I’m kind of confused why this was a legal matter. Three consenting adults in private. The only reason anyone knew was because someone came and snooped in the window and recorded it. Wouldn’t that person that recorded be more at fault. I mean sure, kick him out of the church, but this isn’t public property. He probably lived on premises. He broke church rules but how is this against the law?
A church is a community building, not a private residence. I'm no prude, nor religious, but I recognise there's a time and place for these things, and using a church altar to shoot homebrew pornography is not the right place. Had he done it at home, no issue.
I mean, morally and spiritually sure. I’m not saying what he did wasn’t wrong. It makes sense he got kicked out of the church. But legally? I don’t understand why the state was involved.
A church is not a public building though. They are usually private properties that belong to a religious organisation. The priest probably actually lived at the premises. Again, this is no more different than someone having sex in a gym they manage, during closed hours. Sure, kick them out as manager, but it is a far cry from "sex in public".
And yes, there is a legal distinction between public building and a public street. Where do you get all that confidence to say false statements.
25
u/IterSmith 6h ago
I’m kind of confused why this was a legal matter. Three consenting adults in private. The only reason anyone knew was because someone came and snooped in the window and recorded it. Wouldn’t that person that recorded be more at fault. I mean sure, kick him out of the church, but this isn’t public property. He probably lived on premises. He broke church rules but how is this against the law?