This week on Weird and Wacky Wednesdays, we explore some peculiar lawsuits involving churches, or at least entities that borrow the name. December may be a season of joy and generosity for many, but these legal battles show that faith and lawsuits often make for strange bedfellows. From questionable donations to a soggy ark and fried chicken drama, here’s the holy mess.
Dive into more bizarre lawsuits in our previous exploration of absurd legal cases in “Weird and Wacky Wednesdays: Volume 326.“
Refunds for Broken Promises
Members of Gateway Church in Texas are demanding refunds for their tithes, claiming fraud and breach of contract. The class-action lawsuit alleges that promises of supporting global missions were hollow, with only a fraction of the church’s $100 million revenue going toward such efforts. A whistleblowing CPA claims that during his tenure, no proper audits were conducted, contradicting the church’s defense.
Gateway’s former lead pastor had publicly promised refunds to dissatisfied givers. Now, hundreds of members are asking the court to enforce that pledge. The church argues that donations are unconditional gifts and legally nonrefundable, however. As this battle unfolds, one wonders if churchgoers across the country might start looking at those donation plates a little more critically.
The Ark That Couldn’t Handle the Rain
In Kentucky a massive replica of Noah’s ark, theso-called Ark Encounter, found itself at the center of an ironic lawsuit. Heavy rains in 2017 and 2018 caused a landslide that damaged the ark’s access road, leading the owners to sue their insurance provider for refusing to cover the $1 million in repairs. The insurer argued that the damage wasn’t covered, prompting the ark’s owners to seek legal salvation by way of a lawsuit.
For more instances of irony in the legal world, check out our analysis of liability disputes involving insurance in “Environmental Damages: Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!“
While the ark itself remained unscathed, the incident didn’t help its reputation as a controversial attraction. One wonders how anyone could buy into this bible story, from the logistics of housing thousands of animals to the physics of building such a vessel. This lawsuit, now settled, leaves one lingering question: If modern engineering couldn’t protect the ark from rain, what chance did Noah have? I mean, really.
Holy Chicken Feud
The phrase “Original Recipe” has sparked a legal showdown between two fried chicken giants. Kentucky Fried Chicken has sued Church’s Chicken, claiming the phrase, used in Church’s marketing, infringes on KFC’s trademark. KFC, which has used the slogan to promote its 11 herbs and spices since the 1950s, argues that Church’s slogan causes brand confusion.
Curious about how trademarks create controversies? Learn more in “Vicarious Liability: Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!“
Church’s, known for its Texas-style fried chicken, insists it was simply referencing its own product history. But KFC isn’t clucking around—they want the courts to stop Church’s use of the phrase and are seeking damages for trademark infringement. The case raises the question: Can anyone truly own the idea of an “original recipe”? I have all sorts of my own original recipes. Each time Paul Doroshenko makes hot sauce in the office, he tweaks it to make his original recipe. It does seem like something too common of a descriptor to rely on as distinct to a particular brand.
This week’s lawsuits reveal the fascinating mix of faith, irony, and culinary competition that keep the courts busy. From rain-soaked arks to tithes under scrutiny and a fried chicken showdown, the legal world is never short on surprises.
Explore more quirky and jaw-dropping legal scenarios in “Weird and Wacky Wednesdays: Volume 310.“
