerous calls and emails regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriages. The main concern is whether or not liability coverage applies in the event a church gets sued for declining to perform a same-sex marriage.” Karns continues:
The general liability form does not provide any coverage for this type of situation, since there is no bodily injury, property damage, personal injury, or advertising injury. If a church is concerned about the possibility of a suit, we do offer Miscellaneous Legal Defense Coverage. This is not liability coverage, but rather expense reimbursement for defense costs. There is no coverage for any judgments against an insured.
In other words: Churches, you’re on your own. (National Review has tried to reach Mr. Karns and Southern Mutual’s corporate office, and they have not yet returned our calls.)
It is unusual for an insurer to deny purely hypothetical claims. Typically, coverage decisions are made only after evaluating the claims in the complaint and the terms of the insurance policy. Indeed, when National Review reached out to other church insurers to see if they had made similar communications to their insureds, State Farm responded simply: “It can be confusing to customers to publicly address broad, hypothetical situations. Every claim is assessed on its own merits, in line with the language of the policy, coverages, and endorsements purchased.” Other church-insurance companies, including Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company and Church Mutual Insurance Company, stated that they had made no blanket communications to their insureds regarding coverage. Brotherhood did, however, post a brief legal analysis of Obergefell that included suggested steps for avoiding litigation.
Moreover, if past practice is any guide, litigants are very likely to allege that they suffered “personal injury” if a church refuses to perform or host their wedding ceremony. Indeed, in the Oregon bakery case, the lesbian couple alleged an array of injuries, including “impaired digestion,” “high blood pressure,” “excessive sleep,” “migraine headaches,” and “anxiety.” And those allegations were over a mere cake (a cake they were able to immediately replace), not the entire wedding.
The defense of religious liberty is about more than legal doctrines. Even the most robust of legal protections can seem hollow indeed if a church risks financial ruin in response to a lawsuit. Erik Stanley, a senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom (disclosure: I’m a former senior counsel at ADF and occasionally give speeches at ADF events), notes that even though churches can obtain high-quality pro bono counsel, legal nonprofits do not and cannot indemnify a church’s potential liabilities. That’s what insurance is for. Yet, as of July 1, it appears that thousands of American churches are more exposed than they imagined. And what’s the real-world result of Southern Mutual’s decision? Stanley, who focuses much of his practice on defending the religious-liberty rights of pastors and churches, was blunt: “More fear.” And fear can mean that the battle for religious freedom is lost even before it’s fully joined.
— David French is an attorney and a staff writer at National Review.
The Left is relentless. Like the ocean pushing against a dike they never stop seeking out cracks and weak spots through which they can force their agenda.
RE: The Left is relentless.
They have been like this for over a generation. But I have never seen things move so fast as the past 6 years.
You gotta give it to Obama, when he said he was going to fundamentally transform this country, he really meant it.
“Payback time”
~ ValJarrett
It was never about gay “rights”. It was always about destroying Christianity.
The homosexual agenda includes destroying the church, not being accepted by it. If they can sue churches to death, that’s one way. “Gay marriage” gives them the tool they need to do it, which is the only reason they want it.
S&F, thank you for this post. Another way to take away our Constitutional Freedom OF Religion.
“Indeed, in the Oregon bakery case, the lesbian couple alleged an array of injuries, including “impaired digestion,” “high blood pressure,” “excessive sleep,” “migraine headaches,” and “anxiety.”
I guess you have to be careful with the mentally ill.
Hah!
Turnips don’t bleed!
and...
We’ve retreated to the catacombs before. Yet, the true FAITH survives.
Denial of coverage? Maybe that statement is worded incorrectly, but that kind of "coverage" has never needed to exist.
Who would have ever imagined sexual perversion is what would bring down the church?
“Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States . . . shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”
Any government official punishing a church, minister, bakery, baker, florist, photographer, or other individual or organization for refusing to engage in expressive service or conduct contrary to their religious beliefs is engaged in one of the most heinous felonies imaginable. There are not many crimes serious enough to merit the death penalty, but that sort of persecution - abusing governmental power in the denial of God-given rights - is serious enough to merit capital punishment.
The thugs who abuse the government's power in the gay "marriage" cause should feel the full force of the law, on the receiving end. Then their (surviving) sympathizers would understand just how evil their totalitarian actions really are. It's time for those thugs to back off or face serious consequences.
The work around is for the CHURCH not to do weddings.
The pastor, as a religious man, is now hired as an independent vendor. He serves at his own pleasure in accordance with his faith.
“In the aftermath of Obergefell v. Hodges, pastors and church members are experiencing a wave of anxiety over what many of them deem the “nightmare scenario”: lawsuits or government action designed to force them to perform or recognize same-sex marriages. While there are — so far — no meaningful judicial precedents that would permit such dramatic interference with churches’ core First Amendment rights, lawsuits challenging church liberties are inevitable.”
Here is an idea. Sue first. Put the left on the defensive and force them to defend their position, not you defending yours.
I am so sick and tired of the right not fighting back. It’s our country, our laws and we are called the radicals? And this is where the problem lies.
Like the TEA party said a long time ago, we aren’t a single group, but are a bunch of individuals doing what is right for the country. Sorry sister, that no longer flies. We need to coalesce around one leader, with one vision and fight the war to take our way of life back from those that want to destroy it.
You can isolate an individual. You cannot isolate a movement, aligned with a single goal.
I suspect a lot of people have been devastated to learn that the Ayatollah Khomenei was right all along when he referred to the United States of America as “the Great Satan.”
We need tort reform in the worst way and until that happens churches should kick ALL marriages back to the courts.
The true faith is always underground.
JMHO.
Well,the good news is, if history teaches us anything it’s that Christianity thrives best under persecution, perhaps we have grown too idle and complacent over the last century and this is just the kick in the butt we need.
Exactly!
The local congregation can perform a “Rite of Matrimonial Celebration / Confirmation” as it regards the State affirmed marriage. Justice-of-the-Peace marriage and then, HIE THEE to the church!
Such a rite would not carry the imprimatur of the State but decidedly WILL carry God’s blessing.
XPian church should get out of the State directed and sanctioned “marriage business”...NOW!
:: I suspect a lot of people have been devastated to learn that the Ayatollah Khomenei was right all along when he referred to the United States of America as “the Great Satan.” ::
Ooooooooo!
That will leave a mark!
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.