Ethics: Millionaire Gay Couple Sues to Make Your Church Hold Their Wedding

What would you do Wednesday!

In the United Kingdom a Millionaire gay couple is suing to force a church to hold their wedding. If the couple were to win lawsuit it would not directly affect the United States, but it could motivate some Americans to pursue similar lawsuits. This post offers a similar scenario American churches could face someday.

What if a similar lawsuit were happening here in the U.S. and it was against your local church? What if a millionaire gay couple were suing to force your church to hold their wedding?

The congregation eagerly sits in the pews waiting. Sunday morning worship service has just ended. The members of your local church stay seated in the pews anticipating the congregational meeting. The meeting starts in 10 minutes.

There has been a lot of chatter  and a lot of prayer over the past week since the news broke on Monday. The news is that a millionaire gay couple is suing the church. They want the court to force the use of the church facilities for their wedding. The couple find something especially attractive about the 150 year old church building.

The meeting starts. The congregation will have to make a decision in the next 30 days of whether or not to battle the gay couple in court. Basically, the gay couple has more financial resources than the church. The church’s attorney has communicated that the couple plans to fight in court to the point of bankrupting the church.

In 30 days at the next congregational meeting, the church will vote to either fight the lawsuit or forfeit their facilities for the same-sex wedding.

What would you do?

  • Save the church’s money for more important causes and let them use the facilities.
  • Let them use the church if they agree to an especially high facility usage fee.
  • Fight the couple (using outside fundraising if necessary) since this is a gospel issue.
  • Let them use the facilities while the congregation passes out gospel tracts on the wedding day.
  • Or…

Here I blog…


Let's connect!

tagged as , in Christianity,Church Issues,Culture,ethics

{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }

1 mariep April 9, 2014 at 1:08 pm

In a few weeks time, we should be able to say, “Read our constitution.” 🙂 For us, it would need to be, “Fight the couple (using outside fundraising if necessary) since this is a gospel issue.” We know our ultimate trust is in God, but hopefully the proposed constitutional amendment will help!

2 Scott McClare April 9, 2014 at 9:43 pm

I would definitely fight this. Not only is it a gospel issue, but it would also be an issue affecting the integrity of my church, and finally a Constitutional one.

And if all else failed, the “happy couple” would be hearing a sermon on their special day perhaps they didn’t anticipate.

3 Richard April 9, 2014 at 11:20 pm

If we can use their house to preach repentance and faith in Christ maybe we could come to an agreement ?

4 Mark Lamprecht April 11, 2014 at 9:42 pm

Richard, interesting idea! I’d love to see how they would answer that proposal.

5 GK November 16, 2014 at 12:41 pm

What would I do? This is not an easy question.
Letting them use the facilities is not an option, not while its a Gospel preaching church, regardless of how much they’re willing to pay.

mariep says she’s in favour of fighting them in court, but that might take years and cost a great deal of money, and I wouldn’t be hopeful of a positive verdict from a court considering that activist judges are present and have no problem squashing the liberties of Christians. Sadly I doubt that either the homosexual couple or the court would take much notice of their new amendment to their constitution.

I like the suggestions to pass out tracts and preach the Gospel on their so-called “wedding” day, or at their house. But they would never allow it. They want Christians to surrender their faith. They won’t compromise at all.

That article is just astonishing evidence of the agenda to achieve super-rights for homosexuals that crush the rights of everyone else.

Firstly: “We’ve launched a challenge to the government’s decision to allow some religious groups to opt out of marrying same-sex couples.”
I suppose the Church of England can blame the government for treating religious freedom as something they can “allow,” implying that it could also be denied. And they can also blame themselves if they haven’t dealt with this situation before it got to this. However, its clear that these homosexuals, and many more as we know, want to deny Christians, among others, their religious freedom.

“It is no reflection on our local church, who have been nothing but supportive towards us.”
How has the Church of England not disciplined their local church for not disciplining them. Did they not want to scare away the money of wealthy attendees while trying to maintain an appearance of Biblical faithfulness? One of those will have to go.

“It is a shame that we are forced to take Christians into a court to get them to recognize us…legislation still protects the right of churches to opt out of performing gay weddings, specifically the Church of England.”
Well, even taking Christians to court will not get them to recognize, by which they mean “approve of,” homosexuality. Note that his very words here in this quote again reveal the agenda to strip Christians of their rights if they refuse to surrender their faith.

6 GK November 16, 2014 at 1:12 pm

This does also remind me of the question of being so attached to and reliant on church buildings. Yes, facilities are a great convenience and assett, and a 150 year old church building is probably beautiful. But this is the disadvantage in Western Society, which is being given over.

One option I thought of was to sell the church building quickly. Then, even if the new owner would allow the homosexual couple to have their so-called “wedding” there, the church wouldn’t have to deal with it.

An interesting option I’ve just thought of in the event that the court rules that the church must perform the so-called “wedding”, would be to arrange for all the church members to fill a special service on the day of the so-called “wedding,” so that the so-called “wedding” couldn’t be held. What would they do then? Would the court actually arrest people for using their liberties of belief, expression and association? They might. But that would pull the mask off of the ugly face of the agenda…hopefully for most people, anyway.


Previous post:

Next post: