A law suit brought by a gay couple against the Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts, which they allege refused to sell them a retreat property because of the prospect of gay marriages being celebrated on the premises, is being permitted to go to trial after a judge ruled that the case will have to be settled at trial.
NewsTelegram.com is reporting that the case involves a gay couple, James E. Fairbanks and Alain J. Beret, who filed a suit in 2012 against the diocese after church officials rejected their offer to buy the Oakhurst Retreat and Conference Center in the Whitinsville section of Northbridge. The men claim that the diocese backed out of the deal after learning that they were gay and might hold same-sex weddings on the site.
The diocese disputes this claim and says it backed out of the deal because the couple failed to show that they had financing for the purchase and therefore were not “qualified” buyers. Diocesan lawyer James G. Reardon, Jr., also maintains that the diocese was not aware of the men’s sexual orientation but even if it was, the Church was acting under the protection of the First Amendment and the right to the free exercise of religion.
However, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Meris L. Bergquist, said her clients were discriminated against and cited a June 8, 2012 email sent by Monsignor Thomas Sullivan to the broker for the diocese which said, in part: “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 we will not accept their revised plan and the Diocese is making new plans for the property. You find the language,” the email read.
However, this email was sent after a deadline of June 6 in which the diocese asked Fairbanks and Beret to come up with evidence of financing for the deal, something the couple did not do.
The diocese requested a dismissal of the case, but Judge Tucker of the Worcester Superior Court ruled on June 13 that “Genuine issues of material fact do exist for trial on the merits such as when the defendants knew or reasonably could have inferred that the plaintiffs were a gay couple. Additionally, both sides vigorously dispute whether at times pertinent to the anticipated commercial purchase and sale of the property known as Oakhurst the plaintiffs were financially qualified to purchase the property. . . . These issues figure prominently in the positions taken by both parties.”
He added that the case “centers upon the tension between the constitutional guaranty of the right to the free exercise of religion and the Commonwealth’s statutory and decisional law prohibitions against discrimination based on sexual orientation.”
A trial date has not yet been set in the case.
© All Rights Reserved, Living His Life Abundantly®/Women of Grace® http://www.womenofgrace.com
