Topic: Christian Wedding Venue Turns Tables on Gay Agenda, Files Lawsuit

[Pablo de Fleurs]

The owners of an art gallery in Iowa filed a lawsuit against the state’s Civil Rights Commission after being threatened with punitive action for declining a request to plan, facilitate and host a same-sex wedding ceremony.

Betty and Richard Odgaard, a Mennonite couple, own and operate the Görtz Haus Gallery, a 77-year-old building that used to be a church. They filed the suit in Polk County District Court Monday.

“The Odgaards welcome all customers into the Gallery, regardless of their race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion or disability,” the suit states. “The Odgaards cannot, however, host activities or display art that would violate their religious beliefs.”

Betty Odgaard was born and raised a Mennonite. When she and her husband founded the Görtz Haus Gallery (Görtz is Betty’s maiden name), they made sure to keep the old church elements, such as the stained glass windows depicting Biblical images.

With its religious decorations and architectural elements, the gallery has served as a place to express the Odgaards’ faith for over a decade. One of their favorite ways to do that is hosting wedding ceremonies in the old church’s sanctuary. They personally help plan and host every wedding, and are both at the gallery from morning until night for each wedding ceremony.

Lee Stafford told KCCI 8 News in August that he and his fiance, Jared, had toured the Görtz Haus before their planned nuptials. Once the Odgaards realized the event was a same-sex wedding, they declined the couple’s business, saying it was against their beliefs.

“We hire and serve gays and lesbians, and have close friends who are gays and lesbians,” explains Betty Odgaard.  “And we respect that good people disagree with our religious conviction against hosting a ceremony that violates our faith. We simply ask that the government not force us to abandon our faith or punish us for it.”

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is representing the Odgaards. Emily Hardman, the Becket Fund’s communications director, says the case involves “individual freedom.”

“Every Iowan should be concerned that bureaucrats are forcing Betty and Richard to personally host a religious ceremony against their religious convictions,” she says.

The Polk County District Court ruled in favor of six same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses in 2007. A unanimous Iowa Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision in April 2009, making it the third U.S. state to legalize gay marriage.

http://www.charismanews.com/us/41349-christian-wedding-venue-turns-tables-on-gay-agenda-files-lawsuit

[Tania513]

I feel the government has the no right to intrude whether a business has to accept all patronage.

[warpmine]

I feel the government has the no right to intrude whether a business has to accept all patronage.

Since the government was instituted by men to protect my rights and they've failed miserably, I no longer feel that government is in my best interest and want it abolished including the bogus court system. They have become worse than the enemy in an outright war against my Liberty and I therefore declare I'm taking up arms against her. Rot in hell govt.

[OldSailor]

I feel the government has the no right to intrude whether a business has to accept all patronage.

This government has lost sight of its constitutional mandates and restrictions.  This regime is as out of control as any run by 3rd world dictators, the Executive branch does whatever the hell it wants while the Legislative branch sits in a corner and plays with itself and the Judicial sits in another corner and drools all over itself.

[RickZ]

I feel the government has the no right to intrude whether a business has to accept all patronage.

If businesses can post "NO SHIRT, NO SHOES, NO SERVICE' signs, why not a 'NO MORONS SERVED HERE' sign?  Lots of wiggle room with that.

[Dan]

Good for them. I wish them all the success possible.

[Libertas]

Yup, private non-public funded?  Don't like the policy?  Tough sh*t!  FOAD!

 

[Pablo de Fleurs]

It's important to establish your organization's perspective on this issue prior to being asked to perform such a ceremony. Church's especially, should have clear by-laws as to what they WILL & WON'T accommodate  regarding marriage ceremonies. Court rulings tend to look upon documented & established declarations more favorably as regards the "establishment clause" of the first amendment.

The Alliance Defending Freedom has put together a page of suggested language to be used in church by-laws:

SUGGESTED LANGUAGE FOR CHURCH BYLAWS

Statement of Biblical Authority
The statement of faith does not exhaust the extent of our faith. The Bible itself, as the inspired and infallible Word of God that speaks with final authority concerning truth, morality, and the proper conduct of mankind, is the sole and final source of all that we believe. For purposes of church doctrine, practice, policy, and discipline, our [governing board][pastor][elders][Doctrinal Committee] is the church’s final interpretive authority on the Bible’s meaning and application

Membership
The membership of this Church shall be composed of individuals who are believers in the Lord Jesus Christ and affirm the tenets of the ______________________ Church Constitution, and who offer evidence, by their confession and their conduct, that they are living in accord with their affirmations and this Constitution and Bylaws, and are actively pursuing and continuing in a vital fellowship with the Lord, Jesus Christ. The membership of the Church shall have final authority in all matters of church governance, as set forth and described in the Bylaws.

Statement on Marriage and Sexuality
We believe that term “marriage” has only one meaning and that is marriage sanctioned by God which joins one man a nd one woman in a single, exclusive union, as delineated in Scripture. We believe that God intends sexual intimacy to only occur between a man and a woman who are married to each other. We believe that God has commanded that no intimate sexual activity be engaged in outside of a marriage between a man and a woman.

We believe that any form of sexual immorality, such as adultery, fornication, homosexuality, bisexual conduct, bestiality, incest, pornography or any attempt to change one’s sex, or disagreement with one’s biological sex, is sinful and offensive to God.

We believe that in order to preserve the function and integrity of the church as the local Body of Christ, and to provide a biblical role model to the church members and the community, it is imperative that all persons employed by the church in any capacity, or who serve as volunteers, should abide by and agree to this Statement on Marriage and Sexuality and conduct themselves accordingly.

We believe that God offers redemption and restoration to a ll who confess and forsake their sin, seeking His mercy and forgiveness through Jesus Christ.

We believe that every person must be afforded compassion, love, kindness, respect, and dignity. Hateful and harassing behavior or attitudes directed toward any Individual are to be repudiated and are not in accord with scripture nor the doctrines of the church.

A PDF version of this document can be obtained here:
http://www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/content/docs/issues/church/suggested-lang-church-bylaws.pdf

[Libertas]

We've had this discussion elsewhere recently, they should change their bylaws, but some see that has capitulating to secular rules which can and likely will be modified or detroyed later on...the latter may be true but it should not be a reason for not changing them, make them be the first to violate their own rules as well as yours!  Moral high ground = justification for resistance!

[Tania513]

I amsick of political correctness and our government kowtowing to these "specialgroups." If  a business is privately owned, witth no federal funding, then they can accept or decline anyone they want.

[LadyVirginia]

I amsick of political correctness and our government kowtowing to these "specialgroups." If  a business is privately owned, witth no federal funding, then they can accept or decline anyone they want.

No, they can't.  All kinds of laws prohibit discrimination based on ethnicity. Not a far leap to the next protected class once you accept the government has a right to limit a person's use of their property.

[Glock32]

We've had this discussion elsewhere recently, they should change their bylaws, but some see that has capitulating to secular rules which can and likely will be modified or detroyed later on...the latter may be true but it should not be a reason for not changing them, make them be the first to violate their own rules as well as yours!  Moral high ground = justification for resistance!

Yes we did discuss that in another thread. A big part of what's wrong with this civilization is that the so-called clergy (and I am including clergy of every stripe in this -- Protestant, Catholic, non-denominational, whatever) have failed utterly in their mission of being shepherds to the flock. They have demonstrated for all to see that they are not God-fearing as much as they are Government-fearing. They should be in open defiance of assaults on religious liberty and the freedom of conscience. Instead they offer their pinch of incense to Caesar by putting on the bridle and reins known as 501(c)(3) status.

What they should be doing is stating unequivocally that they do have a set of bylaws, and they're known collectively as "The Bible".

[Pablo de Fleurs]

What they should be doing is stating unequivocally that they do have a set of bylaws, and they're known collectively as "The Bible".

While that's an accurate of the Bible as a set of laws, a discussion with Alan Sears, general counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom & who has experience defending such cases in court, pointed me to the by-law language suggestions above. I handed them to my Pastor for consideration along with the board of Elders & the church's law firm.

The Bible would be generally non-admissible as evidence before the court.

[RickZ]

The Bible would be generally non-admissible as evidence before the court.

Yeah, it's only used as a prop for witnesses to swear on that they will give truthful evidence.

[Pablo de Fleurs]

The Bible would be generally non-admissible as evidence before the court.

Yeah, it's only used as a prop for witnesses to swear on that they will give truthful evidence.

LOL. I forgot about that. What hypocrisy: swear upon this book of, uhm...stuff on which we don't totally agree. Someone should stop the proceedings @ that point one court case & say "Really? The Bible whose 10 Commandments you toss out on a regular basis...really??"

[Tania513]

I find it interesting when people swear by the bible in court, yet i think the 7th commandment(?) says "thou shall not lie", how many people commit perjury.

[John Florida]

   I'm just board to death with this crap. It's private property!!!!   and I mean that smilie in the true sense in this case.

[Libertas]

Put some spaces between that smiley code John and it'll come through.