Posted on 07/09/2007 12:29:45 PM PDT by bahblahbah
A lesbian couple in New Jersey has filed a complaint against a Methodist-owned campground, claiming illegal discrimination because their request for a civil union ceremony on the property was denied.
Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster in March applied for use of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association's Boardwalk Pavilion for their civil union ceremony, planned for September. The Methodist organization rejected their application and later told Bernstein in an email that it did not allow civil unions to be held on the pavilion.
Bernstein and Paster filed a complaint against the OGCMA in June, alleging illegal discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation.
In their complaint, the couple requested "whatever relief is provided by law" including "compensatory damages for economic loss, humiliation, [and] mental pain." They also demanded that the pavilion be made available for their ceremony.
At a meeting of members, chief administrative officer Rev. Scott Hoffman argued that the campground had every right to prohibit civil unions. He called the pavilion a "church building" that "has always been used for worship services and gospel concerts."
The OGCMA is a Methodist organization, with a board of trustees comprising 10 pastors and 10 lay people. As such, the organization operates according to Methodist teachings, Hoffman said.
"Those who make decisions are bound to the United Methodist Book of Discipline, which states that homosexual unions cannot be performed in church buildings, whether by clergy or lay people," he said.
Hoffman also pointed out that locations not used for worship purposes - including the boardwalk and the beach - were open for civil union ceremonies.
Garden State Equality, a political action organization that represents "the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community," asked supporters to write to the OGCMA, saying the civil unions ban was an affront to the Ocean Grove community.
"It's hard to believe this is happening in our progressive state of New Jersey," GSE says on its website.
The organization contended that the ban was illegal, saying that it "violates the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination because the property is, in fact, public ... by virtue of having been used by the public for many years."
But the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group that is representing the OGCMA in the dispute, said that forcing the pavilion to host civil unions would be unconstitutional.
Brian Raum, ADF senior legal counsel, said enforcing the complaint would intrude on the rights of the Methodists as a religious organization.
"The government shouldn't force churches to violate their own religious principles," he said. "Private, religious property owners have the right to decide what can and cannot take place on their property."
According to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, entities that "offer goods, services, and facilities to the general public" are prohibited from "directly or indirectly denying or withholding any accommodation, service, benefit, or privilege to an individual" on the basis of sexual orientation.
But according to the ADF, New Jersey is still subject to the First Amendment, and state statutes that limit liberties guaranteed by the Constitution must be overturned.
New Jersey is considered to be one of the most liberal states in America. Last October, the state Supreme Court gave the New Jersey legislature 180 days to provide for civil unions under the law, and the legislature has complied.
Same-sex "marriage" is still illegal in New Jersey, although it is favored by 56 percent of residents, according to a Zogby poll.
Thanks, there goes my lunch.
We know that all of this was engineered on purpose to try and get a precident in a court case. So these two should just stop with the hurt and discriminated against facade. It’s BS. They know it, we know it and the lawyers know it.
When churches must bow to the whims of the state, then we will have [essentially] state sponsored religion imposed on us through the back door.
The gay agenda is part of this, for sure. But make no mistake, the other half of the agenda here is incrimentally imposing control of the government on churches and religion.
I think that's the only way around this. Any organization that holds itself out to anyone for weddings would be ulitmately compelled by the state under antidiscrimination law to make itself available to same sex couples using civil union (which could theoretically be solemnized by a religious official of a religion that had no problem with it).
My first marriage was ultimately solemnized by the Roman Catholic Church, it ended in civil divorce, but was never annulled. I'm no longer Catholic, but if I decided to marry my lady in the Catholic Church, I would have no claim of any sort to force them to change their canon law, which requires that either my ex be dead, or that my former marriage be annulled under Church procedures. Any church that refused to marry same sex couples on doctrinal grounds would have the same standing. It gets less clear if both same-sex parties are members of a particular church, however.
It would not be unclear if the same sex partners were both Methodists and the Methodist doctrine opposed same sex unions. I used to be Methodist, but today’s Methodist Church is not my grandmother’s Methodist Church. Actually, I be that if the church state that only minister performed MARRIAGES were allowed and no civil ceremonies of any type be allowed, they could get away with it. Civil ceremonies are not marriages, according to the state definition.
Maybe you don’t know what a pavilion at a Methodist campground is. It is simply an open air church. The only services that might be held there, are the same ones that might be held in any other church sanctuary. It’s not like a pavilion on a public boardwalk. Maybe the lesbians are asking to use the pier for their civil union ceremony. From the pictures, it looks rather old and rickety.
The campgrounds grew up as little cottages or cabins, surrounding the pavilion, where church meeting were held all summer long, daily church meetings, sometimes.
Here's what I found from a search on MSNBC.com:
The (NJ Supreme) court said the Legislature “must either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or create a parallel statutory structure” that gives gays all the privileges and obligations married couples have.
I understand that the NJ Legislature put in the provision that civil union is NOT marriage, but that statement has not been tested in the courts, so its validity remains unclear. If "marital status" is a protected class under antidiscrimination law (I really can't think of a place with said laws where it isn't) then the status of a pair seeking a civil union would be the same as the status of a pair seeking a marriage, in public accommodations.
I'm sure this suit is being brought as some sort of test case to nullify the effect of the statement about civil union not being marriage. All the plaintiffs had to find was a place that let itself be used for marriages by anyone, and not for civil unions, and they had the perfect example to make their point in the courts. In NJ, that's how they won civil union, that's how they'll win full gay marriage. Remember, there were three dissenters in the 4-3 decision in NJ, the other three wanted full gay marriage, and NO civil union.
I wasn't aware of what it is physically, but right now, it is a place where straight people are allowed to marry, but homosexual people are not allowed a civil union. It meets the criterion for the test case these plaintiffs want to shove through the NJ Supreme Court for another bite of the apple.
This is what Jefferson was actually talking about in his letter that the ACLU and the other godless Libs liked to use.
The State was to stay out of Church affairs, not God out of the State.
This is true for virtually every Church.
Allow them to choose the mosque of their choice to be "united" in. I hope they can keep their head on straight.
I could be wrong, but I don't think so. I believe most every church does not make its facilities available for people who are not at least nominal participants in the faith of that church. That provides a basis for refusing anybody who does not meet the membership requirements of that church.
Now, if a New Jersey church chooses to make its facilities open for any straight couple that wishes to marry, without regard to their religious affilliation, as a money-maker, they might be glad that this set of plaintiffs did not target them. I do expect that if this suit goes all the way to the NJ Supreme Court, they will declare such a church to be a public accommodation that must comply with nondiscrimination laws.
Any church operating in the wedding chapel business, that does not want civil unions solemnized in its buildings, had better look towards changing its rules to reflect the exemptions provided for in antidiscrimination law. That probably means getting out of the "come get married here, we don't care about what faith you are" business.
Yes, you are wrong. My wife and I married in a Church neither of us belonged to. We were interviewed by the pastor before getting permission to use.
Further, my old Church was regularly used for marriages by folks who had no affiliation to our Church or even our denomination.
The constant applied is the pastor of the church had to approve its use.
If we begin to have the government dictate the ceremonies which can be held at a Church, we may as well eliminate any notion that we have freedom of religion.
That probably means getting out of the "come get married here, we don't care about what faith you are" business.
The logical extension of this is to make Churches close their doors for any religious ceremonies unless they are members.
But if any organization of any type was actively advertising that it had a wedding chapel business, they are probably not going to be able to get away with changing policy. It would be like a restaurant fifty years ago where only white people would go by custom, suddenly hanging up a sign saying "no blacks allowed" after an antidiscrimination law had just been passed. It ain't gonna work. You can't force the restaurant to sell soul food, but if the customers want what's already been on the menu, you can't deny it to them. And saying, "Well, our hamburgers are not chitlins is not going to work in this situation, either.
Are you truly unable to distinguish between a sacred place of worship and a restaurant?
I can. I'm just saying the NJ Supreme Court won't in the case where the welcome mat is out for everyone. That commercialization of the facility is what makes it somewhat less than sacred (which comes from the Latin word for "secret", by the way). If a church organization says, "This place is only for us, and only for people who share and/or respect our beliefs that we have allowed in, and not just anybody," then courts will probably respect that.
There are indeed things that even liberal courts will distinguish between what a church does in the practice of its religious traditions with its members and specific invitees, and what a privately-owened business, such as a restaurant, can do in dealing with the public. The more that a church does to make parts of it look like a business dealing with the public, the more it subjects itself to the laws regulating such businesses, in regard to those parts.
My point here is, with the NJ Supreme Court decision mandating the state of NJ either create gay marriage, or civil union with the exact same status as marriage, those laws have changed. Merely hiding behind the phrase, "civil union is not marriage," is not going to work.
Unless, the lesbians want to use that old rickety pier, they are talking about an out door sanctuary, where religious services are held.
My mother was in the Methodist home in Pitman, NJ, which is also a Methodist campground, with a pavilion that is still in operation. Actually, I think that it has been entirely rebuilt. While the town is no longer a campground, the old cottages are still their and the pavilion is still used for services in the summer.
Did you know that Nantucket was an old Methodist campground?
Hmm, interesting! I just moved to NY less than three months ago, from the Pacific Northwest, and there is so very much history here for me to absorb! Thanks!
They say the use of the Church has to be within guidelines acceptable to their denomination.
And they have a lot of latitude in that regard. If the local Catholic Church in my neighborhood has a Sausage Fest as a fund-raiser for its schools, and I come with a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner to display (or perhaps even a T-shirt with that slogan) they are within their rights to ban my attendance. However, if they have thrown this event open to the public, they're probably not going to be allowed to refuse me entrance merely for being a non-Catholic, even if I've been outspoken on the subject, but within my free speech rights.
Does a church organization have the right to refuse use of its facilities to homosexual people for civil unions, on the grounds that "we don't recognize civil unions", when civil unions (that the Court has mandated have the same legal status as marriages) are all that are available to same sex couples? We're about to find that out.
And the slippery slope continues. I told my friends it would only be a matter of time before gay/lesbian couples would be suing churches over their not being able to marry in those venues, and once the judges start legislating from the bench, the First Amendment is as good as dead.
I trust you watched the “D-Yikes!” episode of South Park?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.