Last summer, Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company denied the West Adrian United Church of Christ in Michigan insurance because its denomination supports same-sex marriage and the ordination of practicing homosexuals. Wall Street Journal reporter M. P. McQueen writes,
“Based on national media reports, controversial stances such as those indicated in your application responses have resulted in property damage and the potential for increased litigation among churches that have chosen to publicly endorse these positions,” Marci J. Fretz, a regional underwriter for Brotherhood Mutual – one of the nation’s largest insurers of religious institutions – wrote in a letter to the church last summer.
McQueen writes that churches have sometimes been denied or have had coverage revoked because of specific acts of violence. “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. A spokesperson “didn’t have any examples of violence attributable to a church’s support for gay clergy or same-sex marriage,” McQueen writes. She did note that disputes over gay marriage have led to church splits and resulted in costly lawsuits.
Michigan banned same-sex marriage in 2004. The church has not specifically endorsed the denomination’s position on same-sex marriage and ordination of homosexuals. 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. So this is not precisely a religious freedom issue. One wonders if the company didn’t want to do business with supporters of same-sex marriage and risk seemed a better explanation for its refusal. But are churches that support same-sex marriage really more prone to being victims of vandalism? The article says there is no evidence one way or the other. The story doesn’t mention any other ways in which Brotherhood Mutual does business with supporters of same-sex marriage. Does it screen its investments of companies that offer benefits to partners of employees? Presumably, if/when same-sex marriage and homosexual ordination became less controversial, Brotherhood Mutual would then accept applications from churches that supported that stance.
Also, there is no lawsuit. West Adrian didn’t sue Brotherhood Mutual over the denial, so the situation would set no legal precedent in regards to religious freedom. If same-sex marriage does gain national legal acceptance, there will probably be exceptions for clergy and churches to discriminate according to their religious teaching. The real test, however, will lie with for-profit companies like Brotherhood Mutual.
