Here is a link to the Ruling
1. Two people wanted to rent a Beach Front Pavilion for a "wedding". The property was owned by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association.
2. The association is very closely related to the Methodist church.
3. The church was not asked to perform a ceremony.
4. The people were homosexuals.
5. The church denied the lease based on the couples homosexuality.
Up to here, nothing real "controversial" as far as the law is concerned.
6. "In July 1989 respondent applied for a Green Acres real-estate tax exemption for Lot 1, Block 1.01, which includes the Pavilion and the adjacent boardwalk and beach area. The application describes the area as public in nature. The Green Acres program is designed to preserve open space and the statutory scheme authorizes a tax exemption for non-profit corporations utilizing property for conservation or recreational purposes. One condition of the exemption is that the property be “open for public use on an equal basis,” N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.66; N.J.A.C. 7:35-1.4(a)(2).
IOW, the church requested and received a tax exemption, for a boardwalk property and agreed to the conditions imposed by the agreement. They enjoyed this tax advantage for close to 20 years.
Respondent argues that it didn’t need a Green Acres tax exemption for the Pavilion; it could at any time have obtained the same benefit by applying for a tax exemption as a religious organization. Indeed, after these events that is exactly what it did. We are, however, bound by the facts that were, not those that might have been, or that came to pass in the aftermath of petitioners’ application. Respondent accepted a particular form of tax exemption that required it to keep the Pavilion open to the public on an equal basis, N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.64; N.J.A.C. 7:35-1.4. Neptune Township was skeptical that this could be achieved, but respondent persuaded the DEP and renewed that promise every three years. Thus, it not only interacted with government, it acknowledged the very thing that the interaction test seeks to assess.
IOW, the church knew what the conditions were and repeatedly had to convince the state that they could and would provide equal access to the property. The judge even concedes that had they used the religious organization exemption, the facts in dispute change!
IOW, the only real issue is the determination as to whether the property was "public". There were other reasons the judge cited for reaching this conclusion - but it is mainly based on the contract between the church and the state.
I humbly offer that, by accepting the hysteria generated over this ruling, we are allowing the other side to dictate what will be the generally accepted meaning of the ruling. If this had been any other nonreligious organization (say, the American Legion), the ruling would be nothing more than a footnote as it is plain on it's surface that a contract with the state had been broken.
Please don't allow the other side to misrepresent what this ruling really means!
I appreciate your patience and wish you a pleasant day, whether we agree or not.
IOW this is part of the homosexual agenda to remove the tax exempt status of organizations that object to homosexual behavior as “normal.”
When the application was done the law was different. This is akin to taking via regulation.
Who isn’t calm? I am not in the least “hysterical.”
This is one of many, many cases (I have written extensively about a number of them, inluding this very column) of homosexual activists challenging Christian churches, businesses and groups to bend to the will of the homosexual activists, dragging Christians to court. This is happening all across our country. It is not hysteria; it is a fact.
It would appear this Methodist group was targeted for the very reason that the homosexuals and their lawyers knew they could win this case against the Methodists, because of the “details” of that tax-exempt status. This was the first homosexual challenge to that particular location.
These homosexual activists, like the Islamists, seek to use our laws against us. Where there are no laws to support their wrong-headed positions, they get activist judges or politicians to “create” new laws.
The bottom line is still the same: We’re losing our constitutional rights in America. These kinds of attacks on Christians by homosexuals will continue, and they will not be limited to “public” private property.