Coakley Challenges Church in Bias Suit

By Jack Sullivan
Commonwealth Magazine
March 13, 2014

http://www.commonwealthmagazine.org/News-and-Features/Online-exclusives/2014/Winter/030-Coakley-challenges-church-in-bias-suit.aspx#.UyL9a_l_uSp

ATTORNEY GENERAL MARTHA COAKLEY thrust her office into the middle of a civil suit against the Worcester Diocese, saying the church’s refusal to sell property it owns in Oxford to a married gay couple is discrimination not protected by any right to religious freedom.

Coakley’s office on Thursday filed an amicus brief in Worcester Superior Court saying the Worcester Diocese violated state law by refusing to sell a former Whitinsville home used for pedophile priests to Alain Beret and James Fairbanks after Bishop Robert McManus learned the couple was gay and planned to turn the home into a function center for a variety of events, including gay weddings.

“[The church’s] interpretation of the law is incorrect and, in the context of this case, the rights of religious freedom do not entitle the Diocesan defendants to discriminate against plaintiffs on the basis of sexual orientation,” the brief states.

Beret and Fairbanks had made an agreement in 2012 to purchase the property, called Oakhurst, for $1 million, paying a $75,000 deposit and contracting for a home inspection. But, after the inspection, they learned they would have to buy a sprinkler system for nearly $250,000 in order to make the 44-bedroom mansion into a bed and breakfast and function hall. After consulting with the realtor, they submitted a revised offer to purchase only the mansion and a smaller portion of the 24-acre property. The following day, the realtor sent the couple an email stating the diocese was pulling out of the deal because they had “other plans” for the property.

Though diocesan officials told a Telegram & Gazette columnist they killed the deal over concern about the couple’s finances, the message the couple received from the realtor inadvertently included a copy of an email sent to her from Monsignor Thomas Sullivan, one of McManus’s top aides.

“I just went down the hall and discussed it with the bishop,” Sullivan wrote to the realtor. “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.”

The church subsequently sold the property to a former Christian Scientist, who says he plans to also develop a function facility, though he will not allow gay marriages.

Beret and Fairbanks, who have been together for more than 35 years and married since 2004, filed suit seeking damages in the fall of 2012, claiming they were discriminated against because they are gay. Last month, the Diocese filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming state law allows them to assert their religious beliefs in real estate transactions. The couple filed their own motion for summary judgment, which prompted Coakley to join in on their side.

While the church has the right to adhere to its canonical beliefs in internal matters and in dealing with property the church owns, the attorney general’s brief claims the church cannot exert its religious rights in the sale of property because Massachusetts law forbids discrimination in real estate transactions.

It’s a point that could have a broader impact. At the time the church pulled out of the sale, CommonWealth magazine ran a story documenting restrictions the Boston Archdiocese as well as the other dioceses in Massachusetts were placing on deeds. The restrictions barred those who purchase church property from using the real estate in any way that violates church teachings in matters such as abortion counseling, stem cell research, birth control counseling, and euthanasia. Many of the restrictions even forbid using former church properties for charter schools in order to restrict competition for the shrinking number of parochial schools.

Coakley’s office says real estate law expressly prohibits, with very few exemptions, placing restrictions on titles that run counter to the state’s laws on discrimination and constitutional rights. In the Worcester case, the brief says, the Diocese failed to prove it would be unduly burdened by having to sell the property without restrictions.

“The only burden, then, is that a subsequent use of property formerly owned by them offends them,” says the brief.