Banned From Church

[zealot777]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? I live in California.

A friend of mine has consistently been banned from a church, and escorted to the doors because of slanderous complaints made against him. Every time a reason is given, the story changes. Some lady claimed that he had stalked her in the church, than he was accused by other people of "flashing" himself in the church, than he was accused of touching some woman's breast. None of these slanderous reports are true. I have known him for twenty-five years and I know he would never do anything like this. What are his rights? Does a church have the right to ban a person? Does he have legal grounds to sue the church and/or the perpetrators of these rumors?

Story Two:

His father was going to purchase a trailer for him in a trailer park. He was approved by the managers and ready to move in, when suddenly the managers informed him that he could not move in. The reason given was because the tenants of another trailer in the same park (soon after discovery that this individual was going to move in and be their neighbor) slandered him to the managers and accused him of being a child molester. This occurred several years ago, so there might be a statute of limitation. What are his rights? Thank you.

 

[Proserpina]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? I live in California.

A friend of mine has consistently been banned from a church, and escorted to the doors because of slanderous complaints made against him. Every time a reason is given, the story changes. Some lady claimed that he had stalked her in the church, than he was accused by other people of "flashing" himself in the church, than he was accused of touching some woman's breast. None of these slanderous reports are true. I have known him for twenty-five years and I know he would never do anything like this. What are his rights? Does a church have the right to ban a person?

Yes.

Does he have legal grounds to sue the church and/or the perpetrators of these rumors?

Perhaps.

Story Two:

His father was going to purchase a trailer for him in a trailer park. He was approved by the managers and ready to move in, when suddenly the managers informed him that he could not move in. The reason given was because the tenants of another trailer in the same park (soon after discovery that this individual was going to move in and be their neighbor) slandered him to the managers and accused him of being a child molester. This occurred several years ago, so there might be a statute of limitation. What are his rights? Thank you.

How about you get the people involved to sign up themselves? That'd be super!

 

[zealot777]

Do you speak with legal authority and knowledge, or mere opinion? I can see a church banning someone for a legitimate cause, but not unsubstantiated and conflicting slanderous reports.

 

[CdwJava]

The church has a right to ban whomever it chooses to. The church is private property and your friend does not have a RIGHT to enter onto and remain on someone else's private property should they not wish it. Could your friend sue the individuals spreading rumors? Maybe. But if there is any reasonable foundation for whatever tales have been spread, don't count on him winning. Does he have articulable damages set out into dollars and cents? How many thousands of dollars is he willing to spend on an attorney to roll the dice? What is the likelihood that the individual(s) to be sued has/have the money to pay any award should your friend prevail?

And, as a note, all because you think you know someone, you really don't know everything about that person. I could retire if I had a dollar from everyone I have heard make a statement similar to, "He would never do such a thing" about a child molester.

Your other friend who was also slandered is also likely on thin legal grounds. But, if the libel or slander occurred more than a year ago, the SOL would appear to have passed.

 

[Antigone*]

Do you speak with legal authority and knowledge, or mere opinion? I can see a church banning someone for a legitimate cause, but not unsubstantiated and conflicting slanderous reports.

The church can ban a member for wearing purple socks if they care to - it is not illegal.

If your friend is so damaged by these "slanderous reports" he can save up several thousand dollars to give to an attorney and he can file a law suit that will go nowhere.

 

[tranquility]

A church can ban a person for almost any reason. If a prohibited reason, there could be a question, but I suspect the church would win in litigation. (As in only white people can join.) Here, there is much more. Repeated claims from numerous people about serious misconduct they witnessed themselves is good enough to get a person arrested, let alone banned from a private organization. While, if untrue, a defamation lawsuit could be prosecuted against the person(s) publishing the defamatory remarks, that would be a barn burner of a lawsuit. It would cost a ton, it would probably fail and would have the most onerous discovery ever.

 

[Eekamouse]

Aren't you even curious about why these accusations keep following your friend? How do you know that where there is all this smoke that there isn't a fire?

 

[You Are Guilty]

If a prohibited reason, there could be a question, but I suspect the church would win in litigation. (As in only white people can join.)

Crap. There go my plans to open Our Lady of the Blessed Honkey.

 

[Antigone*]

Crap. There go my plans to open Our Lady of the Blessed Honkey.

DANG! It is not lady like to spit and you just made me do that!

Heck, why can't it be Our Dude of the Blessed Honkey!

 

[jiggy78]

A chuch that banned people based on a protected class would very likely lose their tax exempt status.

 

[eerelations]

A chuch that banned people based on a protected class would very likely lose their tax exempt status.

Well! A heartfelt thanks for that nugget. I'll be able to sleep tonight, at last!

 

[CdwJava]

Churches are given a lot of leeway. Religion IS a protected class yet, try to enter into Scientology facilities if not a Scientologist. Try and enter a LDS temple if not a Mormon. There are many examples of discrimination by religions based upon religions. Churches can even discriminate based upon sexual preference and not lose tax exempt status ... see any openly homosexual ordained priests in the Catholic church?

They can discriminate.

 

[jiggy78]

OK religion based protected classes not withstanding I believe I am correct. You could not have a "whites only" church that locked the door to non-whites and except to keep your tax exempt status if somebody complained.

 

[tranquility]

First of all, Blessed Honkeys don't pay no stinkin' taxes, just ask Harry Read and Obama.

Second, I have it on good authority that the Catholic church discriminates against a protected class (women/sex) in choosing their leadership--yet still get tax deductions. But, Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983), would lead us to believe the IRS may revoke the tax exempt status if there is a compelling government interest (like trying to eliminate racial discrimination). I guess it gets down to those with the gold, make the rules.

 

[You Are Guilty]

First of all, Blessed Honkeys don't pay no stinkin' taxes, just ask Harry Read and Obama.

I'll have you know they are congregants of the Church of the Immaculate Cracka, so apples to oranges.

Second, I have it on good authority that the Catholic church discriminates against a protected class (women/sex) in choosing their leadership--yet still get tax deductions. But, Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983), would lead us to believe the IRS may revoke the tax exempt status if there is a compelling government interest (like trying to eliminate racial discrimination). I guess it gets down to those with the gold, make the rules.

The name escapes me at the moment, but early this year, there was a SCOTUS decision regarding a female substitute teacher in a Catholic school who advanced a number of similar claims. Was a bit of tortured logic to get the the end of that decision. Will update if I can recall/find the name of the case.