New Owner of Whitinsville Retreat Won’t Host Gay Unions

By Susan Spencer
Telegram & Gazette
October 19, 2012

http://www.telegram.com/article/20121019/NEWS/110199672/1116/raw_headlines#.UIFY-lEY3tQ

The new owner of Oakhurst retreat and conference center, formerly the Diocesan House of Affirmation, said he will forgo his plans to host weddings there if it meant he would have to allow gay weddings.

Asked about the center’s compliance with state anti-discrimination law, which forbids discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, James M. Knott Sr. said his center would be private property.

“But I will study it,” he said. “If necessary, I’ll have nothing there.”

He said he plans to preserve the property, in the Whitinsville section of town, as he has done with other historical sites in Northbridge.

Mr. Knott, of 456 Hill St., is the owner and CEO of Riverdale Mill Corp. in Northbridge, which is housed in one of several buildings that had fallen into disrepair before he restored them.

In addition to Oakhurst, at 120 Hill St., Mr. Knott has bought and is restoring other Hill Street properties, including the former Northbridge Centre Congregational Church at the top of the hill and an 18th-century home at 1700 Hill St.

“That’s what I do,” Mr. Knott said.

Last week he bought the Oakhurst mansion and its 26 acres for $800,000. He said he planned to restore the 89-room mansion as a conference center, which would also host weddings — but not gay weddings.

“I have no negative feelings about gays,” he said in an interview. “Gays can be who they are and live the way they want. I just do not support that style of life.”

The property is the subject of a Worcester Superior Court civil suit filed by two gay men who accused Roman Catholic Diocese of Worcester officials of discriminating against them on the basis of sexual orientation while they were negotiating to buy it. James Fairbanks and Alain J. Beret, a married couple from Sutton, said they planned to renovate the mansion and turn it into a banquet hall to host weddings and other functions, as well serving as their personal residence.

Their suit alleges they were turned down by church officials solely because they are gay and might have held same-sex weddings on the property.

Mr. Knott said that besides the gay-wedding issue between the Diocese and the former interested buyers, “My bid was above theirs. They couldn’t afford the $1.4 million that it was on the market for.”

Mr. Beret, reached by telephone yesterday, said, “It was disheartening to hear that it was sold to someone that would carry the banner of anti-gay sentiment.”

He added that Mr. Knott bought far more acreage, which was the most valuable piece of the property.

“You’re not comparing apples to apples,” he said. “I think all things considered, we were offering a better deal.”

After Mr. Beret and Mr. Fairbanks submitted a revised offer to the Diocese of $550,000 for the mansion and four of the 26 acres, Monsignor Thomas Sullivan, administrator of the House of Affirmation, sent an email to the diocesan broker, according to the lawsuit.

The email, which was forwarded erroneously to Mr. Beret, said, “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.”

Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination spokeswoman Barbara Green said same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts and if the commission were to receive a complaint from someone who was denied the opportunity to rent the function hall for a gay wedding or reception, while it could be rented for heterosexual weddings, it would investigate and adjudicate the matter.

“That would be discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,” she said.

According to information on MCAD website, Massachusetts civil rights law protects people from discrimination in public accommodations as well as in housing, employment, credit, mortgage lending and education.

Discrimination is prohibited based on race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, handicap (disability) or sexual orientation at places of public accommodation.