There are a huge number of issues here. This is a business transaction, not a charity to charity transaction (PETA isn't a reistered charity or non-profit in Canada, as far as I can discover). Then there is the question of it being appropriate to the United Church's core values, as well as the CRA regulations as a charity. Finally, is it consistent with the mission of the larger church? I would want to hear from our sisters and brothers in Newfoundland and Labrador Conference before any decision was made...  would seloing this space as a commercial transaction be supportive of them and their faith community?

Maybe they want to set up a 'safe house' for seals during the hunt???  I don't know about the United Church, but some churches have a de-consecration type service for buildings, etc. (there goes my English again!).  Why would PETA want to buy space in an old church building?  There must be other properties that are more energy efficient and environmentally friendly.

 I think the UCC should not sell the property. Instead they should convert it and make it the new HQ. 

PETA is just another money making organisations that pretends to be a charity.  The only good they do is for there own executives who live high on the hog.

However to suggest to this church that they do or do not do anything, brings us into what is often called by higher ups   in the church like DKS as "Empire" 

After all we all know how those great empire builders,  Newfoundland fishermen  are forcing their morality on the UCC as a whole.

PETA is pretty nutty, and seemingly more fond of attention for bizarre stunts (most of which this banner would not  even begin to approach in oddness). 

There are many reasons not to do this, but the simple fact that it is PETA is a big one.

It seems like the sort of thing that the congregation is not permitted to do without Presbytery approval--the United Church of Canada owns the property after all.

There is nothing stopping a congregation from renting space out for a banner.

Remember this is PETA's publicity stunt here. It's really got nothing to do with the church.

Yes that was what was passed. However it did not apply to local congregations in Ottawa.  The UCCs in Ottawa are much more conservative than in the rest of the country.  

For a long time afterwards no single men or women were hired as staff, in case they were gay.

I was member of a UCC in the Ottawa area until 1988. So while the local churches adopted the motions passed at  GC they did not apply them.

I was actually  a member of a board, and spoke at other churches and at the Ottawa Montreal conference so I am not sourcing it from anything other than what happened to me.

To appease people, it was stated during the process that no one would be forced to hire LGBT people.  That is why one of the reasons I  was shocked when the congregations in Ottawa voted like they did.  

The more "liberal" churches actually had congregational votes prior to the GC. However the vote was staged in a way to make it more acceptable and likely to pass. We were asked in our congregations to vote on point 3 and not 4. It failed to pass in all but one church., where only 55% agreed. (Which was one of the churches I spoke at)  I found it ironic, however because it was not wheelchair accessible, My partner could not always climb the stairs,( he had already been sick for 2 years with AIDS)  so we were not exactly welcomed there either.  

Also as an 26 year old who was HIV+ and living with high functioning autism I was never welcome  by anyone after 1988, including the people in Affirm who asked me to speak prior to 1988.  It was odd, as someone who was queer in more than the sense of being gay, I was uniquely unqualified to speak out, but other than Bill Siskay, I was the only openly gay man in the church in Ottawa.

However what really kept congregations from leaving was the fact that the property is actually owned by the central church.

Reality is what it is.

i still believe that after holding votes to exclude LGBT, it takes more than a church just accepting the resolutions from GC to make it welcoming. None even tried to encourage me to stay or join another congregation. In fact they added other barriers, after 1988 that affected those who were HIV+, or being different in other ways.

Having been brought up with UCC values I believed one should not impose oneself, where one is not welcomed.  Perhaps that is wrong, especially in light of the fact that the votes were stacked by people over 60, and hardly anyone under 30 voted.