homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Modern Redlining

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.    
Source: (consider it) Thread: Modern Redlining
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Somewhat related to the thread on racism and homophobia, I came across this article in the Worcester [Massachusetts] Telegram:

quote:
James Fairbanks and Alain Beret were pursuing the purchase of Oakhurst, a 44-bedroom mansion in Northbridge, owned by the Diocese of Worcester. Fairbanks and Beret had searched for two years for the perfect renovation project, and hoped to turn the run-down estate into a banquet facility. Previously, the pair had transformed mansions in Vermont and Barre into similar businesses.

“When we saw Oakhurst, we fell in love with it,” Beret said.

The asking price of $1.4 million was negotiated to $1 million. On May 18, the pair signed an offer to purchase with a $75,000 deposit. They paid $3,000 for a home inspection. They also met with various town boards, all of which expressed enthusiasm for the project because it would save the historic building from developers seeking to raze it.

“These men had a good plan,” said Barbara Gaudette, Northbridge Planning Board chairwoman . “They have the background and experience. We would welcome that.”

So far, so good. A buyer and seller negotiate a price acceptable to both, and then . . .

quote:
The next day, they received a brief email from the diocese's broker, LiSandra Rodriguez-Pagan, saying that the diocese decided to pursue “other plans” for the property.

Beret and Fairbanks were stunned, but perhaps they should have anticipated rejection from the church. The men are gay and have been together for 35 years. They married in 2004 and live quietly in Sutton.

<snip>

As noted, if you're going to discriminate, you should cover your tracks. Inadvertently attached to the email rejecting the counter offer is an email from Msgr. Sullivan to the diocesan broker:

“I just went down the hall and discussed it with the bishop,” Msgr. Sullivan wrote. “Because of the potentiality of gay marriages there, something you shared with us yesterday, we are not interested in going forward with these buyers. I think they're shaky anyway. So, just tell them that we will not accept their revised plan and the Diocese is making new plans for the property. You find the language.”

Finding the right euphemism to queer real estate deals with the 'wrong sort' has a certain historical feel to most Americans. So I guess I'm wondering a couple things. First, how often do you think sellers still tell their agents to "find the language" to get out of a sale to the 'wrong sort', given that it seems likely that in most cases the seller would be better about not leaving a paper (or electron) trail? And second, if anti-gay people and organizations want to claim they're totally not at all like mid-twentieth century American racists, why do they keep recycling their arguments and tactics?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
First, how often do you think sellers still tell their agents to "find the language" to get out of a sale to the 'wrong sort', given that it seems likely that in most cases the seller would be better about not leaving a paper (or electron) trail?

Frankly, I suspect the majority of sellers realise they haven't got the slightest say in what happens to a property AFTER selling, and recognise it's none of their damn business. That's what selling means.

It's far more likely to be an issue in contexts where it's the use of your property that's in question. As in property you'll continue to own.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Frankly, I suspect the majority of sellers realise they haven't got the slightest say in what happens to a property AFTER selling, and recognise it's none of their damn business. That's what selling means.

You'd think so, but including racially restrictive covenants in property deeds was commonplace in American real estate until recently. The immediately previous Chief Justice of the Supreme Court actually owned two such properties (unwittingly, he claimed).

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Wow. I stand corrected.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Until the covenants were ruled by courts to be improper (was it in 1949?), many land deeds in British Columbia restricted further sale to those of Asian origin.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Amorya

Ship's tame galoot
# 2652

 - Posted      Profile for Amorya   Email Amorya   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My house has a bunch of covenants on the land (that I had to agree to when buying it) that are anti-Gypsy. They weren't put there by the previous owner, but way back when the land was first sold from some lord of the manor to the council for property development.

They're more about not letting Gypsies camp in the garden rather than restricting who the house is sold to, but I guess it's similar.

Posts: 2383 | From: Coventry | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That's regrettably quiet common in properties from the first half of the last century; the wording tends to read, "Not to erect or permit the erection of any booths shows fairs or roundabouts nor to keep on the land any caravan house on wheels or any other chattel adapted or intended to be adapted for a sleeping apartment."

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478

 - Posted      Profile for Organ Builder   Email Organ Builder   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:


As noted, if you're going to discriminate, you should cover your tracks. Inadvertently attached to the email rejecting the counter offer is an email from Msgr. Sullivan to the diocesan broker:

“I just went down the hall and discussed it with the bishop,” Msgr. Sullivan wrote. [b]“Because of the potentiality of gay marriages there, something you shared with us yesterday, we are not interested in going forward with these buyers. I think they're shaky anyway. So, just tell them that we will not accept their revised plan and the Diocese is making new plans for the property. You find the language.”

If I had a suspicious mind, I would think this was one of those deliberate accidents, caused by a broker who was going to be losing a sizable commission because of the control issues of the seller.

--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson

Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638

 - Posted      Profile for The Scrumpmeister   Author's homepage   Email The Scrumpmeister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:


As noted, if you're going to discriminate, you should cover your tracks. Inadvertently attached to the email rejecting the counter offer is an email from Msgr. Sullivan to the diocesan broker:

“I just went down the hall and discussed it with the bishop,” Msgr. Sullivan wrote. [b]“Because of the potentiality of gay marriages there, something you shared with us yesterday, we are not interested in going forward with these buyers. I think they're shaky anyway. So, just tell them that we will not accept their revised plan and the Diocese is making new plans for the property. You find the language.”

If I had a suspicious mind, I would think this was one of those deliberate accidents, caused by a broker who was going to be losing a sizable commission because of the control issues of the seller.
I thought that as I read it, but wondered whether this was out of the agent's sense of the injustice of the thing.

--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis

Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053

 - Posted      Profile for TomOfTarsus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm just curious, and in no means (seriously) trying to stir up trouble or a Hell call for myself, but what do y'all see as the difference between the OP, and KJS being unwilling to sell churches to congregations moving into the ACNA from TEC, to the point that she actually sold one to a Muslim group rather than the schismatics? (I think it was in Virgina, I'll dig a reference out if anyone cares, but she's made her position quite clear.)

Politics aside, it seems like the same deal to me, except in KJS's case, she knew what the buyers were going to use the facility for, in the OP it was only a potential use that irked the seller. ISTM that either both are right, or both are wrong.

Ah, yes, Monday morning and the noxious smell of flogged quine flesh wafts across the intarwebz!

Blessings,

Tom

--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.

Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Was the church in Virginia one that fought mightily in the courts to keep the property to themselves free and clear? That might explain something of the TEC attitude. Thousands (millions?) were poured into law fees to maintain the church's right to its own property.

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
(Doh! This church computer has so little memory left that it took over two minutes to post the above. So I couldn't edit. [Frown] )

Anyway, I meant that it cost a lot in some instances for the TEC as a denomination to hold on to its property. So they weren't about reward the schismatics no matter how uncharitable it made the TEC look. I must admit selling the property to Muslims was rubbing salt in the wound.

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053

 - Posted      Profile for TomOfTarsus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, it's an ugly situation all the way around, but this link from NPR quotes KJS directly:
quote:
According to Jefferts Schori, the only people who can't buy the buildings are the Anglicans.

"I've had two principles throughout this," Jefferts Schori says. "One, that the church receive a reasonable approximation of fair market value for assets that are disposed of; and, second, that we not be in the business of setting up competitors that want to either destroy or replace the Episcopal Church."

So in one sense I can see her point. But if so, then I must allow myself to see the point in the OP.

Blessings,

Tom

--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.

Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Seems to me like the difference between a B&B with a 'No Blacks, Irish or dogs' sign and a B&B where the owner and her ex-husband had a messy divorce, fought over who owned the B&B, and the Ex is most certainly not welcome.


You can disagree in the second case about whether the landlady is right or not about the ex husband but it makes no difference to the first case. Even if you think the ex-husband is a saint who has every right to have his full English breakfast served to him by his fuming ex-wife, it cannot possibly make situation (1) OK.

It's like saying that in the squabble over particular manses between the Free Church and Free Church Continuing that belonging to the Free Church Continuing is the same as being an Irish Traveller with the risk of facing prejudice from more more privileged groups wherever you go.

[ 13. August 2012, 22:40: Message edited by: Louise ]

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
Well, it's an ugly situation all the way around, but this link from NPR quotes KJS directly:
quote:
According to Jefferts Schori, the only people who can't buy the buildings are the Anglicans.

"I've had two principles throughout this," Jefferts Schori says. "One, that the church receive a reasonable approximation of fair market value for assets that are disposed of; and, second, that we not be in the business of setting up competitors that want to either destroy or replace the Episcopal Church."

So in one sense I can see her point. But if so, then I must allow myself to see the point in the OP.

Blessings,

Tom

The key word in there is "competitors". While not knowing all the ins and outs of the law here (especially not American law), it's entirely conceivable to me that whatever your form of 'business', you're allowed to discriminate against your competitors. You're not actually discriminating on an impermissible ground then.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053

 - Posted      Profile for TomOfTarsus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, Orfeo, I'm no lawyer either, but it seems to me that TEC is able to determine who they sell their building to, and for what purpose it will be used. THere is nothing about law, and everything about ideology, in KJS's statements - a hard heartedness, it feels like to me (and I don't have a dog in this hunt). Further, Baptists are "competition" and, for that matter, so are Muslims, so on legal grounds I don't see how her argument could stand. I do know a lawyer who is actually familiar with this business, so maybe I'll ask him.

I really can't see Louise's point there.

Best,

Tom

--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.

Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053

 - Posted      Profile for TomOfTarsus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry to double-post, but if you check the article, you'll see that prior to KJS's election, parishes had negotiated with the diocese to purchase their properties. She put a stop to that. Again, I don't want to get into the particulars of that mess (different dead horse), but the parallel form a legal standpoint seems pretty clear to me - again, though, not I'm not a lawyer...

--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.

Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No, there is not a direct parallel. The ACNA/TEC thing is a result of action, whilst the other is a result of being.
And, as pointed out in the article, straight people buying the property would not preclude gay marriages regardless.

BTW, I see Louise' point quite clearly. Would it help you if the situation in the OP were anti-Black? Could you then see the difference?

[ 14. August 2012, 13:28: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053

 - Posted      Profile for TomOfTarsus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
lilBuddha:

It is very true that, had straight people bought the property, gay marriages could have taken place there. I didn't say their point was valid; I simply said that the question is, does a seller have a right to determine who they will sell their property to? Both parties have reasons, valid or otherwise for why they don't want to sell their property to certain other parties.

As to the race vs. gay issue, there is another dead horse getting flogged over that one.

Best,

Tom

--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.

Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Not sure the law in the US, but you may be correct as to the law relating to the seller not having a choice in buyers.
Legally, though, the anti-gay case would likely have more weight due to a long history of persecution. That particular inter-church squabble does not have this.

Sometimes changing a label to allow a clearer view of the underlying framework. Wasn't crossing streams.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Whether people have the legal right to decide who to sell to is irrelevant, if people decide they won't sell to a group who have historically been victimised in this way in their society then that makes them morally complicit in continuing that discrimination.

It doesn't matter who's right in an internecine war over church property, it doesn't and can't make anti-gay discrimination morally OK, legal or not.

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053

 - Posted      Profile for TomOfTarsus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, I didn't think morality was an issue. And I do think it matters who is right in the church property issue. People pour their hard earned-money and volunteer efforts, etc. into a church, it meas a great deal to many people (as the link noted). Then the national leadership changes course, they get to a point where they feel they cannot be in communion with the leadership, and yet they feel invested, both socially and financially in the church. And yeah, they should've known better, read the fine print, etc, I guess, but the point is, moral or immoral, either people & organizations have the right to be choosey who they sell to, or they don't.

Suppose one is selling a house. Do you have to lay out for examination by some gov't official all the offers you have received, or (and morally to me this is wrong, but) are you free to take any offer you choose, high, low, or in between, if you want to keep certain buyers away? Or does it only get illegal when the reason slips out?

Back to TEC, morally, I think KJS's attitude is unconscionable and unchristian (but I may not know all the back-door details that lead her to make that stand, to change course from her predecessor's position). But ISTM on the face of it that she has that right. And if she does, then the OP does, unless the laws are different there.

--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.

Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Tom, you seem to be completely missing the fact that the law forbids discrimination on certain grouds. Not on every ground. We show preferences each and every day. The law only points to certain preferences and says no, you can't discriminate THAT way when engaged in certain activities.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053

 - Posted      Profile for TomOfTarsus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, my good fellow, that's just it, does it, in this case?

As I said, we can kick the morality of it all around, as we love to do ad infinitum down here in the repose of equines, and, I hope I've made the point that I consider, morally, KJS's actions towards churches who cannot in good conscious continue in communion with TEC, to be at least as immoral as the action in the OP; it is redlining in the extreme, as she says "Anybody but you!" But is it illegal? Apparently not, or some people I know wouldn't be in protracted legal proceedings to attempt to keep their church community intact.

The fact that the situation in the OP is distasteful (and somewhat stupid, as has been pointed out) does not necessarily make it illegal. And I was curious in a way, hence my posing the situation about selling a house. Am I not free to take accept any offer on the table? I may be stupid or immoral to take a lesser offer because I don't like the people making a better offer, but is that illegal? Then too, it may be different with organizations vs. individuals.

Best,

Tom

--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.

Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
The fact that the situation in the OP is distasteful (and somewhat stupid, as has been pointed out) does not necessarily make it illegal.

Except that it is illegal. Massachusetts has laws forbidding discrimination based on sexual orientation. Now in practice it's possible to "find the language" to pretend that you're not doing what you're actually doing, but that doesn't change the law.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Exactly. Hence the phrase from the OP: "You find the language." IOW, fix up the refusal so it looks legal and doesn't drag us into some sort of lawsuit.

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In the UK, at least, there are generally restrictions on what you can and cannot do with church property. For example a few years ago an attempt by the SSPX to buy up a disused church in the Diocese of Manchester was torpedoed when various groups and individuals objected.

Now if the property comes with a caveat that, if sold, it cannot be sold for purposes inimical to the Mission of the Catholic Church and if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the celebration of gay marriage would take place there then the Bishop as a trustee might conceivably have the obligation not to sell the property and, in fairness, I can quite see that a Bishop might not be keen to test his legal obligations as a trustee against the anti-discrimination statutes in Massachusetts.

Mind you, the whole thing seems to have been handled shabbily and unprofessionally, to put it politely. I am assuming, probably naively, btw, that legislation regarding churches and charities in the UK is similar to that in the US. If the two bear no relation then this post is a herring so red that it will be arrested as part of a McCarthyite purge!

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nice to have you back, BTW!

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
In the UK, at least, there are generally restrictions on what you can and cannot do with church property. For example a few years ago an attempt by the SSPX to buy up a disused church in the Diocese of Manchester was torpedoed when various groups and individuals objected.

Now if the property comes with a caveat that, if sold, it cannot be sold for purposes inimical to the Mission of the Catholic Church and if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the celebration of gay marriage would take place there then the Bishop as a trustee might conceivably have the obligation not to sell the property and, in fairness, I can quite see that a Bishop might not be keen to test his legal obligations as a trustee against the anti-discrimination statutes in Massachusetts.

Mind you, the whole thing seems to have been handled shabbily and unprofessionally, to put it politely. I am assuming, probably naively, btw, that legislation regarding churches and charities in the UK is similar to that in the US. If the two bear no relation then this post is a herring so red that it will be arrested as part of a McCarthyite purge!

The legal systems in this particular regard are very different. In the U.S. the First Amendment prevents things like the establishment of religion and (theoretically) means religious organizations can't be treated any better (or worse) than similar non-profit organizations. The "but it's my religion" dodge has been tried before, most notably in the mid-twentieth century as a totem against racial integration. The position then (and still today, as far as I know) was that your religious beliefs can be as racist as you want, but that doesn't get you any special dispensation from the law.

At any rate, I would also question whether something sold by the Catholic Church (or any other church, for that matter) can/should be called "church property" in perpetuity. At what point do the new owners get full rights to "their" property?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That's a helpful point.

In the UK, AIUI, the position would be more a function of charity law rather than establishment. If one is the trustee of a charity one has a legal obligation to act in accordance with the aims of the charity. So a Catholic Bishop (or whoever it is in England and Wales who deals with Catholic Church property) would at the very least be advised to take advice from m'learned friends in an instance of this sort because it could be argued that selling property for an SSM venue was against the aims of the charity and could be referred to the Charity Commissioners who could rule that the sale was not allowed.

Where I think they might have come unstuck is that the Bishop appears to have assumed this was the case based on the sexual orientation of the couple rather than actually establishing the facts and there is no guarantee, of course, that a straight couple putting the same business case in would not at some point either host SSM ceremonies or receptions.

In the UK you can't AIUI refuse to sell a property to someone simply because they are gay, even if you are a church. If you put the Manse or the Rectory or whatever on the open market you can't give the Estate Agents instructions on the QT not to sell it to a gay couple.

And, of course, once the property has been sold it has been sold and the erstwhile owners would no longer have the responsibility of trustees for it. At least one deconsecrated church in the UK has eventually found its way into the hands of a brewer and been converted into a pub. If they start hosting civil partnership receptions the church can't invoke it's former ecclesiastical status as a veto.

Matt - thanks for the good wishes. This is your field. Have I got the right end of the stick viz-a-viz the law or should I stick to the day job?

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's been a while since I had ny kind of contact with charity law, but I think your analysis is correct: a charity established for the purposes of the furtherment of religion is prevented from acting outwith the purposes and practices of that religion.

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643

 - Posted      Profile for Carex   Email Carex   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I was told that, in California, the RCC sold one of the old colonial missions with a clause in the deed that, if the buildings were ever used for other religious ceremonies, title would revert to the RCC.

Does it still apply over 100 years later, after the buildings were rebuilt? I'd leave it to m'learned friends to discuss when I'm not paying them by the billable hour. But, as a result, weddings are held in the gardens, not indoors.

(For all I know, it might be a ruse to keep wedding parties from monopolizing the buildings, which are open to the public.)

Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
I was told that, in California, the RCC sold one of the old colonial missions with a clause in the deed that, if the buildings were ever used for other religious ceremonies, title would revert to the RCC.

Does it still apply over 100 years later, after the buildings were rebuilt? I'd leave it to m'learned friends to discuss when I'm not paying them by the billable hour. But, as a result, weddings are held in the gardens, not indoors.

(For all I know, it might be a ruse to keep wedding parties from monopolizing the buildings, which are open to the public.)

Are weddings necessarily religious ceremonies, though? One can be married (in the US, anyway) by a Justice of the Peace in a ritual with only civil, as opposed to religious, implications.

Of course, if clergy officiate, then we've got a different ball game.

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
Haydee
Shipmate
# 14734

 - Posted      Profile for Haydee   Email Haydee   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But also under charity law the trustees have to act in the best interests of that specific charity. Just as they can only refuse donations under certain conditions, they should take the highest offer unless those conditions apply.

As one of the conditions under which you can refuse a donation is if it contradicts the cause of the charity (i.e. an environmental charity can refuse a donation from a company they see as a polluter, an arts charity can't refuse a donation from a butcher just because half the Board are vegetarian) then in this case it would come back to the wording of the original trust deed/constitution as to what the aims of the charity are - they will be more specific than 'promoting religion'.

(Other conditions are - if the donation comes from an illegal source, if accepting it would cost more than the value of the donation, and there is a fourth but I can't remember it...)

Posts: 433 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
marzipan
Shipmate
# 9442

 - Posted      Profile for marzipan   Author's homepage   Email marzipan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
At least one deconsecrated church in the UK has eventually found its way into the hands of a brewer and been converted into a pub.

Tangent - I know of a pub that was host to a CofE church plant about twenty five years ago and as a result is licensed(if that's the right word) for CofE worship/ceremonies/stuff

back on topic - if you have a property you want to get rid of and you want to attach conditions to what it can be used for after the sale, surely you'd be better off letting it on a 99 year lease or something? wouldn't you think?

[ 18. August 2012, 12:33: Message edited by: cheesymarzipan ]

--------------------
formerly cheesymarzipan.
Now containing 50% less cheese

Posts: 917 | From: nowhere in particular | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You don't need to - you can simply impose restrictive covenants which attach to the land forever and a day unless judicial process removes them or the breach of them is acquiesced in for long enough.

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493

 - Posted      Profile for JoannaP   Email JoannaP   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
As I said, we can kick the morality of it all around, as we love to do ad infinitum down here in the repose of equines, and, I hope I've made the point that I consider, morally, KJS's actions towards churches who cannot in good conscious continue in communion with TEC, to be at least as immoral as the action in the OP; it is redlining in the extreme, as she says "Anybody but you!" But is it illegal? Apparently not, or some people I know wouldn't be in protracted legal proceedings to attempt to keep their church community intact.

AIUI, one difference in the two situations is that ++KJS has said out loud and up front that properties will not be sold to one group of people. Whereas in the OP, a price had been agreed and the would-be buyers had signed an offer to purchase. THEN, having signed that document, they are told that they cannot buy the property.

The Diocese of Worcester seem to have been underhand is a way that KJS has not; whatever the respective moralities of their positions, there is a difference in their actions.

--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin

Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged


 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools