Church Sued for $2.3 Million for Not Hosting LGBT Event in Building It Owns

[SirLinksALot]

SOURCE: CHRISTIAN POST

URL: https://www.christianpost.com/news/church-sued-for-2-3-million-for-not-hosting-lgbt-event-in-building-it-owns-224457/

by Michael Gryboski


An Oregon business has filed a complaint against a church that prohibited it from hosting an LGBT event in a building owned by the church, claiming that the fallout from that decision has harmed the company.

In 2015, Ambridge Event Center, which once rented out a space owned by Holy Rosary Church for various events, was compelled to reject an LGBT group's request to hold an event on the property due to the church's "morals clause."

In a lawsuit filed last week in Multnomah County Circuit Court in Oregon, Ambridge alleged that the church's rules against them hosting the LGBT event caused them harm. They are seeking $2.3 million in damages.

The PFLAG Portland Black Chapter, an African-American LGBT support group, sent a request to Ambridge to have an event held at the venue they were renting from Holy Rosary.

Ambridge had to decline the request and then apologized, stating that the refusal came at the order of Holy Rosary.

Although PFLAG considered filing a complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, the organization did not do so in part because churches are exempted from state antidiscrimination law, according to Oregon Live.

Rod Dreher, a senior editor at The American Conservative and author of the book, The Benedict Option, wrote in a column published Tuesday that "this will not be the last challenge of this sort against churches."

"If an LGBT activist group targets a private business for working with a church it considers to be anti-LGBT, and its campaign results in that business going under, will the business owners take the church to court seeking damages? It would seem to me to be a frivolous lawsuit, but then again, in this climate, who knows?" wrote Dreher.

(EXCERPT) CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE REST...

[IsailedawayfromFR]

We either have freedom in this country or not.

Giving into to tyranny is not.

[SirLinksALot]

We either have freedom in this country or not.

Giving into to tyranny is not.

Remember  Barry Goldwater? The man was not a racist and in fact helped, employed and defended a lot of blacks from discrimination when he was in office. However, he refused to support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he was concerned that it would step on the Freedom of Businesses to decide for themselves who they want to do business with. His idea of Freedom of Speech includes the freedom of association and also the freedom to be a bigot.

His argument was that if a business is foolish enough to refuse to service a person because of his race or ethnicity, LET THEM HAVE THE FREEDOM TO DO IT. He believes that other businesses will exist to take away the profits of the bigoted business. In other words, he believed that the Free Market will sort it all out.

The end result is of course LBJ succeeded in painting him not only as a war monger, but as a racist who hankers for segregation and the KKK. Goldwater lost by a landslide when he ran against LBJ.

so, here we are today, extending the Civil Rights Act not only to blacks but also to LGBT who equate themselves with blacks. In other words today, if you deny your business to someone because of their orientation ( really because you do not want to participate or celebrate their actions ), it is equivalent to denying your business to someone because of the color of his skin.

[Fishrrman]

I sailed wrote:
"We either have freedom in this country or not.
Giving into to tyranny is not."

Well, we do still have "freedom" in -some- states of this country.
In others, not so much, particularly where the Second Amendment is concerned.

The America we were born into is "dividing", the same way the pre-War Between the States America did in the 1850's.

Some of the states remain "traditional freedom" states, where traditional-minded Americans (mostly of European descent) still dominate.
Other states have become "the new slavery" states, that seem to trample upon such rights.

You (and everyone else reading this post) know what I'm talking about.

I think the fate of the church mentioned in the original article will be decided (as will a LOT of other related issues) by the "Colorado cake case" ruling that will be issued by the U.S. Supreme Court on its very last day of the current session. Probably a week or two into June. That's "the big decision" of the year, and these are always held back to the last few days of the Court's sitting.

I also take note of SirLinks' post right above, regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Along with the Voting Rights Act passed about the same time, two of THE MOST DESTRUCTIVE pieces of legislation ever passed by Congress (along with the immigration act of 1965).

None of these laws should exist.
I also don't much care for the 14th Amendment, either.
(Actually, I don't care for ANY of them after number ten!)

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Remember  Barry Goldwater? The man was not a racist and in fact helped, employed and defended a lot of blacks from discrimination when he was in office. However, he refused to support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he was concerned that it would step on the Freedom of Businesses to decide for themselves who they want to do business with. His idea of Freedom of Speech includes the freedom of association and also the freedom to be a bigot.

His argument was that if a business is foolish enough to refuse to service a person because of his race or ethnicity, LET THEM HAVE THE FREEDOM TO DO IT. He believes that other businesses will exist to take away the profits of the bigoted business. In other words, he believed that the Free Market will sort it all out.

The end result is of course LBJ succeeded in painting him not only as a war monger, but as a racist who hankers for segregation and the KKK. Goldwater lost by a landslide when he ran against LBJ.

so, here we are today, extending the Civil Rights Act not only to blacks but also to LGBT who equate themselves with blacks. In other words today, if you deny your business to someone because of their orientation ( really because you do not want to participate or celebrate their actions ), it is equivalent to denying your business to someone because of the color of his skin.

Are you possibly suggesting that to deliberately disallow freedom to someone we should prosecute that person?

Pleas explain.

[Hoodat]

Remember  Barry Goldwater? The man was not a racist and in fact helped, employed and defended a lot of blacks from discrimination when he was in office. However, he refused to support the Civil Rights Act of 1964

So did over 30% of Democrats.

[mountaineer]

A few years ago, when I was an elder in our PCUSA church, I tried to get the session to adopt a written policy about this sort of thing in order to protect ourselves from the next PFLAG-type bunch of nuts. Our then-interim pastor (a left wing probable lesbian) pooh-poohed the notion and prevented any discussion of the matter. I had come armed with materials and a proposed policy from the Alliance Defending Freedom, to no avail. So, no policy is in place, and that congregation may be sued some day.

That was just one of many things that led to Mr. M and me leaving that denomination.

[SirLinksALot]

Are you possibly suggesting that to deliberately disallow freedom to someone we should prosecute that person?

Pleas explain.

Not at all. What I am saying is this --- we should allow FREEDOM for everyone and let society do the ostracizing.

Bigots will be bigots but it  should not be criminalized. I believe in the fundamental decency of Americans. if someone is so bigoted that he does not
want to do business with another person purely because of his race or ethnicity, he should have that distasteful right without fear of government. Decent Americans have every right to boycott and not patronize his business and I am certain that this news will spread throughout the community.  The bigot will be punished with loss of business.

We don't need the Federal government to come swooping in.

And entrepreneural Americans can start their own competing business that WILL SERVE those the bigot refuses to serve.

I am fully with Barry Goldwater here.

[SirLinksALot]

So did over 30% of Democrats.

Many people did not support the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But different people had different motives ( some were racist motives ).

However, Goldwater's motives were not bigoted nor racist.

[INVAR]

This shit was intended and designed to destroy the Christian church and reshape it into a pro-Homo/Secular Humanist religion by the homosexual mafia and the Godless Marxist Left.

It is better to obey God rather than men.  Tell them to pound sand - and refuse to comply with any ruling or orders that trample on their right to the free exercise of conscience, religion, association and faith.

We either refuse and resist, or we will be subjugated, enslaved and eliminated.

That is where all of this goes.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Not at all. What I am saying is this --- we should allow FREEDOM for everyone and let society do the ostracizing.

Bigots will be bigots but it  should not be criminalized. I believe in the fundamental decency of Americans. if someone is so bigoted that he does not
want to do business with another person purely because of his race or ethnicity, he should have that distasteful right without fear of government. Decent Americans have every right to boycott and not patronize his business and I am certain that this news will spread throughout the community.  The bigot will be punished with loss of business.

We don't need the Federal government to come swooping in.

And entrepreneural Americans can start their own competing business that WILL SERVE those the bigot refuses to serve.

I am fully with Barry Goldwater here.

Thanks for clarification.

[Hoodat]

Many people did not support the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But different people had different motives ( some were racist motives ).

However, Goldwater's motives were not bigoted nor racist.

Goldwater is my hero.  He took a stand against a Congressional bill purely on political ideology.  And for that he was ostracized as the poster child for Republicans hating black people.  At the same time, other politicians holding executive positions stood in the doorways of public universities shouting "Segregation forever!" and called out the national guard to prevent black children from attending certain public schools.  Some like JFK even did what Goldwater did, failing to vote for the 1957 Civil Rights Act.  Yet none of them are held to account for racism.  Instead, it is written off as some sort of family squabble.  Lies are even told about Wallace, Faubus, et al actually being Republicans, or that Dred Scott was handed down by a Republican Supreme Court.

And it is the lies that sicken me even more than the overt racism of the Democrat Party.  This country would have been a much better place had Goldwater won in 1964.  At least there wouldn't have been a Vietnam War.