Posted on 07/10/2007 8:27:34 PM PDT by monomaniac
OCEAN GROVE, New Jersey (LifeSiteNews.com) - A New Jersey lesbian couple has filed a civil rights complaint against a Christian seaside retreat association that refused to facilitate their "civil union."
Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster filed the complaint June 19 with the state attorney general's office on the grounds of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation after the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association declined the use of their Boardwalk Pavilion for their civil union ceremony, planned for September.
Bernstein and Paster demanded "whatever relief is provided by law" including unspecified "compensatory damages for economic loss, humiliation, [and] mental pain."
New Jersey's anti-discrimination laws currently forbid those who "offer goods, services, and facilities to the general public" from "directly or indirectly denying or withholding any accommodation, service, benefit, or privilege to an individual" on the basis of sexual orientation.
However the OGCMA has stated that it must adhere to the rules of the United Methodist Book of Discipline, which forbids homosexual civil unions from being performed in churches and other areas for worship.
"The facility that they requested is a facility we have used exclusively for our camp meeting mission and worship celebrations since 1869," Scott Hoffman, OGCMA's chief administrative officer told LifeSiteNews.com.
The Pavilion is routinely used for worship ceremonies and gospel concerts, and used to be available for weddings until recently, Hoffman said. "Right now we're waiting for a response from the attorney general's office as what to do next."
The application required to use the facilities does inform applicants that the facilities are only "available for usage that is consistent with the United Methodist Church Book of Discipline." (http://www.ogcma.org/files/fac.tif)
On top of that, the form Bernstein and Paster submitted in February would have also agreed to "indemnify and hold harmless" the OGCMA from claims arising from the use of the facility.
Although the OGCMA had 20 days to respond to the charges, Hoffman said his group "requested another 10 days so we would be able to fully and adequately prepare our response."
The group is considering all options, and contacted the Alliance Defense Fund for added legal expertise over its first amendment rights. Hoffman said his church group will attempt mediation with Bernstein and Paster to keep it out of the attorney general's office, but will not compromise.
"We are most definitively a religious organization, our mission statement is to provide a place for spiritual birth, growth and renewal in a Christian seaside setting," said chief administrative officer Scott Hoffman. "We don't think that by the way the rules are written now that churches are required by any stretch of the imagination to adhere to those policies, and we don't think we are either."
She doesn’t. She is probably ACLU.
She doesn’t. She is probably ACLU.
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_17301.shtml
But my closet case state senator said this wouldn’t happen.
But my closet case state senator said this wouldn’t happen.
The ACLU will get involved only if they like the facts. This case will turn on whether the facility in question (the pavilion) is a true church facility or a church-owned public accommodation. Church-owned facilities and private religious activities are entitled to discriminate consistent with church doctrine. Church-owned public accommodations (and common carriers, and other kinds of business generally held out to the public) have no right to discriminate. Both sides of this are very well-established law. However, the line between them is not well established.
If the ACLU sees this case as a clear-cut public accommodation, or an opportunity to shift the definition of public accommodation in their direction, they’ll like the case. If they think it’s a clear-cut religious facility, or likely to push the definition the wrong way, they’ll stay a mile away.
This couple knew exactly what would happen. They had no intention of doing anything but causing trouble, then suing. I hope they don’t get one penny and have to pay for the church’s legal fees. This makes me sick, and it seems to be happening more and more.
“We will not willingly render unto Cesar what is God’s.” - Supreme Grand Knight Carl Anderson accepting the St. Thomas Becket Award.
A few years ago the Christian Law Association began teaching churches how to amend their constitutions and bylaws to help ward off the law suits that are coming against churches who refuse to hire sodomite piano players, janitors, grounds keepers, etc.
I am praying that the Methodist folks who own the Camp Meeting grounds will hold their ground. We know that there are many Methodist, Wesleyan, Holiness and Baptist (and other, I’m sure) churches and associations that keep such facilities. We have such a facility in the Philippines (Baptist), where we hold annual camp meetings and many other events. We have stated in our founding documents that the facilities may only be used by permission by certifiably LIKE-FAITH/LIKE-MINDED churches, organizations and families.
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.