I'm kind of torn on this one. And I want to know what that pavilion has been used for in the past -- if it's been mostly just church stuff, then I'd see it differently than if it's been rented out for a lot of different things. A place that's owned by a church but not used as a church seems tricky.
I'm also torn, for much the same reasons. I would even go further and say that if the pavilion counts as private property, the owners would have the right to rent or not rent it as they pleased. As Hil says, a lot of it has to do with the history of how the place is used. If the pavilion is generally open to the public, that would be a different matter than if it was normally just 'members only' access.
While part of me is thinking 'yay! recognition for their rights!' another part of me is wondering how I'd view the outcome of that case if the plaintiffs had been, say, a group of Scientologists who'd wanted to hold a service there.
I'm also torn. In my town, however, there were several church buildings that were pretty much used for anything-- rotary club, kiwanis, weddings, rehearsals, exercise classes, and it would have been weird if it was denied to anyone. Of course, it was own by Unitarians, so I can't imagine them doing so. It was much harder to rent the hall from the Grange!
IIRC, the argument for the case did exactly revolve around how "public" the pavilion was. It was certainly not consecrated, at least.
We are expecting a big fat snowstorm here. I'm so glad I didn't wait until today to make the drive back from PA!
So. Greetings from 2009, Buffistas.
How does the new year look, billytea? Is it safe to go in?
Billytea is from the future!!
I am home sick today. I should shuffle back to bed soon.
Happy New Year, Billytea!
cats=evil.
I need more caffeine.
This will involve getting up from the desk and going downstairs, though. Decisions, decisions.
I don't want to go to work today. But I'll be mad at myself if I don't.
Maybe I can leave early
