Lakewood Church Stops Womans Funeral Because She Was Gay (It Was The Right Decision)

[Katzndogz]

Stopping a funeral because the person ended up being gay? really?

No. Not really. It was over a display of photographs that the minister considered inappropriate.

 

[Dana7360]

This is a church. It doesn't have to comply with public accommodation laws. They can hold a funeral for anyone they want. They can deny to hold a funeral to anyone they choose.

Do I agree with their decision? NO!

Would I defend their right to deny that funeral? YES!

I follow the laws and constitution of our nation. It's unfortunate that this church is so homophobic. I have serious doubts that jesus christ would have done the same thing. That minister obviously doesn't respect the dead.

If I were christian and was a member of that church, I would resign my membership and find a church that followed jesus christ's teachings.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Tipsycatlover: What field of law did you work in?
This whole mess over Christian beliefs has created a great need for mediators
to stop lawsuits and harassment of Christian businesses. I am VERY concerned.

I would like to write up WAIVERS for Christian businesses to have all customers
to sign agreeing NOT to sue and only to resolve conflicts through mediation
and consensus to AVOID legal action and expenses. And if they don't agree to mediate and resolve conflicts by consensus, then don't do business because of THAT. And not because of people's beliefs about gay lifestyle, marriage, etc.

Do you have experience in this area of law?

Could you help me write up a short standard WAIVER (similar to an arbitration agreement, but this would be for mediation and consensus to avoid any legal
actions or expenses) where I could post online and circulate to all businesses
to AVOID these harassing conflicts and lawsuits.

You seem to care as much as I do about this, and share concerns for the Christian business owners not to be harassed or sued for their beliefs.

Would you be interested in setting up a network of support for legal or mediation help so businesses can avoid future disasters? If you have any experience in related areas of law, I think that would help. Also help to write laws about the marriage contracts where they don't impose beliefs one way or another; that's another area that is a huge mess right now.... Let me know what you are interested in, and if I can help. I care about this and want to see all such cases resolved by mediation so nobody's beliefs get violated or sued over. Thanks!

I started out with criminal law. Drifted off to personal injury. As it is almost impossible to make a living in personal injury without fraud and my clients were demanding fraud I went to family law. I just got to hating people too much to continue. I hated the clients, the other lawyers and the judges. So I went back to school after 35 years and became a dog groomer. My husband talked to the customers and I took care of the dogs. I hated people so much that I couldn't even talk to the dog owners. Now I do legal consulting. I don't see anyone. I consult and I paint.

To answer your question, you are far an away on the wrong track. Every contract contains a choice of law provision already. It provides the state law to be applied. It may contain a provision for arbitration. Arbitration can be binding meaning that there is no right to sue if you don't like the decision or non binding meaning you can sue if you lose but the decision will be evidence in any lawsuit.

If you mean to start writing contracts with an boiler plate arbitration provision, do not do that unless you intend to retire to a prison cell. Writing contracts with legal provisions is called practicing law without a license and a crime in all 50 states.

I cannot imagine a contract without a choice of law provision but if there was one it would be legal malpractice. It's the fault of the lawyer.

Thanks!
OK so how to go about putting together a PROPER legal team to write a SAMPLE
mediation clause, similar to an arbitration clause, that people CAN use in their legal contracts.

Is there already something like that on legalzoom or NOLO press just SAMPLE langauge?

So for example when a customer first comes into a doctor's or dental office
they fill out forms. So can there be a form that people understand is a consent
form that is legally binding that EXPLAINS, just like arbitration,
but with agreement to use FREE MEDIATION instead of that arbitration stuff that I still find too restrictive.

But if businesses WANT to state arbitration, that's fine, too.
Many online systems have that in the terms of agreement for users, some arbitration clause.

What is the proper way to do this?
Can it be offered as a SUGGESTION with SAMPLE language
or do you have to state up front to go through a lawyer this is not licensed legal advice?

Are you saying I could only "suggest in general" to consult a lawyer to set up
"a form for agreeing to arbitration or mediation only," and I cannot even post "samples that other people
have used" because that would be seen as providing legal advice?

Thank you very much. And I still want to encourage you to serve as a consultant in this area
since the need has increased due to lawsuits coming out. is there a nonprofit network to help small businesses?
I would be happy to help with fundraising to cover costs so the assistance for mediation remains free.

Emily I am honestly trying to help you. This is not something that you can do nor should you. Legalzoom is actually a network of lawyers in every state. Legalzoom is actually a referral service. For one thing the law in every state is different. Not only is the law different but the contracts for every circumstance is different. Do not post samples of what other people have done. What's good in Georgia may not apply in Oklahoma.

Lawsuits cannot be avoided. They happen in the most concrete of contracts. It is up to the parties who enter into the contract to see to their own legal well being.

In this situation no one here knows what happened or how much money the church was paid. No one knows what the agreement said or what provisions it contained.

Thanks Tipsycatlover
I understand even NOLO and other such services have come under fire and extreme scrutiny
to make sure they are not "practicing law or giving legal advice without a license"

Still, there are SAMPLE trusts, wills and wording for tenant/lease agreements posted online for people to copy
to write up their own agreements.

If there are "referral services" and networks that don't advise or practice law,
that is also a good idea -- to have a free, voluntary/pro-bono network of consultants or lawyers
willing to refer business owners IN ADVANCE.

and YES I do believe lawsuits CAN be prevented IN ADVANCE
if these businesses all write up an application form for new customers
to read and sign BEFORE contracting to do any work or provide any services.

The CONFLICTS can't be prevented, where people have religious differences.

But they DON'T HAVE TO DO BUSINESS TOGETHER if they screen each other out IN ADVANCE.

So the waiver would serve as a screening device.

YES it has to be written properly, just like an arbitration agreement that are part of the Terms of Services.

So the Business has the right not to even accept a contract if the customer won't
sign the MEDIATION agreement in advance. And work out all conflicts IN ADVANCE.

So places that do weddings or funerals can agree IN ADVANCE how to handle conflicts.

For services, the parties can agree IN ADVANCE what happens if a guest or incident
suddenly disrupts the services, if a conflict arises (such as the conflict over the photos
deemed inappropriate for display at THAT church, or what if a family member shows up in inappropriate dress or protestors act up outside), then what is the PROCESS.
And the parties AGREE IN ADVANCE. If they can't agree, they already KNOW not to do business together.

So in this case, if the parties had to work through a conflict resolution agreement IN ADVANCE,
either the pastor would be confronted about his issue with the photos being displayed in advance, and then the contract would stop there (with the money or deposit refunded if that is what the customer insisted before signing, and if the company didn't agree the customer would never sign up and never give the money in the first place!!!!),
or if they didn't find out about the clash until the services started, they would have already AGREED do they continue with the services or do they halt them and stop right there, in which case the customer would not sign the contract if this is the practice of that church to halt the services.

So either way, they either identify the conflict in advance and/or agree not to contract together
if they don't agree how to handle the conflict. All this can be screened in advance.

And yes, if you are saying that no such contract, not even a sample can be offered as a SUGGESTION, except through a legal contract with a licensed professional etc. that is fine. That can be included in the SUGGESTION to set up MEDIATION agreements in advance, before agreeing to work with ANY company or ANY customer.

Frankly I think that abridges free speech if you cannot even SUGGEST
mediation agreements publicly in advance.

It is NOT practicing medicine without a license to advise people not to smoke in front of people with asthma.

Suggesting and explaining WHY I recommend mediation instead of lawsuits
is just pure common sense, and should require paying an attorney to explain why mediation
will preserve and protect equal interests and cost both parties less money, hassle and stress.

That's just explaining why conflict resolution works better than suing and gambling on a win/lose situation
when consensus can be sought that respects both sides to create a win/win situation.

This is one area that I feel the legal practice monopolizes "democratic due process" and FU it up.

This is why the legal system gets abused to incite and depend on lawsuits to make money for lawyers
by NOT preventing conflicts but almost ENCOURAGING them.

There is not enough focus on PREVENTING lawsuits, so it seems a conflict of interest
for lawyers to keep making and enforcing laws that benefit them and reinforce their monopoly.

Would rather train and assist people in FREE MEDIATION and conflict resolution
to protect free speech, right to petition, and equal exercise of beliefs from infringement.

There is no learning curve for someone who already knows.

Hi Tipsycatlover
Who are you referring to here, and what thing are you saying is already known?

1. People in this case OBVIOUSLY did not have experience training or assistance
in resolving conflicts mutually, or they would have resolved it by now, or before this.

So there IS a learning curve in terms of preventing and correcting conflicts so they don't escalate
to where the given case is now, where it still isn't resolved to the satisfaction of both parties

2. Even if people THINK they know something
like all the lawyers I know THINK they are following the law and upholding Constitutional principles.

But by the time you have to RESOLVE conflicts,
you will find that the process it takes isn't served but blocked by the current system.

I think that is why people get crazy when it comes to the legal system
and yes, why people like you with any kind of conscience wouldn't stay in that mess.

The point becomes to reward the person and arguments that can WIN
and it is no longer about resolving the conflict to respect "both sides equally"

The adversarial approach and rewarding that becomes a "conflict of interest"
with a solution that benefits the people in the longrun, not the lawyers in the short term.
our whole partisan system has biased govt and skewed the political process the same way,
by rewarding bullhying and short term wins, at whatever cost, even compromising longterm solutions
that don't win elections or points in the media because sustainable solutions have to be proven first over many years.
that doesn't sell or win like negative hate campaigns do, so guess what people are paid to do?

 

[WinterBorn]

The Pastor made the noble right decision. I would have done the same thing. Morals had to be upheld.



Family Church in Lakewood stops woman s funeral because she was gay - The Denver Post

What that minister did was NOT moral. He knew that she was a lesbian, and yet he let them plan for the funeral, agreed to perform the service, and took their money.

I have no problem with refusing service to people based on your beliefs, butto accept it all and then wait until the middle of the memorial service to kick them out is immoral, heartless and sick.

What he did has nothing to do with being a Christian and everything to do with being an asshole.

 

[Katzndogz]

The minister knew she was a lesbian and still agree to perform the service. The controversy has nothing to do with whether or not she was a lesbian. It was over the display of photographs that the minister considered inappropriate. He asked that the photos be removed before he continued with the service. His request was denied so he refused to continue.

 

[WinterBorn]

The minister knew she was a lesbian and still agree to perform the service. The controversy has nothing to do with whether or not she was a lesbian. It was over the display of photographs that the minister considered inappropriate. He asked that the photos be removed before he continued with the service. His request was denied so he refused to continue.

Unless it was nude photos, it was bogus as hell.

 

[BlindBoo]

".... those who loved Collier, 33, picked up programs, flowers and eventually the dead woman's casket itself, moving the service.."

 

[Gracie]

Have a couple of issues with this stories.


1. Why would,you have someone that didn't know the deceased, give the service, why not someone from her church?

2. Why didn't the minister try to get to know the deceased? Seems he would at least want to know the person he is going to be giving the memorial for.

3. To stop in the middle of a service because you weren't caring enough to know who the person was and if their beliefs aligned with yours, is callous and cruel to those that loved her.

It seems like some really uncaring and thoughtless people on both sides of this issue.

Someone from the deceased's church didn't give the service likely because the deceased didn't have a church.

The minister didn't have a problem with conducting the service. He was always willing to conduct the service. The controversy was over photographs displayed at the service. The minister wanted the photos of two women in intimate moments kissing to be removed. The minister refused to conduct the service until the objectionable was removed. Rather than remove the photos the family removed the entire funeral.

What kind of intimate poses? So if my mother or my sister and I had a pic taken of us kissing on the lips...it is automatically assumed there is tongue involved and it is a gay situation????

 

[Katzndogz]

Have a couple of issues with this stories.


1. Why would,you have someone that didn't know the deceased, give the service, why not someone from her church?

2. Why didn't the minister try to get to know the deceased? Seems he would at least want to know the person he is going to be giving the memorial for.

3. To stop in the middle of a service because you weren't caring enough to know who the person was and if their beliefs aligned with yours, is callous and cruel to those that loved her.

It seems like some really uncaring and thoughtless people on both sides of this issue.

Someone from the deceased's church didn't give the service likely because the deceased didn't have a church.

The minister didn't have a problem with conducting the service. He was always willing to conduct the service. The controversy was over photographs displayed at the service. The minister wanted the photos of two women in intimate moments kissing to be removed. The minister refused to conduct the service until the objectionable was removed. Rather than remove the photos the family removed the entire funeral.

What kind of intimate poses? So if my mother or my sister and I had a pic taken of us kissing on the lips...it is automatically assumed there is tongue involved and it is a gay situation????

The minister found the photos inappropriate. It doesn't matter whether it was women kissing, shooting guns or naked children on a bear skin rug. He made his concerns known and asked for the inappropriate material to be removed. The family removed the whole funeral rather than remove the photos.

It isn't true that the minister refused to perform the service because the woman was a lesbian.

 

[BlindBoo]

The Pastor made the noble right decision. I would have done the same thing. Morals had to be upheld.



Family Church in Lakewood stops woman s funeral because she was gay - The Denver Post

Churches can act as bigoted as they want to.

LAKEWOOD — Hundreds of Vanessa Collier's friends and family gathered Saturday at New Hope Ministries, sitting before an open casket that held the woman they loved, when suddenly the minister overseeing her funeral stopped the service.

The memorial could not continue, Pastor Ray Chavez said, as long as pictures of Collier with the love of her life, the spouse she shared two children with, were to be displayed.

Chavez said there could be no images of Collier with her wife, Christina. There could be no indication that Collier was gay.

Outraged, those who loved Collier, 33, picked up programs, flowers and eventually the dead woman's casket itself, moving the service to a mortuary that — thankfully, they say — happened to be across the street.

And you can love faggots as much as you want.

Yes you can.

 

[Dekster]

Why wasnt it at the funeral home to begin with? She didnt go to church... inevitably Preacher would have said something that angered them anyway....... just seems like poor planning .... or an effort to manufacture a story

Ding Ding Ding--we have a winner.

The minister was wrong for doing what he did, but I suspect that he played right into the hands of people looking to make some kind of anti-religion statement, among other things.

The most telling statement from the article is "Collier's friends say they still haven't been reimbursed by New Hope Ministry for the cost of the funeral" There is no reason for the church to pay for a funeral for somebody. They seemingly are just trying to extort money from a church by shaming it out of them as best as I can tell.

How can they extort money from a church that didn't perform a service, and didn't spend a cent, and had pocketed the money for 2 weeks in the bank.

They paid for the use of the facility and now they want the church to pay for the whole funeral based on my reading of the various articles. I have not seen any indication that they were paid two weeks in advance. That would be quite the delay in funeral arrangements.

They want the church to pay for the whole funeral????? I thought they just wanted the money they paid back?

I recommend doing a gofundme fundraiser, and just get help to chip in and pay whatever costs. I think it is more important to save the relationship and not fight over a mutual conflict and the money. it is more important to restore good faith relations.

If you so desire. I really don't care if they get money back, if the funeral is paid for, or by whom in the end. I think the last funeral I was involved with had some nominal charge of like $250 for use of the chapel for the funeral service. It was everything else they robbed people on.

 

[Dekster]

Why wasnt it at the funeral home to begin with? She didnt go to church... inevitably Preacher would have said something that angered them anyway....... just seems like poor planning .... or an effort to manufacture a story

Ding Ding Ding--we have a winner.

The minister was wrong for doing what he did, but I suspect that he played right into the hands of people looking to make some kind of anti-religion statement, among other things.

The most telling statement from the article is "Collier's friends say they still haven't been reimbursed by New Hope Ministry for the cost of the funeral" There is no reason for the church to pay for a funeral for somebody. They seemingly are just trying to extort money from a church by shaming it out of them as best as I can tell.

How can they extort money from a church that didn't perform a service, and didn't spend a cent, and had pocketed the money for 2 weeks in the bank.

They paid for the use of the facility and now they want the church to pay for the whole funeral based on my reading of the various articles. I have not seen any indication that they were paid two weeks in advance. That would be quite the delay in funeral arrangements.

They want the church to pay for the whole funeral????? I thought they just wanted the money they paid back?

I don't know what they want for certain or even who "they" are other than people wanting to make noise. One of the 3-4 articles I read on this had a quote that was something along the lines of a "friend" stating they were waiting for the church to pay for the funeral. It did not mention a refund of anything the church was paid or had anything about them even paying the church.

 

[Avatar4321]

The preacher was under no obligation to do the funeral to begin with. Once he accepted that obligation he should have followed through

 

[Avatar4321]

Btw if sinners can't have funerals, then Christians won't have any more funerals because with one glaring exception, sinners are the only ones that die.