"Some churches in the South reported cancellations after a wave of arson attacks in the mid-1990s." But this would be the first instance of the denial of a claim due to fears that a controversial stance would provoke a violent backlash.Founded in 1917 as a mutual-aid organization by evangelical Mennonites, Brotherhood Mutual is now the largest provider of insurance to churches in the country.The men who were judged to be the best-looking had higher rates of divorce.Looking to avoid such a fate, Rochkind started dating a woman who isn’t a bikini model, Carly Spindel, in January 2015. The two met after Spindel’s mother, matchmaker Janis Spindel, scouted Rochkind at a gym.In his dissent, he argues that today’s decision "creates serious questions about religious liberty." "Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution," he writes."Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for dissenting religious practice." But he says the Supreme Court is too much of a "blunt instrument" to do likewise.
In another, women were asked to judge the attractiveness of 238 men based on their high school yearbook photos from 30 years ago.
The article says that as long as insurance companies abide by non-discrimination and other laws, they are free to set their own guidelines for accepting or rejecting applications.
A couple of things to note: Brotherhood Mutual rejected the church's application not because of moral or religious opposition to the church's stance, but because the stance might increase risk to the insurer.
"It must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned," writes Kennedy in a paragraph that will likely become the focus of scrutiny by church-state experts.
"The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths," he continues, "and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered." Chief Justice John Roberts is less confident.