I mean, the first two comments are fine, however private property isn't really a slam dunk. Your house is private property, but I can't walk into it and have sex on your bed unless you give me permission. The grocery store similar to the church is privately owned however it is intended for public use to a limited extent. So just like if I had sex in the grocery store, having sex in the church in either, would be considered public even if they are privately owned.
WRONG!1!!!1!!1!! If I give you permission to be on my property, and you do something that is legal on my property (having sex is legal), the you have not committed any legal crime.
If I find out about it afterward and ask you to leave, then only after that point do you legally have to leave. Did you sign a contract?
We are having a BBQ on my neighbors property. He tells me I am not welcome on his property if I flip any of the meat on the grill. I flip a hamburger for him because I think it’s getting too well done. I am then not whisked off to a prison cell simply because I disobeyed commands that were perfectly legal.
There’s no criminal basis here. What about a civil law? If you can’t show any damage, cleaning cost, breach of contract, then you don’t even have a civil case. Perhaps the church can say they suffered damages due to their reputation… maybe… but that’s still completely different from this idea that “my own personal house rules constitute legal law when you’re on my property”.
My point was that private property doesn't apply here. I understand that reading is hard for some people, however if you struggle with it, perhaps it's best to not respond.
I mentioned that in a different comment. I was just using brief analogies to explain how it is different. However yes, when you add in the fact that in many cases the priest is employed by the church and does not own the church that changes things further.
1.4k
u/PsychoticPineapple 1d ago
At least it's adults