Was this gay couple right to sue the Catholic Church?

To me (even though I am Catholic) yes, they were right.

This is an example of religion interfering with commerce. There is a long history in the United States of commerce being discriminatory/non-discriminatory. Much of the legal history of civil rights is based on freedom of prejudice in commercial activity.

It was the crux of the civil rights movement, when black protesters sat at the lunch counter in North Carolina, when Rosa Parks sat in the front of a bus.

If the Church doesn’t want to sell a property, they don’t have to, but in the US no one gets to discriminate against buyers who can pay the necessary amount of money.

Tricky. If it had been an individual refusing to sell, I would say they can refuse to sell to anyone they want. But, an institution that owns many properties can’t refuse. I don’t know the specific laws, but once you get over a certain number of ownership you need to comply with the laws that protect minorities. I don’t remember if sexual orientation was ever added to the federal law? I know it’s been added to some state laws regarding jobs and hate crimes.

When you refuse to sell, the key is that you don’t say why, or make up some other ostensible/fake reason (i.e.: We actually still really want this mansion right now, so we won’t be selling it to you.)
I’m convinced it’s the Church doing their traditional thing of pushing an agenda.

Irrelevant question: Why does the Catholic Church own a mansion? Not very Jesus-like but perhaps it also isn’t Jesus-like for me to judge?

2012: Mass. couple sues Catholic diocese for allegedly blocking mansion sale over gay marriage fears

2014: Catholic Diocese Under Fire for Refusing to Sell Property to Gay Couple

I’m guessing that it’s still in the courts, as I find no reference after 2014.

Absolutely the couple was right to sue. They had the smoking gun:
“The diocese’s real estate agent accidentally forwarded the couple an e-mail in which a diocesan official said the church was no longer interested in a deal “because of the potentiality of gay marriages there.””

The church was relinquishing control of the property on the open market and should have just sold the damned thing. They didn’t even have the cover of the building being a sacred church site – it’s an old house the church used as a retreat.

@dxs Why does the Catholic Church own a mansion? Not very Jesus-like
The Catholic Church is one of the richest institutions in the world. It would make sense that some of the funds would be invested in real estate.

@dxs,
I think they may use such properties as convents, a teaching school for priests. It could be a former archdiocese premises. But I’m simply speculating.

^^The article states that the property was used as a retreat.

Yes, they were right to do so in order to protect all of us from economic exclusion based on fear, ignorance and bigotry. To let something like this slide, it could be any one of us next time for any reason at all. It could be @zenvelo next time for being a Catholic because everyone knows they privately commune with the devil, or @janbb for being a Jew because everyone knows Jews are plotting to take over the world, or @NerdyKeith for being a non-believer or because he is Irish and everyone knows all Irishmen are drunks, or @Yetanotheruser for being a musician because everybody knows musicians are crazy motherfuckers. Or it could be me for being an old white guy and everybody knows we are all crypto neo-cons and letch after teenage girls.

What kind of property was it? Was is a closed church? I think if the property was a prior home and not considered Holy property than they shouldn’t be able to discriminate. If it was considered Holy property, than, I can see why they would deny the sale.

“The married couple from Sutton planned to buy Oakhurst, a former Catholic retreat center in Northbridge, and restore it as a place they could live and host a special events business. Oakhurst was also previously used as a “House of Affirmation,” a treatment center for priests with psychological problems.”

It was a former home, probably donated by the family of a wealthy parishioner. Not-for-profits were the only organizations able and willing to accept the cost of maintenance and overhead on these “white elephants” for decades.

@Pandora Even if it was formerly a church, by Catholic doctrine once they remove the Eucharist, it becomes just another building for sale on the open market. In Delaware Watergap, Pennsylvania, there is an old Catholic church that is now a bar.

@ibsturbro, So it would be considered in the Catholics Church eyes as Holy Land. So I can see them having a problem with this. Before anyone goes on a tangent. Yes, I am aware of the hypocrisy since they let pedophile priest to remain on Holy grounds and still preach even though some of the atrocities may have happened on such Holy Ground. But I can see how they would distinguish a difference of working with a sinner to change vs. in their eyes, helping future sinners to sin on Holy Ground. To them the sale of the property wouldn’t make it any less blessed. They would feel they have a greater responsibility not to send the wrong message to Christian followers.

@Espiritus_Corvus Even if it was formerly a church, once they remove the Eucharist, it returns to being just another building…
There is another step in addition to removing the Eucharist. There would be a formal and ritual deconsecration of the building.

@Pandora So it would be considered in the Catholics Church eyes as Holy Land.
Once the building and property have properly been deconsecrated, it is no longer considered fit for sacred use.

@Pandora The property was a treatment center for pedophille priests and was closed amid scandals in the late 80’s.

I could only find this article for the latest on where this story has evolved.

“After a June 5 hearing in Worcester Superior Court on cross motions for summary judgment, a judge has ruled that neither side in the legal dispute is entitled to a favorable ruling as a matter of law and that “general issues of material fact” make a trial necessary.”

A former private residence used as a retreat for pedophile priests is Holy Land to the Catholic church, @Pandora?
A legacy they need protect?

@dxs The house my grandma lived in when she was a little girl was sold to the Catholic Church as a place for nuns to live, I guess that’s a convent? My sister used to do house calls when she was a nurse at a very nice living quarters for nuns in lower Manhattan. Fabulous piece of real estate.

This song just keeps coming to mind lately.

@Seek Now I have a m*th**f***ing ear worm.

::curtseys::

No. If I wanted to buy a house and the owner didn’t want to sell to me for whatever reason, I would go find another house. Of course, I’m not pathetic either. The courts of so full of BS stuff that real problems can’t be adjudicated.

You can sue whomever you choose. The right or wrong of it is determined by whether or not the court will allow the suit, and then the decision of a jury. We need much more detail on why the couple believe they have standing.

@Yetanotheruser That’s not the reason I asked the question. I’m sorry you missed it.

General anti-discrimination law says, if a buyer meets your terms, you cannot decide not to sell to them, but still have it on the market. To the extent the Church does not even have more than a suspicion that gay weddings will be held there, it is even more egregious.

The courts have generally ruled that one cannot deny good and services to people who want a same sex wedding. The Church’s supposed reason for not selling the house is very much a point of contention in many jurisdictions and appropriate for a suit to be tried.