Lesbian Pair Wins Ruling Over Refusal of Ceremony

Source: NY Times

A lesbian couple from New Jersey who were barred from holding a civil union ceremony last year at a beachfront pavilion owned by a church group won a legal victory on Monday.

The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights ruled that the refusal of the church group, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a Methodist organization that owns a square mile of beachfront property in Ocean Grove, near Asbury Park, to rent the spot to the couple violated the public accommodation provisions of the state’s Law Against Discrimination.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/nyregion/30ocean.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion

---

From the ruling itself:

However, an investigation found that the refusal to permit the civil union ceremony violated the public accommodation provisions of the state’s Law Against Discrimination and did not violate First Amendment Rights. The Division investigation found that the Camp Meeting Association had been permitting the public to use the Boardwalk Pavilion for weddings and secular events and that the Association had gained a Green Acres tax exemption from the state Department of Environmental Protection nearly 20 years ago after a finding that the Pavilion will be open to the public “on an equal basis.” (Following filing of the civil rights complaint, the DEP rejected a renewal of the Green Acres tax exemption for the Boardwalk Pavilion in September 2007.)

even if church owned, there can be no discrimination. Good for New Jersey.

in order to obtain tax breaks through the NJ Green Acres program, one of the provisions is that it be open to the public on an equal basis. Since they permitted weddings to be held there (both religious and non-religious), they had a legal obligation to make it available to the couple for a civil union.

nt

do they really not understand the law, or are they sticking their fingers in their ears and going la, la, la.....? Of course, in the climate of the last eight years, they could pretty much get away with either.

... to the desires of right-wing Christian religious groups. Up until then the law was pretty well defined -- your right to impose your religious views on others stops at the public square, and a bit further back from that if you are accepting government money.

For instance, the Boy Scouts, although not a religious organization as such. They've always had a "special relationship" with the US government and in our locale they got to use public school facilities and public parks for their meetings without charge, and they got to go to the head of the line for said usage. But when they embraced discriminatory policies against gays our local County elected officials decided that henceforth they would have to get in line and pay like the rest of us. That came about because the County Affirmative Action Commission, of which I was a part, went to the Board of Supervisors and put it on the agenda. A lot of people from the community came, too, and weren't the Boy Scouts pissed.

Catholic Social Services does a lot of fine work in distressed communities, and afaik they have long gotten federal money to help them out. But as a consequence I don't think they get to pick and choose their clients based on religion and I don't think they can discriminate against non-Catholics when they hire social workers. They have to keep "missionary work" separate.

Bush policies went counter to all of that. He was fine with giving our tax money to church groups and letting them proselytize with it, even making religious behavior a condition of getting help. The Catholics know better, having been in this for a long time, but I'll bet you anything that individual evangelical churches to whom this was new will be very upset when (God I hope it's soon) the Obama administration tries to redraw the appropriate boundaries. My guess is that they will throw a tantrum over "anti-Christian bias" and the like. Look for it on Bill O'Reilly. :eyes:

Hekate

Never should have been given in the first place.

"a Methodist organization that owns a square mile of beachfront property in Ocean Grove"

Actually, the square mile is Ocean Grove. They own the entire town. You can't buy land there, you get a 99 year lease.

One thing that was nice was after they were originally denied access - the HRC equal sign flags went up on houses all over town.

I've read. So I'd expect they'd be seeing more of this in Ocean Grove, won't they?

Seems like the gay women are all on my side of town, and the gay men are all on the Asbury Park side. At the annual Xmas tree lighting, which was run by the Camp Meeting Assoc., the mayor of Neptune (we're part of Neptune Two) mentioned his partner - I thought that was really cool.

Two sides...

But yes, cool about the mayor.

I haven't been that far south in a long while, I think. Was in Long Branch recently - could not believe my eyes. When I was growing up, that was the dumpy boardwalk, and Asbury was the better, bigger one. Where did all those fancy-schmancy stores come from?!

Best thin crust pizza I ever had was at Pete & Elda's!

I know this is off-topic a bit, sorry for that, but I live in NJ and love Asbury and am gay and thrilled that Asbury's building back up, especially with a gay population.

And, of course, there was the pizza connection...

my mom would take my grandma and I to Asbury all the time, and it was a lot of fun. So lively and so much to do.

Years later I went back to visit someone who lived nearby and was so sad to see what had become of it. I don't understand how a town ends up that way. Everything was empty, boarded up and abandoned.

I'm so glad it's building back up.

I'd direct them to our church camp in the beautiful Coast Range of Oregon.

Meanwhile, I was down at the shore a few days ago and noticed that the

Spring Lake creche is still on display on public property, tho the RCC

and Methodist Church are both but a half block from it and still on the Lake.

There's been a law suit over it -- not sure what's going on with it.

But, while Santa and Frosty the Snowman compete with the nativity scene,

I noticed the absence of a Jewish symbol. I'm not Jewish, but I'm quite sure

many others who visit probably are -- among many other religions.

I was born here forty-something years ago and will be officially moving back at the stroke of the New Year (most of my stuff is here already).

I am proud of New Jersey, especially the likelihood that we'll be the first state to establish marriage equality through the legislature, not through a court order.

there seems to be a light still burning in NJ --

How about some medical marijuana while we're at it ---

good news on the gay marriage equality deal --

I'm surprised at the Methodists -- too much control going to their heads.

What did they think they'd get from this harassing a gay couple?

Really dumb.

that prohibits same-sex weddings on church property. UMC clergy can't do these weddings, either. I'm guessing this place refused to allow this wedding because of the church law. I wonder if they'll have to revise the church law, now.

all weddings at the pavilion.

The General Conference meets about every 4 years and consists of Methodists from around the world. The conference is the ruling body for the church worldwide, there are no different rules for different states or individual churches.

I would imagine that the property will be removed from public use and only church members will be allowed to be married there in the future.

This also demonstrates the problems in centralized church governance. In faith traditions like my own, local traditions and standards are considered when making rules. We don't have to cater to bigots in other cultures, and, unlike the UMC, we've allowed churches in other nations to make their own decisions and standards.

It would be nice if the UMC would take a clear stand for justice for glbt people. But I don't see that happening any time soon.

when Bartleby and Loki try to buy tickets to Jersey and they are all sold out. The woman behind the counter tells them to come back tomorrow and in the future 'don't underestimate the draw of the garden state' (something close to that)

There's the Congregational church, directly across the street, with lawn to spare. And I'm sure they'd be happy to host that nativity scene. But the dumbasses in my backward town don't seem to realize that not everyone is Christian. There are some people running this town who are very very good about not seeing what they don't want to see...

My daughter and her husband were married at the Cong. Church in Thomaston. Little did they(the Church) know that the Rev. that married them (my best friend, and a Cong. Minister in the Berkshires) is gay, and she and her wife were recently married on the Cape!!!!:rofl: :fistbump: Oh,........the IRONY of it all! P.S. Hi neighbor:hi:

Actually, that most likely wouldn't have done anything but delight the folks at this particular Congo. church. They're a pretty cool bunch, from what I've seen. But why the town persists in slapping (a rather unattractive, too) nativity scene right there on the green every year...

A friend at church brought this up at a meeting once - I just laughed... I'd been complaining about it for years. Great minds, or something. We probably ought to get a few more of those great minds together and complain en masse.

I'm sure that's why they refused. It's time the church did away with that law.

do whatever silly thing they want.

But once they went for the tax relief and claimed it was open to the public on an equal basis... game over.

I'm so sick of organized religion trying to impose its bigotry upon everybody else. :mad: