Insurer rejects church over stance

January 8, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
An insurance company headquartered in Fort Wayne has refused to offer a property policy to a Michigan church that belongs to a denomination that backs gay rights.

Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Co., says the risk of insuring West Adrian United Church of Christ is too great because its national governing body has approved gay marriage and ordination of homosexuals.

Controversial stances like support for gay rights could result in property damage or litigation, Brotherhood Mutual told the Adrian church, which is near Ann Arbor and Toledo, Ohio.

In a story in todayâ??s Wall Street Journal, a Brotherhood Mutual spokeswoman said that while the company wasn't aware of violence, the controversies have caused expensive litigation when churches and other denominations split.

The spokeswoman added that Brotherhood Mutual also avoids churches for circumstances including support for militia groups and picketing military funerals.

Did Brotherhood Mutual make the right call?
ADVERTISEMENT
  • no
  • Yes, they work in a society that allows them to operate under the parameters they choose, like it or not. Many may disagree, but it is their choice. They aren't involved in government entities, so they are free to choose whom they do business with.
  • Sure, they have the right to discriminate here (which, taking the lipstick off this pig is exactly what they're doing). When we choose with whom we're going to do business (or not going to do business) we discriminate. In this case, sexual orientation is not a protected class in the US or in the State of Indiana (though protected in other states). I just trust that they have a sunshine policy towards those groups they exclude and have the appropriate policies for churches that operate in states where homosexuality is a protected class.
  • Let me get this straight (no pun intended) - the church is denied insurance because they may be targeted with litigation and property damage by other churches and/or religious zealots due to their gay rights stance. What a debacle the politicizing of gay issues has become for organized religion.
  • Then why insure someone who smokes? Or buidlings near airports because there is always a chance a plane might crash.

    What a stupid policy and and with management like that it won't be long before they go out of business.
  • Mark,

    That's true that with stupid policies, the insurance company may go out of business, but that's also their decision to make. If, in their minds, it wouldn't make financial sense to insure the church, they shouldn't have to. While I personally disagree with their stance (since it does appear to be discriminating against the church since the church doesn't discriminate against gays), I do support the fact that they are free to make their own decision.

    There are plenty of other insurance agencies who would be happy to have the church's business. Like berwickguy said, since they are both private organizations, they are free to do as they choose. The minute you let the government require private companies to insure everyone, regardless of risk, that's when you have defeated the purpose of insurance

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. The east side does have potential...and I have always thought Washington Scare should become an outlet mall. Anyone remember how popular Eastgate was? Well, Indy has no outlet malls, we have to go to Edinburgh for the deep discounts and I don't understand why. Jim is right. We need a few good eastsiders interested in actually making some noise and trying to change the commerce, culture and stereotypes of the East side. Irvington is very progressive and making great strides, why can't the far east side ride on their coat tails to make some changes?

  2. Boston.com has an article from 2010 where they talk about how Interactions moved to Massachusetts in the year prior. http://www.boston.com/business/technology/innoeco/2010/07/interactions_banks_63_million.html The article includes a link back to that Inside Indiana Business press release I linked to earlier, snarkily noting, "Guess this 2006 plan to create 200-plus new jobs in Indiana didn't exactly work out."

  3. I live on the east side and I have read all your comments. a local paper just did an article on Washington square mall with just as many comments and concerns. I am not sure if they are still around, but there was an east side coalition with good intentions to do good things on the east side. And there is a facebook post that called my eastside indy with many old members of the eastside who voice concerns about the east side of the city. We need to come together and not just complain and moan, but come up with actual concrete solutions, because what Dal said is very very true- the eastside could be a goldmine in the right hands. But if anyone is going damn, and change things, it is us eastside residents

  4. Please go back re-read your economics text book and the fine print on the February 2014 CBO report. A minimum wage increase has never resulted in a net job loss...

  5. The GOP at the Statehouse is more interested in PR to keep their majority, than using it to get anything good actually done. The State continues its downward spiral.

ADVERTISEMENT