With the advent now of lawsuits based on discrimination against Christian business owners for refusing to serve gays, or government clerks refusing to issue licenses in accordance to law, etc...
Does this open the door to a non-LDS family member to sue the Church for being prevented to attend the temple wedding of their LDS child?
I know nothing about the law, but it seems to me, that if someone can sue a business for choosing not to make a cake for a gay wedding, someone should be able to sue for not being allowed to attend a wedding service. Far more emotional damage and longer lasting emotional damage done there than simple refusal to bake a cake. Perhaps the suit would be based on different grounds, I don't know.
Whether or not the lawsuit would be ultimately successful would be of less importance than the exposure it would bring in the national media.
For an organization such as LDS Inc, which has based nearly all of its PR on promoting families are forever, this would expose the seedy and harmful underbelly of mormonism. It would bring into focus how devastating mormonism is to families, and the strong-arming of people into the pay to pray bribing system mormonism utilizes.
I think the best part of this lawsuit would be to draw attention to how much money LDS Inc appears to have. We may not see outright taxation in the god business in our lifetimes, but we may see some very serious discussion regarding tax exempts being forced into financial transparency.
The thing LDS Inc needs to worry about if this happens is not having too much money, but the saints learning that many people have had their hands in the lords coffers and there is not nearly the money they expected in the cookie jar.
It might also be a tad shocking for rank and file mormons to actually see how little LDS Inc spends on charity.
I agree. The public perception is that Mormons are so pro family, while they are segregating parents and children at weddings. Film makers need to interview family members banished from weddings due to "worthiness" and a Costco card instead of a temple card...
This is an ecclesiastical matter and the Church has the full right to dictate its own policy as per freedom of religion. The Church cannot prevent a marriage from happening or attendees from seeing outside of the Church because it is handled by the state. But the Church can and does decide what happens within its doors. As far as the law is concerned: If you don't like it, you go somewhere else to get married. And you have the full freedom to do so. Simple as that. I don't see a law they are breaking in that policy.
Not gonna happen. As much as we rightfully demonize the church for the atrociously hurtful way it handles weddings, the ultimate responsibility rests with the couple who chooses to adhere to their restrictions.
Nobody is forced to have a temple wedding, and you cannot sue the church for offering a service that the couple freely agrees to participate in.
Yep. The church isn't a business that is open to the public. A bakery with an "open" sign in the window can't refuse to serve someone. A private club can exclude whoever they want to exclude.
As much as we hate to admit it, the church's role in this is really secondary. It is the couple that is choosing the type of wedding they want.
What you're asking would be the same as suing an airline because a couple chose to get married in China when no one in the family was able to travel there. It is the couple that made the decision, not the airline.
...and that's where they issue should remain, with the couple. A a lawsuit first would never happen because this isn't a legal issue. Second, I would hate for it to ever happen, that would only justify the idea that the Church is being oppressed by the legal system. I would rather see more efforts made entirely to persuade the courts of public opinion against the Church rather than the courts of law.
A couple that chooses to get married in the temple is necessarily deciding in advance that they will not allow anyone to attend who does not have a temple recommend.
I don't see how there is a substantial difference between this and a couple that rents a banquet hall at a local country club. They are able to allow whomever they choose to attend their wedding. If you show up at the banquet hall without an invitation, they can also turn you away.
It's really a secondary issue that the church is a private club or even a religious organization.
Mormon temples are not "public accommodation businesses." They're private religious edifices. Mormons can and do "discriminate" as to who gets in, and they (under current law) have the right to do so.
But it's not going to work. LDS temples are not public accommodations. It would be like suing to get into a corporate headquarters or some other restricted access building, except that churches have a lot more protection via the 1st amendment than corporations.
Mischievous fantasies aside, the suit would be thrown out at the district level, and turned down for an appeal. But people do shop their courts and judges. Consider the 9th Circuit Court, which entertains all sorts of wacko cases. Of course, they have the worst record of all Circuits for being upheld by SCOTUS.
There's no court case here. You're petitioning for access to private property on the basis other people were permitted and you were not. That encompasses a good chunk of the definition of private property in many ways.
You are not wronged to be denied access to someone's property. That's just the choice of the owner.
The only way that would work is if the U.S. had laws similar to England, France, etc. in that all weddings need to be public and/or civil ceremonies. After that, have whatever wedding you want.
As a 19-year old innocent convert TBM-tithepayer who had converted at the age of 14, I went to see my bishop a few months before my sister's temple marriage, to get this temple recommend thingy that I had heard of so often in the auxiliary meetings. I was following all the rules as far as I understood them. I was told that I couldn't get a temple recommend until after I received a mission call. I had sent my papers in at the time, and received my call about a week before my sister's wedding, so everything worked out. But that was one of my first serious WTF moments that I had as a mormon. The church was dictating who was allowed in my sister's wedding. So this isn't a couple's issue. A couple doesn't decide who gets to attend their wedding in the Mormon world. The church decides. If a couple invites someone to their wedding, and the church says no, the issue is between the church and the person denied entry.
Yes, tscc is a club and they can let in or not let in who they wish.
But I do like what Ex-Sis said.
"Film makers need to interview family members banished from weddings due to "worthiness" and a Costco card instead of a temple card"
Public news person interviewing people outside a temple during a wedding and asking why Mom or Dad can't see their daughter married. Why they must wait outside.
Because I'm not a member of the LDS church.
Because I'm not paying them 10% of my annual income.
Because I do not believe JS was a prophet of God.
Because I want subject myself to a one on one interview with the bishop where I'm asked personal questions about my sex life.
Because I don't have a temple recommend proving I have followed all these rules.
Because I don't believe God sanctioned polygamy.
Because I don't believe a grown man having sex with a 14 year old is not only ok, but blessed by God.
While more than entertaining to watch, such a lawsuit wouldn't get far. A religious organization can include, or exclude, anyone from a religious rite, such as a marriage ceremony. I'm not defending the practice, because it is both disgusting and anti-family, but a religious body does have the right to set guidelines on who takes part in their activities.
This is a non-starter. The person filing the suit should expect to have to pay the defendant's legal expenses as any court would find this a frivolous filing.
How could you get the law changed that all weddings must be public or civil ceremonies first? Such as UK or France? No more secret weddings. And why are mormon temple weddings for those with recommends only? Because of polygamy! Let's drive that point home.
What other churches bar guests from witnessing a wedding?