Gay Marriage Coming After the Church

This is in reference to our Knights of Columbus Halls or any catholic facility that is rented out for wedding to other churches ,etc.

Consistent with the law against discrimination [RCW 49.60], no religious organization is required to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage unless the organization offers admission, occupancy, or use of these accommodations or facilities to the public for a fee, or offers those advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public for sale.

Kate Baker and Ming Linsley, a lesbian couple filed a suit against the Wildflower Inn in Vermont for not allowing them to have their wedding there even they were reported to be a friendly gay B & B. “In the ad done for Maine on gay marriage ballot in November 2012, **Jim O’Reilly of the Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville said he and his wife paid $30,000 to settle the lawsuit from ACLU and can no longer host any weddings simply because they don’t support gay marriage because of their religious beliefs” **
(From their web site – They are a catholic couple with 8 children ages 11-29. In 1984 they opened up a four room B&B and the expanded it over the years).

Weddings were a prime part of their business and by shutting this part of their business down, it has hurt them majorly.

There are so many of these lawsuits.

How about catholic psycologists–

  1. JONAH (Jews offering New Alternatives for Homosexuality) –The Southern Poverty Law Center filed a lawsuit in Superior Court in New Jersey on behalf of 4 men and 2 of their parents accusing them of dangerous sham tactics to “fix something that is not broken”. JONAH offers reparative therapy.
    “Two months ago,

California became the first state in the nation to ban gay conversion therapy for minors when Gov. Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 1172. The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, called gay cure therapy “quackery” and said parents were never informed of its potentially dangerous aftereffects.


I don’t know of a single Catholic church that:

…offers admission, occupancy, or use of these accommodations or facilities to the public for a fee, or offers those advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public for sale.*

Do you?

  • From the linked article

We had a similar case in Canada where the Knights of Columbus were persecuted for not renting their hall out for a same-sex “wedding” ceremony:

It is quite sad to see that the US is now giving Canada competition for being the epicenter of moral decay in the continent. I honestly hadn’t realized that christian persecution in the US had gotten to the point of where it is in Canada.

Let’s pray for this very holy family. Their sufferings in this life will only give them even greater glory in the life to come… It’s their persecutors (and those who supported this bill) who have much to be afraid of.

They do to public Catholics somtimes

A Catholic who offers services to the public isn’t “the Church”, as stated in the linked story’s headline. Seems like another example of media-driven fear mongering.

The article was written by a Pentecostal preacher who is also an activist. It isn’t an objective analysis, but the standard fear-mongering we see in advance of votes on same-sex marriage.

Where gay marriage has been approved, the fears have not be realized. The Washington state referendum which the pastor is discussing has already been approved. His claims will be shown to be false there as well. :shrug:

Setting aside the article cited in the first post, the OP’s concern about Knights of Columbus halls is a legitimate concern. However, it seems that safeguards are routinely put in place:

This is from a 2009 article:

The Vermont law, enacted in early April 2009, includes three specific provisions relating to freedom of religion. The law recognizes that clergy have the right not to preside over same-sex marriages; that religious organizations have the right to refuse the use of their facilities to celebrate same-sex marriages; and that fraternal benefit societies, such as the Knights of Columbus, have the right to refuse to provide insurance benefits to the same-sex partners of their members if the organization has religious scruples against doing so.

The Connecticut law, also enacted in April 2009, includes the same safeguards as the Vermont law. In addition, the Connecticut law allows religious organizations that provide adoption services to deny those services to same-sex couples as long as the religious organization’s adoption services are not supported by state or federal funds.

The New Hampshire legislature is currently debating a gay marriage law that would likely combine some features of the Connecticut and Vermont laws. Like the Connecticut law, the New Hampshire bill would insulate religious organizations that oppose same-sex marriage - as well as their clergy and other employees - from any obligation to provide services that could contribute to the solemnization, celebration or promotion of gay marriage. And like the recently enacted Vermont statute, the New Hampshire bill would protect the right of religiously affiliated fraternal benefit societies that oppose gay marriage, such as the Knights of Columbus, to exclude from membership people who are married to someone of the same sex. It also would allow such benefit societies to deny insurance benefits to the same-sex spouses of members.

This sort of anti-Catholic nonsense is going to continue until the organizations that get sued get enough guts to countersue and hire the most vicious lawyers they can find to defend them and prosecute the countersuit. One or two judgments against these perverts with attendant bad publicity will stop this foolishness. Many of these suits are filed in the belief that the organization will “settle out of court” because doing so is cheaper than going to trial. The bottom line has nothing to do with belief but with getting paid for real or imagined wrongs. It is all a lawyers game!


originally posted by cornbread_r2

I don’t know of a single catholic church that

"offers admission, occupancy, or use of these accommodations or facilities to the public for a fee, or offers those advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public for sale.* ------- --*From Link

Do you?

Knights of Columbus Halls certainly charge fees and many groups rent out the hall for events at least in the New England area.

VANCOUVER, November 30, 2005 ( – The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal has demanded that a Roman Catholic men’s fraternity, the Knights of Columbus, award a lesbian couple damages for refusing to rent them a hall for their same-sex “wedding.”

The Tribunal said the Knight’s, however, had the right, as a religious group, to refuse the facility to the women, but that the women should be compensated for the “undue hardship” that cancelling the event had on them.

“The Knights could have taken steps such as meeting with the complainants to explain the situation, formally apologizing, immediately offering to reimburse the complainants for any expenses they had incurred and, perhaps, offering assistance in finding another solution,” the tribunal’s written decision stated.

In 2003, Deborah Chymyshyn and Tracey Smith rented the hall in Port Coquitlam. When the Knights became aware that it was to be for a homosexual couple, they cancelled the booking. The Tribunal heard the case in January and the ruling was handed down yesterday.

The Knights, faithful to church teaching against homosexual marriage, cancelled the rental contract that had been signed, returned the couple’s deposit and paid for the rental of a new hall and the reprinting of wedding invitations. That still didn’t satisfy the two lesbians who went to the Human Rights Commission.

How much were damages–doesn’t say.

originally post** by George Stegmeir**
This sort of anti-Catholic nonsense is going to continue until the organizations that get sued get enough guts to countersue and hire the most vicious lawyers they can find to defend them and prosecute the countersuit.

Who would that be?

But Campbell, a lawyer for innkeepers Jim and Mary O’Reilly, said Thursday the inn was willing to host same-sex wedding receptions, despite the O’Reillys’ opposition to same-sex marriage, based on their Catholic faith. Campbell, who works with the Alliance Defending Freedom, said an employee was acting without the owners’ permission when she emailed Ming Linsley’s mother, rejecting the request.

Even this is a bit creepy----

I’m glad they got out of the wedding business as a part of the settlement agreement–costly painful decision after so many years of work. Sad because they still have to feed, clothe and educate their children

The Human Rights Tribunal awarded the couple $444.59 for expenses related to reprinting and mailing new wedding invitations and for the difference in cost of renting the new facility. The HRT also awarded $1000 to each of the two women for “injury to their dignity, feelings and self-respect.”

It might be worth mentioning that the HRT recognized that the Knights of Columbus were entitled to a religious exemption. They could have refused the lesbian couple upfront. The damages were assessed because the Knights signed a contract, then broke the contract in a manner which was hurtful.

:rotfl: either your extremly naive or an advocate of gay marriage. just look at another link here on news forums, where the last catholic adoption agency had to cease because of gay rights. do you really believe they will stop prior to forcing the catholic church into recognising that gay relationships are equal to hetrosexual relationships.
as i say naive.

This is not about worldly fairness of distorted values. It is about the salvation of souls. When reading these conversations I always keep that fact in the forefront of discernment.

29% agree that Churches should be forced to conduct gay marriage – BBC Radio’s Today show

Church of England lawyers have warned that section 29 of the Equality act can forced Churches to marry 2 homosexuals

Instead of name calling, how about providing some examples which rebut what I posted? I quoted from a 2009 article which specifically mentioned the religious protections offered in two states with gay marriage. The article mentioned that another state, which was considering gay marriage, had the same protections incorporated into its draft legislation.

If those protections have been inadequate, could you cite some instances where this occurred?

i did.
2009 legislation is just a stop gap, again its naive to believe it’s not. as they say the way to eat a big fish is little bits at a time. but there again you probably know this if your not naive.


I requested that you provide specific examples of where religious exemptions have been inadequate. You say you did provide them, but I don’t see them anywhere in this thread.

yes you see what you want to see.

I will use religious discrimination as an example. It is illegal to discriminate against people on the grounds of religion. That means a Christian shopkeeper cannot refuse to serve Jews just because they are Jews, and a Jewish shopkeeper cannot refuse to serve Christians just because they are Christians. However, there are religious exceptions to this. A synagogue can refuse to marry a couple just because they are Christians and a church can refuse to marry a couple just because they are Jews. The law allows for religious bodies, like churches and synagogues, to discriminate in who they offer their services to. Ordinary businesses, like shopkeepers, are not allowed to discriminate.

That is what is happening here. If you are running a business that serves the public, such as running a B&B or hiring a hall, then you cannot legally discriminate. If you are a church then you can. Wasn’t there a case last year of a small Protestant church that refused to marry a black couple on the grounds of race? That was legal because of the religious exemption from discrimination legislation.

There is an exemption from discrimination legislation for churches, which will allow churches to refuse to perform gay marriages if they do not want to. There is no such exemption for ordinary businesses, so they will have to obey the law and not discriminate.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit