Developing: Pakistani Plane Escorted by UK Fighter Jets — 2 Men Arrested

Listen to the Buck Sexton Show Live on TheBlaze Radio

Faith

MA Catholic Diocese Refuses to Sell Mansion to Gay Couple and Now It’s Being Sued (But What’s the Full Story?)

Sep. 11, 2012 1:00pm Tiffany Gabbay

Most people selling their home, business or other property, likely feel entitled to reserve the right to either accept or refuse potential buyers based on any number of reasons. But if that much is true for private citizens, it could ring doubly so for religious institutions. Such is the case with the Catholic Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts, which has refused to sell an aging mansion house on 26-acres to a married-gay couple. Now that couple is suing the Diocese over what they claim is discrimination.

The Diocese claims it has refused the sale based on the couple’s finances, but James Fairbanks and Alain Beret say it is because the church believed they would be holding same-sex marriages at the mansion — a practice that goes against Catholic doctrine.

The home, a former retreat center, was affiliated with the Diocese and according to Boston.com and had been on the market for quite a while. The couple reportedly believed that the property would serve as the ideal setting for their next venture: an inn that would host weddings and other events.

Boston.com explains what happened next:

When the Diocese of Worcester unexpectedly dropped out of negotiations with them in June, Fairbanks and Beret were shocked — and flummoxed. Then, they say, a church attorney inadvertently forwarded their broker an e-mail from Monsignor Thomas Sullivan, chancellor of the diocese, advising a church broker that he was no longer interested in selling to Fairbanks and Beret “because of a potentiality of gay marriages” there.

Beret, 59, and Fairbanks, 57, plan to file a lawsuit Monday morning in Worcester Superior Court against Sullivan, the bishop, the church’s real estate agent, and the nonprofit retreat center, the House of Affirmation, alleging they discriminated against Beret and Fairbanks on the basis of sexual orientation in the course of a real estate negotiation, violating state law.

“I have lived quietly in the mainstream for nearly 60 years, and I expected to continue that,” Beret said in an interview on Monday. “But I will not continue that at the expense of my dignity.”

Sullivan, meanwhile, is maintaining that he did not know Fairbanks and Beret were gay and that his e-mail was taken out of context. He asserts that negotiations waned because the two men could not secure financing for their first offer and that their second offer was unacceptably low.

“They didn’t have the money, that was it,” he said.

Boston.com provides additional context:

It was not until weeks after the financing fell through, he said, that the church’s broker told him that, in her presence, Fairbanks and Beret had mentioned hosting same-sex weddings at Oakhurst.

Sullivan said, however, that the church, as a matter of policy, will not sell properties where Masses have been celebrated to people who plan to host same-sex weddings. The church will not sell to developers who plan to transform them into abortion clinics either, he said — or to bars, lounges, or other kinds of uses that church officials deem inappropriate.

“We wouldn’t sell our churches and our properties to any of a number of things that would reflect badly on the church,” he said. “These buildings are sacred to the memory of Catholics.”

For his part, Beret insists that Sullivan’s claims that he and his partner who hold same-sex marriage ceremonies at the property are an “outright fabrication.” Beret believes that weddings are weddings, stating, “we never would have had a discussion about ‘gay wedding this’ or ‘gay wedding that.’”

According to Boston.com. Beret said the property was originally listed for $1.45 million — a price he believed was over-market. They reached an agreement to purchase Oakhurst for $1 million, but then claim to have discovered the property was actually in disrepair and would require roughly half-a-million dollars in renovations. Thus, their second offer to the Diocese came in at $550,000.

“With lightning speed,” the church then allegedly decided to pursue other options regarding the property. Sullivan insistes that the couple’s second offer was simply too low and not realistic.

So do you believe the Diocese chose not to sell to Beret and Fairbanks out of a suspicion that the couple who hold same-sex weddings at the venue in the future, or do you think that the couple’s offer of $550,000 was simply untenable? Perhaps it’s a little of both? Weigh in below.

Watch the ABC news clip below that describes the story in detail:

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (146)

huey6367
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 2:04pm
Who left the closet door open?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- PATTY HENRY
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 4:34pm
  REALLY? You’re going to try to paint the hundreds of thousands of Diligent, self-less Catholic Priest throughout the world with the less than .01% of the .1%? Where do YOU expect Satan to attack this Precious Church from GOD? from skid row? Satan already has most of the those people. Our Church is under attack, always has been, but the souls saved; the good works accomplished far outweigh any problem you are trying to say here. YES Pedophiles are disgusting and it’s a terrible sin. WE all know that including the 99.999 percent of the Catholic Priests.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 4:51pm
  @Patty
  
  “ou’re going to try to paint the hundreds of thousands of Diligent, self-less Catholic Priest throughout the world with the less than .01% of the .1%?”
  
  A voluntary 2004 survey of all US Catholic churches found that 4% of all Catholic priests have been accused of sex crimes against children; 80% of the crimes were against boys. All told, about 1.5% of all Catholic priests have been convicted of sexual abuse (many others could not be convicted due to the statute of limitations, or because the priests have already died).
  
  As the survey was voluntary, it is quite possible that the number is larger. But those are the official numbers right now.
  
  Your .01% of .1% is completely incorrect, even if we expanded the Catholic priest proportion to the entire world.
  
  Report this comment
- FoxholeAtheist
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 5:56pm
  Patty, every time you give money to the Catholic church, part of that is used to help priests who have ra p ed children. By your membership, that makes you personally an enabler. That makes you personally part of the problem.
  
  Report this comment
- TRUTHandFREEDOM
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 6:19pm
  Huey,
  You’re still painting a very large majority with the sins of a small minority … if your voluntary poll is anywhere near accurate.
  CNN has a poll today saying that Obama has a considerable lead over Romney, but the truth behind the poll is that it largely over samples Democrats, under samples Republicans and barely samples Independents. The poll is useless except to show the lack of credibility in many polls and in CNN.
  
  I’d advise the Church to sit on the property. Avoid a $ loss now & don’t allow the left to politically spit on the Church & property.
  
  This isn’t about anything except anti-Catholicism and anti Jude o Christian principles advancing through our society and culture for the political purpose of advancing the kind of oppressive government (progressive/socialist/communist/marxist) that can only rise in the absence of God and Biblical principles of self responsibility & don’t covet thy neighbor’s goods, help others YOURSELF & raise funds from donations.
  
  As John Adams said; “The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If “Thou shall not covet,” and “Thou shall not steal,” are not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free. “
  
  Report this comment
- Centurian
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 9:14pm
  @foxholeatheist,
  
  What are you smoking? That is one of the most absurd statements that I have ever read!
  
  First off, it seems to be the left’s most used, worn out rambling whenever religion is brought up. Get a different argument going.
  
  Secondly, your argument is pathetic. If I ate supper at a local diner every Sunday at noon, and I found out later that the man who owned the diner was a pedophile, am I culpable for his actions? No. I have no control over another person. The only way I would have, could have, and SHOULD have, been held responsible is if I knew what he was doing.
  
  Please, think through your statements a little better…
  
  Report this comment
- ashestoashes
  Posted on September 12, 2012 at 9:14am
  I respect every citizen’s Constitutional right to do with their own property what they wish..sell to whom they want..rent to whom they want..oh but that’s right..our Constitutional rights are null and void with this “politically correct” society.. I beleve the dieces that the “couple” didn’t have the money..so it looks like they decided to sue to get it..plain and simple and are using political correctness and hate crimes to do it.. As far as the perils of the Catholic Church goes..it is written in 1 Cor 6:9 those who will not enter the kingdom of heaven..and idolotry is mentioned among them..we are to make no graven images of anything on the earth..above the earth or below the earth..and we certainly are not to pray to anyone or anything except to God the Father in Jesus’s name..
  
  Report this comment
Twinkiediddle
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:59pm
REALLY?? One more boo hoo their gay and life isn’t fair story?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Marine25
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 5:56pm
  The bishops and priests express moral outrage with a legal gay marriage performed on property they used to own but historically have shown no objection to felony rape, pedophilia, child abuse or the harboring of pedophiles and rapists on property they actually own.
  Homosexuals are a protected class under Massachusetts law…are hypocrites?
  
  Report this comment
- Centurian
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 9:15pm
  @Marine25,
  
  Please try another argument. All you are doing is belittling religion by making the same mistake others do by using guilt by association. It doesn’t work here….try again.
  
  Report this comment
- Twinkiediddle
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:58pm
  Marine, just because Massachusetts says it is legal, does not mean I have to believe or agree that it is legal. It find homosexuality immoral and disgusting. I do not believe it to be a protected class under equal protection as i do race or creed.
  
  Report this comment
- Nobugginme
  Posted on September 17, 2012 at 5:20pm
  @Twinklenuts, Thats your right to believe it’s immoral and disgusting, and it should be against the law, BUT it’s not and you are being a bigot.
  
  Report this comment
COFemale
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:56pm
When you are selling a property you have the right to chose acceptance or deny an offer regardless. I do not have to sell to a gay couple if I don’t want too. It is not discrimination; that only applies if you deny based on nationality or race not sexual preference. Gays are not protected.

I am with the Diocese, they do not have to accept the offer regardless. This is just a pissed off gay couple who has an agenda in the first place to stick it to the church.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Locked
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 2:55pm
  “When you are selling a property you have the right to chose acceptance or deny an offer regardless. I do not have to sell to a gay couple if I don’t want too. It is not discrimination; that only applies if you deny based on nationality or race not sexual preference. Gays are not protected.”
  
  Do you have anything to back this up? Everything I’ve been reading says you’re wrong:
  1. Refusing to sell because someone is a member of a protected class is discrimination.
  2. Sexual orientation is a protected class in MA. This is explicitly stated in the state’s own Fair Housing laws.
  3. Ergo, discriminating based on sexual orientation is indeed discrimination
  
  Now, whether they would have sold before the price drop is another matter (the e-mail that was accidentally sent seems to indicate the church would not sell even with the original offer). That will be up to a court to decide, however.
  
  Report this comment
- barber2
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 2:57pm
  LOCKED: Is ” white conservative” considered a “protected ” class yet ? With our New Left it should be.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 3:06pm
  @Barber
  
  “Is “ white conservative” considered a “protected ” class yet ? With our New Left it should be.”
  
  Ha! I feel the same way sometimes! I do think “political ideology” should be included if we’re going to include things you can change, like religion.
  
  Report this comment
- DLV
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 5:24pm
  Locked- wouldn’t that be unconstitutional? I mean a house is private so you should be able to sell or not sell to anyone right? That makes sense. If an atheist had a problem selling to a Christian buyer he should not need to. I would not have an issue. I agree with the Diocese.
  
  Report this comment
Bua
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:53pm
A Real Estate agent must show a property to all sorts of comers ( no pun intended) but the owner of a property is free to choose or refuse any comer that wishes to purchase said property and is free to state or wthhold reasons for doing so. However, any adverse publicity gotten from any controversial refusal, unfortunate for them that it may be, is simply part of the game.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- shorelineliz
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 6:39pm
  Amen. My Dad bought our house in Seattle from a Lutheran Minister with reservations but we were all on the same Christian page back then in 1956. Times have changed. People need to realize that.
  
  Report this comment
Locked
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:45pm
Looks like a violation of MA Housing laws to me.
http://apartments.about.com/od/massachusetts/a/Massachusetts-Fair-Housing-Law-Protected-Classes-Under-State-Law.htm

“In addition to these protected classes, Massachusetts offers legal protection based on:

Sexual orientation (“which shall not include persons whose sexual orientation involves minor children as the sex object”)”

The article flat-out states that even if they had the money, “the church, as a matter of policy, will not sell properties where Masses have been celebrated to people who plan to host same-sex weddings.” You’re legally allowed to host weddings at your house, so that would be a violation of state law to forbid a sale based on that criteria.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- COFemale
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:58pm
  That deals with apartments not homes owned by people. Get your facts straight. I don’t have to accept your offer regardless what I think you might use the premises for. As a home owner I can say buh bye, take a hike.
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 2:04pm
  The lowball offer (50%) & the gay issue are confounded. It might make a jury trial a little more iffy than you think.
  
  I wouldn’t be surprised if they were not even gay. They is just an act that they use to go after the church. Get the property at the lowball price get damages & go into business. After all you got the RCC to fund your business start up.
  
  If a church wouldn’t sell to a bar or other such places I think the church is holding to their values consistently.
  
  I surely wouldn’t want to be out & proud during a potential economic collapse that is coming. It would make the warfare in the south (or the rest of the country) during the American Revolution look like a picnic. It wasn’t all about the British.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 2:06pm
  @Cofemale
  
  From what I’m reading:
  “In SELLING, renting, or leasing real property
  A.) The U.S. Fair Housing Amendments act of 1988 makes it illegal to discriminate against any person because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap (disability), familial status, or national origin (coverage includes PRIVATE HOUSING, housing that receives Federal financial assistance, and State and local government housing.);”
  http://homeforward.org/residents/fair-housing-laws
  
  Capitalization my own. MA’s laws extend the definition of protection to several other groups, based on sexual orientation, age, etc.
  
  Here’s another site that says the same thing:
  “The Fair Housing Act applies to ALL housing transactions (unless exempted by law, see below).”
  http://activerain.com/blogsview/957105/a-few-exceptions-to-the-fair-housing-act
  
  If you have sources that say differently, please let me know. Right now it looks like you’re wrong.
  
  Report this comment
- DLV
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 2:08pm
  Well then wouldn’t the law be unconstitutional? Don’t people (if it’s a private house or business) have the right to sell or not to sell based on any criteria they want? I don’t have an issue of an atheist owner not selling a house to a christian because he is christian. I really don’t see what the big deal is.
  
  Report this comment
- COFemale
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 2:10pm
  Sex is male or female NOT GAY.
  
  Report this comment
- 1TrueOne55
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 2:20pm
  This Link will show you the actual State Law not some paraphrase of it.
  http://www.mass.gov/mcad/fairhouse.pdf
  
  Read the whole page and at the bottom the law allows for “Owners” a limited exemption but does not state what that is. So it can be thought that the Catholic Church might be listed in that category on “Religious” grounds?
  
  Report this comment
- COFemale
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 2:20pm
  So they added “sexual orientation” to the language. Goody for them. However,
  
  I still have the right to refuse based on financing and offer. They offered 1 mil then 550,000. I would turn them down too. The 1 mill offer was 68% of asking. The 550000 was about 38% of asking.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 2:20pm
  @Cofemale
  
  “Sex is male or female NOT GAY.”
  
  Read again. “Sexual orientation” is protected under MA law.
  
  @DLV
  
  It’s quite possible, although I haven’t been able to find any SCotUS cases (I’ve been looking). Perhaps Cofemale knows of some, as he/she seems rather convinced of his/her arguments.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 2:42pm
  @Cofemale
  
  “I still have the right to refuse based on financing and offer. They offered 1 mil then 550,000. I would turn them down too. ”
  
  However, the leaked e-mail shows that even with the pricing at 1 million, they were to be refused on the grounds of sexual orientation:
  “a church attorney inadvertently forwarded their broker an e-mail from Monsignor Thomas Sullivan, chancellor of the diocese, advising a church broker that he was no longer interested in selling to Fairbanks and Beret “because of a potentiality of gay marriages” there.”
  
  It will be up to the court to see if this is evidence enough that the seller was discriminating based on sexual orientation. If you refuse to sell based on that criteria, the money issue itself doesn’t matter.
  
  Report this comment
- 13th Imam
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 3:12pm
  So if you put your house up for sale, for $500,000.00 , and couple A make an offer of $25.00, if the couple happens to be gay you have to sell the house for the $25.00 offer? If you do not agree on a price of $25.00 you are discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation?
  
  Report this comment
- ComingUnglued
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 3:21pm
  $1million dollars off the asking price? The church should jump at the chance to sell. NOT. Would any of us take that offer, have a clue.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 3:23pm
  @13th
  
  “So if you put your house up for sale, for $500,000.00 , and couple A make an offer of $25.00, if the couple happens to be gay you have to sell the house for the $25.00 offer?”
  
  Nope.
  
  “If you do not agree on a price of $25.00 you are discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation?”
  
  Nope.
  
  Granted, that’s not equivalent to what happened in this article. I think you probably knew that, though :-)
  
  Report this comment
- FreedomIsResponsability
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 4:41pm
  and a violation of the constitution to force a religious institute to do something against the precepts of their religion. Federal trumps state.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 4:57pm
  “and a violation of the constitution to force a religious institute to do something against the precepts of their religion. Federal trumps state.”
  
  In general, this is true. Thus, the court will have to decide. As the church in this case is crossing over into the domain of property (through selling on the private market, as opposed to keeping it within the church), I’d wager that property rights (also part of the Constitution) will trump religious rights. This is especially true as there is no exception for religious property that is sold privately (this is spelled out in the fair housing law itself).
  
  Report this comment
- Anderson45
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 7:57pm
  Locked, you are correct that MA fair housing law says that an owner can not refuse to negotiate specifically due to sexual orientation. However, the anti-discrimination laws which cover employment and property for Massachusetts also has this in there:
  
  “Notwithstanding the provisions of any general or special law nothing herein shall be construed to bar any religious or denominational institution or organization, or any organization operated for charitable or educational purposes, which is operated, supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization, from limiting admission to or giving preference to persons of the same religion or denomination or from taking any action with respect to matters of employment, discipline, faith, internal organization, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law which are calculated by such organization to promote the religious principles for which it is established or maintained.”
  
  So it could be argued that since this is a religious institution that if the diocese did indeed refuse solely on the possibility of gay-marriages occurring there. It may be considered a faith issue and would not be required to sell based on their beliefs.
  
  Here is the link for everyone on the fair housing law in Massachusetts: http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXI/Chapter151B/Section4
  
  Report this comment
Mrflannery
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:44pm
Whats the big deal…they’ve been mo lesting boys there for years…but they have a problem with consenting adults?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- COFemale
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 2:03pm
  And you have bonafide proof of this or are you just proving what a DH you are. I think the latter.
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 2:15pm
  When did you stop molesting boys?
  
  It is a fair question. The rate at which priests molest boys is the same or less than the rate at which the general public molest boys.
  
  Mathematically, if you make that statement saying priest molests boys, I can assume that you molest boys.
  
  So I ask you, when did you stop? Or did you?
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 2:22pm
  COFemale
  
  No I am thinking he is a pedophile. I draw that conclusion, because it is a mathematically certainty.
  
  Report this comment
- barber2
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 2:38pm
  WALK: And I have heard that Harry Reid heard that a veritable source next to Bain Capitol heard that Mr. Flannery was a molester .
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 2:47pm
  barber2
  
  Flannery did not say that a few priests molested boys. He did not say it was a minority of priests molested boys. He left it all hang out there.
  
  So I don’t feel bad at all. I am just using his logic.
  
  I would hope that 0% of priest molested boys just as I would hope that 0% of public would. I expect priests to be better & they appear to be percentage wise, but not by much.
  
  So what are the RCC bashers going to argue next. They are not better than the public by a big enough percentage?
  
  They bash, I am going to bash back at times. I don’t claim to be religious.
  
  Report this comment
- barber2
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 3:31pm
  Walk: And I salute your sane approach. The hate being spewed by the Far Left toward ” Bible thumpers and gun owners” and, well, anyone they do not share the same values is appalling . America has been a successful society because we have operated with a growth in respect for those who are ” different” from us. The rise of the Islamic fanatics and the Radical Left puts all of that success in jeopardy . Hate is a great divider. Hitler and other dictators knew that . So did Alinsky.
  
  Report this comment
Owt_Raged
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:40pm
Wow, this couple better be able to prove they have impeccable credit, otherwise, the church has plenty of grounds to not sell to them. Heck they can back out just because it’s Tuesday, if they want to.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Walkabout
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:47pm
  Ya they cut the asking price by 1/2.
  
  This couple looks like Mutt & Jeff (short & tall) & to boot they also look like a May-December romance.
  I wonder if they are actually a couple or were trolling as a team looking for so called discrimination.
  
  I just don’t believe they are a couple not with all the lookism I read about in JMG.
  
  Report this comment
BloodSweatandTears
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:28pm
Did you notice the twisted words? …..”because of your sexual orientation you’re not worthy to own a piece of property….” said Beret.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- AvengerK
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:43pm
  Exactly….the church didn’t say that..they said they didn’t want a place that was used to hold mass now used for purposes counter to church doctrine. The church isn’t deeming anyone unworthy of owning land, the correct term would be the buyers are unsuitable for the purchase. Furthermore, the buyers dropped their offer by nearly 50% a riduculous offer by any stretch..clearly they were trying to go cheap by declaring the property was dilapidated. At that point the church said the deal’s off….which is the owner’s perogative when a prospective buyer is looking for faults and lowering their offers.
  
  Report this comment
BODYBAG
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:20pm
The word is spelled “mansion” not “mantion”.

Product of Chicago public schools? Is there an editor in the house?
I mean geez, even this website has an auto spell-check feature built-in.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- BODYBAG
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:34pm
  Spelling is a minor issue compared to what this story really communicates:
  
  This is just a scant whiff of the nightmare pandora’s box that will be opened
  with gay marriage if it becomes legalized nationally. It will be used just like
  this as a tire-iron to bully and intimidate anyone and everyone into submission.
  
  Report this comment
- RJJinGadsden
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:38pm
  BODYBAG, The auto spell check is in your browser. Two of my browsers provide an auto spell check when I am on this site, while my usual internet provider does not.
  But, your Chicago public schools assessment is spot on. This morning the news when talking about that story pointed out that only 15% of their fourth grades can even read. The best paid public school teachers in the nation provide a 50% graduation rate too.
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:54pm
  RJJinGadsden
  But, your Chicago public schools assessment is spot on. This morning the news when talking about that story pointed out that only 15% of their fourth grades can even read. The best paid public school teachers in the nation provide a 50% graduation rate too.
  ***
  Really? That explains a 2nd cousin once removed. Teacher said he couldn’t be taught to read in 3rd grade or ever. Said he was hopeless. Relative sent him to a very conservative Christians school & voila, he can read. Were not talking about a school at a major metropolis either.
  
  Screw the Teacher’s unions. They are the problem.
  
  Report this comment
M-O-O-N Spells Moon
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:19pm
As an out of work writer and editor I was going to pounce on that typo, but I see that my fellow readers have amply explored the boundaries of that issue. Drat, I was so looking forward to being a smart-alec.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Larry E
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:43pm
  After reading the Billings (Montana) Gazette this morning, I think that they are either in dire need of an editor or proof reader at least, or should just fold up their leftist rag and go fishing.
  
  Report this comment
Jpdrum13
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:18pm
I think if it’s your house you can sell to whomever you want.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- NHwinter
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:39pm
  26 acres in MA! And they want it for $550,000. The property alone is worth much, much more than that. Aside from that point, if it is the church’s position not to sell any property where Mass was held for something that is not in line with their teaching, then so be it. Their offer is too low no matter what reason they come up with to fight it.
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:42pm
  If a persons sounded out the word in the mind phonetically it seems correct. It the last four letter sound like the last 4 letters of the word nation.
  
  Still the headline didn’t seem right. At 1st glance I asked my self what is a mantion or is their a British was of spelling it like that.
  
  Report this comment
RightUnite
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:18pm
Editor… Really… Check that headline before posting… Just saying….

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
TheBigMike
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:17pm
Blaze, can you spell, “professional?” “Credible?”

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
jackact
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:16pm
The ‘full story’ is this: in Massachusetts there are many black liberation churches and Muslim mosques that are fiercely opposed to gay marriage and they will be left alone.
You see they don’t have the word Catholic in those houses of worship.
And that’s the truth.
:(

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
red_white_blue2
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:16pm
I personally think the fact that they caught wind of the potential gay weddings was the decision maker and that the financing just sealed the deal further. The financing was God’s way of giving them some cover in our sue happy society.
They didn’t want to sell to them for a reason. They have that right to deny them. Suck it up, and move on folks. Stop wining and man up..uhh, no pun intended..lol

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
MadenNZ
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:14pm
It’s getting bloody annoying when people keep shouting ‘bigotry and especially racism’ to try to win an argument. They were denied simply because they failed to provide adequate finances to purchase the home. Duh…if you can’t pay for it, you can’t have it!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- COFemale
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 2:09pm
  Tell that to Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae. They sold homes to people who could not afford them all the time. That is what got us in trouble with the housing market in the first place and we still haven’t recovered.
  
  Report this comment
Joe Bonham
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:13pm
More hysterical drivel from the Blaze.

The church screwed up and inadvertently showed their hand with the incriminating email… now they’re trying to change their story after the fact.

As for the couple involved… you guys don’t want that house. Little boys were probably molested in there.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- phillyatheist
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:18pm
  nice! for the record i’ve read the letter in it’s entirety, and i’m quite surprised it wasn’t linked or published here. it’s quite incriminating.
  
  Report this comment
- IsThereADifference
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:31pm
  “little boys were probably molested in there…”
  
  If the two queers found that to be true they would be offering more than 500k… No telling how many little boys those two nasty bastards have fondled.
  
  Report this comment
- AvengerK
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:31pm
  So it’s “incriminating” is it PHIL? Ok champ so what next? You’re going to litigate the property owners into selling to buyers they don’t want to sell to? Can we do the same with your home then? Which offer do you think the court should force the church to sell for? The first one or the second one?
  
  Report this comment
- phillyatheist
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:45pm
  AVENGERK – all i am saying is that the email that the story referred to illustrates their change of mind being solely due to the couple’s sexual orientation. yes, i believe that is wrong and discriminatory. i agree that you have the right to sell your house to whoever you choose, just don’t get caught doing something overtly bigoted. once there’s evidence of wrongdoing then you have legal standing. i’m no lawyer so i don’t know all the legal issues but it appears as though there’s a case.
  
  Report this comment
- hidden_lion
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 2:25pm
  Philly-
  Even if they win, they can’t make the church sell to them for less than the $1million offer that was initially entered.
  
  Report this comment
- AvengerK
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 5:39pm
  PHIL..perhaps if you read the article instead of merely voicing your reflexive hatred of christians..you’d see that the correspondence in question states that buyers are “shaky” and that the intended purpose of the buyers is counter to the church’s doctrine. The church is protected on both fronts and routinely denies sales of church property to questionable enterprises. No where does the church state that the sale was denied based on the prospective buyers’ sexual orientation. It was based on their offers being “shaky” and the intended use of the building..the church’s rights are protected on both scores.
  
  Report this comment
commonsenseguy
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:11pm
so if someone don’t get their way or what they want they just scream racism no matter if it is true or not, i think i am going to sue the government for discrimination,because they support blacks and gays more than they do whites, this may or may not be true,but so what i will get attention is that not the end game.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Alecto
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:10pm
This is outrageous to the point that I would burn the house down before I would allow myself to be forced to sell it to these two lying, pig nazi thugs.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:13pm
  Agreed.
  
  Report this comment
- phillyatheist
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:15pm
  and who says Conservatives are bigots?
  
  Report this comment
- mcsledge
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:22pm
  phillyatheist – I read an article this morning that claimed incest should be OK as long as they are not trying to procreate. Perversions are perversions. Just because you may condone the acts of degeneracy doesn’t mean the rest of us have to.
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:22pm
  People like you Philly, who doesn’t understand the notion of private property rights, that’s who.
  
  Report this comment
- Gonzo
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:24pm
  Philly you’re an anti conservative, anti Christian bigot. Quit throwing stones in your glass house.
  
  Report this comment
- momrules
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:28pm
  I agree ALECTO. Regardless of the reason the sale fell through the Church owns the property and can refuse to sell it to any potential buyer. Just another lawsuit by a couple of unhappy homosexuals who did not get their way.
  
  Report this comment
- phillyatheist
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:49pm
  MC – i don’t even want to know where you read an article like that. i’m sorry, but being gay and incest are not in the same ballpark.
  
  GHOST – as i wrote elsewhere here, i’m all for individual property rights. however, they slipped up by getting caught in this email. they forwarded it to the couple but forgot to remove the part about them being gay as the reason for the change of mind. you can discriminate all you like, just don’t get caught.
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:59pm
  @Philly
  
  Individual property rights and deciding who to sell to or not sell to doesn’t include the notion that you’re not allowed to say why. That itself is a violation of freedom of speech. So now we have two flagrant violations, maybe three (if for religious reasons the rejection occurred).
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 2:32pm
  phillyatheist
  i’m sorry, but being gay and incest are not in the same ballpark.
  ***
  I beleeve there was a case in Arkansas. Not only that the kid ended up dead.
  
  Report this comment
- Git-R-Done
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 3:46pm
  Phillyatheist – It’s you Marxists who are hypocritically preaching tolerance and diversity while practicing the opposite. At least us conservatives don’t preach tolerance and diversity.
  
  Report this comment
- bornbitter
  Posted on September 12, 2012 at 2:24am
  @Philyatheist
  “I’m sorry, but being gay and incest are not in the same ballpark.”
  
  This argument fails so badly it isn’t funny… sexual desire and ‘love’ in the eyes of the participants is in no way the same as… sexual desire and ‘love’ in the eyes of participants? Did I get that right?
  
  Your statement is based on the great gay lie: gay sexual drive is so much more valid and demanding than Hetero. It’s not. Even looking at it from an atheist/scientific point of view, in which sexual desire and attraction is nothing more than hormones, nerve stimulation, and chemical reaction.
  
  While gay/incest are NOT the same, that argument it is born from this concept and the concept is completely bunk. Not only are they in the same ballpark, they are both in the dugout if not sharing a locker and jock-strap.
  
  The quiet 800lb gorilla in the room for this entire topic/debate is the truth: Homosexual drive is no more powerful than any other sexual drive, and is in fact much less valid. Some control passions, some are controlled. Even outside religion homosexuality serves no purpose; a genetic, scientific, and social dead-end. It only serves individual passions; incredibly selfish, as opposed to hetero, which has scientific/genetic, social, and religious purpose.
  
  Be honest with yourself in your arguments.
  
  Report this comment
Banter
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:10pm
Tiffany,

It’s the other “S” on your keyboard.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
AvengerK
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:09pm
The owner of the property is entitled to sell or deny sale of the property to whoever they see fit.
There’s no issue here. Real Estate deals fall through all the time.
Feret and Fairbanks should just move on and find another property within their price range.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Mikev5
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:24pm
  So true no one has to sell you anything if they don’t like you unless the deal has been finalized then you could scream bloody hell
  
  You can’t force someone to sell you anything if they don’t choose to do so
  
  Report this comment
- neither1
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:28pm
  Here’s the thing, the Massachusetts Fair Housing Law states:
  THE FAIR HOUSING LAW DECLARES THAT IT IS ILLEGAL TO DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF RACE, COLOR RELIGIOUS CREED, NATIONAL ORIGIN, SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, AGE, CHILDREN, ANCESTRY, MARITAL STATUS, VETERAN HISTORY, PUBLIC ASSISTANCE RECIPIENCY, OR HANDICAP (MENTAL OR PHYSICAL)
  
  So, does the bishop’s email, which says: ““I just went down the hall and discussed it with the bishop. 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.”
  
  Obviously sexual orientation played a part in the denial of sale. Is it discrimination according to state law, then?
  
  Report this comment
- AvengerK
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:38pm
  See the “I think they’re shaky anyway” clarification NEITHER1? That means the owner had doubts about their offers, that’s ample grounds to deny the deal and move on. Feret and Fairbanks’ offers were too low, the homosexual marriage issue is an additional concern and the church’s rights are protected on those issues as delineated in the article, they often deny sale based on the intended use of a property. The buyers were shaky, their intentions for the home disagreeable to the church. Time for the buyers to move on.
  
  Report this comment
- AvengerK
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:48pm
  See the distinction NEITHER1? Intention for the propterty, not the fact that the buyers are homosexuals..but what they intended to do with the property. The church’s rights are protected on this issue, they dont’ have to sell to someone who will use the property counter to church ideals.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 3:09pm
  @Avengerk
  
  “the homosexual marriage issue is an additional concern and the church’s rights are protected on those issues as delineated in the article, they often deny sale based on the intended use of a property.”
  
  Er, the problem being that homosexual orientation IS a protected class in MA. Gay marriage is not a valid reason to deny the sale of a house, and the exceptions to the fair housing legislation do not have to do with the future purpose of the property.
  
  Report this comment
- AvengerK
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 5:32pm
  Er LOCKED…by all means..with you being the Blaze’s resident rainman-esque word scrutinizer…show me where the church states that they won’t sell the property because the buyers are homosexual?
  The article states two reasons..the buyers are “shaky” and the intended purpose of the building by the buyers. The church’s rights are protected on both counts.
  So which offer would you like the court to coerce the church in to accepting LOCKED? The first one or the second one?
  
  Report this comment
neither1
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:07pm
Mantion? Who writes in archaic? Is the author a Brit? Next time try, m-a-n-s-i-o-n.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
travlman77
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:06pm
Mantion (Manikion), also known as Sougb or Sogh, is a language of the East Bird’s Head language family spoken in East Bird’s Head, east of Meyah, south of Manokwari. It consists of four dialects and is spoken by around 12,000 people in all.

I’m so confused!!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Gonzo
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:06pm
‘Refuses to Sell Mantion’?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- floridareader
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:33pm
  If all you see is a mistake in a letter, and still got the message right, you are digging in the wrong place. Come on people!
  I also wrote “dell” instead of “sell” but that can be corrected.
  
  Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:03pm
“MA Catholic Diocese Refuses to Sell Mantion to Gay Couple and Now It’s Being Sued (But What’s the Full Story?)”

Mantion? Mantion doesn’t even pass a basic web browser spell check.

Good gravy, Blaze staff, I mean, c’mon.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Steverino
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:09pm
  GHOST-
  C’mon, man – it’s only one different letter from “mention”!!! That’s perfect speling! (sarcasm)
  Sheesh, Blaze.
  Steve
  
  Report this comment
- floridareader
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:12pm
  This is stupidity in steroids. If I have a property I decide who to dell it to. No court, no judge should be able to force the sale.
  
  Report this comment
- commonsenseguy
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:12pm
  union taught
  
  Report this comment
- LeadNotFollow
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:22pm
  …
  The Blaze staff makes these errors on a regular basis. Someone will come in shortly and correct it.
  I don’t understand why they don’t spell-check and proof-read before printing a story.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.