Insurer to churches: Sued for not performing SSM? You're on your own.

musterion

musterion

Well-known member
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420928/churches-gay-marriage-insurance

On July 1, David Karns, vice president of underwriting at Southern Mutual Church Insurance Company (which “serve more than 8,400 churches”), wrote an “all states” agents’ bulletin addressing same-sex marriage. It begins: “We have received numerous calls and emails regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriages. The main concern is whether or not liability coverage applies in the event a church gets sued for declining to perform a same-sex marriage.” Karns continues:

The general liability form does not provide any coverage for this type of situation, since there is no bodily injury, property damage, personal injury, or advertising injury. If a church is concerned about the possibility of a suit, we do offer Miscellaneous Legal Defense Coverage. This is not liability coverage, but rather expense reimbursement for defense costs. There is no coverage for any judgments against an insured.
Click to expand...
In other words: Churches, you’re on your own.
Click to expand...
 
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

New member
Well yeah. The insurance co. isn't going to tell them "You can't be sued for that, so your question is moot"; instead they'll tell them "Nope, your current coverage doesn't cover that, but we have this additional package at a reasonable price!"

Suckers. :chuckle:
 
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

New member
Sky-is-falling.jpg
 
B

bybee

New member
Jose Fly said:
Well yeah. The insurance co. isn't going to tell them "You can't be sued for that, so your question is moot"; instead they'll tell them "Nope, your current coverage doesn't cover that, but we have this additional package at a reasonable price!"

Suckers. :chuckle:
Click to expand...

There appears to be a serious gap in your socialization?
 
Town Heretic

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Here's a bit from a recent Pew center piece on the impact of the S. Ct. decision:

"Virtually everyone agrees that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution offers some protections for religious groups. For example, most (even among gay rights advocates) believe the Constitution protects clergy from being required to officiate at marriages for same-sex couples and churches from being forced to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry in their sanctuaries."​

The impact is much more likely to be found elsewhere, in related but off center religious affiliations...like a fellowship hall rented without regard to affiliation or religious schools that offer housing to heterosexual married couples.

Another reason why it won't quite be the issue some envision?

"...there is no federal law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. And, of the 22 states that ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, a majority (13) have at least some protections for religious groups written into their anti-discrimination statutes."​

So there are measures states can take and reasons to believe the sanctity of the pulpit and office isn't being jeopardized.
 
musterion

musterion

Well-known member
We are reaching the point, or are very near to reaching it, where law is whatever the Executive declares it to be, just as existing laws effectively cease to exist because the Executive decides not to enforce them. In a word, lawlessness.
 
Lon

Lon

Well-known member
Acts 4:19; 5:29

It doesn't matter if they 'try' to enforce such a thing. Bible-authority Christians cannot acquiesce on this particular because God created the institution of marriage and specifically identifies for the Christian that marriage is between a man and woman and emulates/mirrors Christ and the church. As a pastor, I cannot rewrite God's definition and intent without trampling the meaning and intent of those scriptures. A divorce, adultery, or any other malady to that picture cannot be recognized as an acceptable redefinition. Fundamental Christian Pastors do not grant divorces, don't perform same-sex unions, or serve adulterous affairs.
 
D

Danoh

New member
Lon said:
Acts 4:19; 5:29

It doesn't matter if they 'try' to enforce such a thing. Bible-authority Christians cannot acquiesce on this particular because God created the institution of marriage and specifically identifies for the Christian that marriage is between a man and woman and emulates/mirrors Christ and the church. As a pastor, I cannot rewrite God's definition and intent without trampling the meaning and intent of those scriptures. A divorce, adultery, or any other malady to that picture cannot be recognized as an acceptable redefinition. Fundamental Christian Pastors do not grant divorces, don't perform same-sex unions, or serve adulterous affairs.
Click to expand...

Well put.

That is what the issue boils down to.

At the same time, I sincerely doubt the nightmare for assemblies this issue is being turned into will be allowed in the States for long, if at all, given the other side of a Civil Rights issue this will turn into.

Too much at stake for politicians and Americans alike will force a compromise - more gay supportive assemblies.

We should not be surprised. Not if we are children of light. Looking at things from there, we should be able to see that that is how the lost are supposed to behave - like lost people.

Question is are we doing like those on the side of God in that passage you cite were doing - going about the Father's business whatever the climate.

The issue was never the supposed calamity of one legalized sin or another. That has always been an issue all the way back to Lot.

The issue is the only issue that has ever been the only issue - the solution that has always been the solution - Romans 5:8 - keeping that out there.

For only God, in Christ, through the Spirit in the soul of man redeemed back unto Him has a hope of "legislating morality."
 
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

New member
musterion said:
We are reaching the point, or are very near to reaching it, where law is whatever the Executive declares it to be, just as existing laws effectively cease to exist because the Executive decides not to enforce them. In a word, lawlessness.
Click to expand...

You can thank Dick Cheney for that. One of his first agenda items upon being VP was to restore much of the power that was stripped away from the executive branch after watergate. Few conservatives complained as he did this, but now that a Democrat is in office and is exercising this authority, suddenly it's a terrible thing.

Funny how tribalism works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top