Worcester Diocese Asks Judge to Dismiss Gay Couple's Suit over Northbridge Real Estate Deal

By Gary V. Murray
Telegram & Gazette
June 6, 2014

http://www.telegram.com/article/20140606/NEWS/306069787/1116?utm_source=Front_Page_Headlines&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=201466

The Oakhurst Retreat and Conference center at 120 Hill St., Whitinsville, formerly the Diocesan House of Affirmation, (T&G Staff File Photo/SUSAN SPENCER)

A lawyer for the Diocese of Worcester asked a judge Thursday to dismiss a lawsuit filed against church officials by a gay couple alleging the two men were denied the right to buy diocesan property in Northbridge because of their sexual orientation.

The request was made during a Worcester Superior Court hearing at which the couple's lawyer asked Judge Richard T. Tucker to find, as a matter of law and without the necessity of a trial, that they were the victims of unlawful discrimination.

Judge Tucker took both motions under advisement.

The civil lawsuit alleges the diocese backed out of the real estate deal in 2012 because the men were gay and church officials feared they might hold same-sex weddings on the property.

The diocese denies the allegations of discrimination and maintains the couple's offer to buy the Oakhurst Retreat and Conference Center in the Whitinsville section of Northbridge was turned down "solely due to business reasons."

James E. Fairbanks and Alain J. Beret of Sutton, a married gay couple, filed suit against the diocese two years ago after their offer to buy the retreat center, a 44-bedroom mansion at 120 Hill St., Northbridge, was rejected by the diocese.

The property was owned by House of Affirmation Inc., an affiliate of the diocese, and had once been the site of a treatment center for pedophile priests. The treatment center was shut down in the 1980s.

Mr. Fairbanks and Mr. Beret had plans to renovate the property for use as a banquet facility and their private residence.

Arguing in support of her motion for summary judgment Thursday, Meris L. Bergquist, the lawyer for Mr. Fairbanks and Mr. Beret, pointed to a June 8, 2012, email sent by Monsignor Thomas Sullivan, who oversees the sale of diocesan property, to the diocesan broker. This was after the couple had made a revised offer of $550,000 for Oakhurst and six acres of the 26-acre site, according to Ms. Bergquist.

"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 we will not accept their revised plan and the Diocese is making new plans for the property. You find the language," read the email, which was inadvertently sent to Mr. Beret, according to the suit.

"The email is crystal clear," Ms. Bergquist told Judge Tucker. She argued that the sale of church property on the open market, as opposed to a private sale, was "a completely commercial activity" unprotected by the diocese's religious rights.

James G. Reardon Jr., the lawyer for the diocese, said the June 8, 2012, email came after Monsignor Sullivan, in a May 31, 2012, email to the broker, set a June 6 deadline for Mr. Fairbanks and Mr. Beret to "fish or cut bait" on the purchase of the property.

Mr. Reardon said the couple never obtained bank financing for the purchase and failed to establish that they were "qualified" buyers. He told the court diocesan officials never asked the men about their sexual orientation or whether they planned to hold same-sex weddings on the property.

"From my client's perspective, these individuals simply never came up with the money," Mr. Reardon said.

Citing case law, he argued that the question of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation could not even be considered from a legal standpoint unless the couple first established that they were qualified buyers with the financial resources to make the purchase.

He further argued that because of the Catholic Church's opposition to same-sex marriages, the diocese would not have sold the property to a heterosexual couple if they knew that it was to be used for same-sex marriages, just as they would not have sold it for use as a bar.

"It's a First Amendment religious rights case," Mr. Reardon said.

Ms. Bergquist, who also cited case law to support her position, said the diocese was not legally entitled to refuse to sell the property because of concerns that same-sex weddings would be conducted there.

She also said she disputed Mr. Reardon's claims that her clients were not qualified buyers and that diocesan officials did not suspect they were a gay couple.

Ms. Bergquist asked the judge to consider a friend-of-the-court brief filed by Attorney General Martha Coakley supporting the plaintiffs' contention that the actions of the diocese violated the state's anti-discrimination laws.