A Washington Blade headline: Church rejects couple's bid for ceremony at facility. Subhead: Lesbians file lawsuit in dispute over civil union by the ocean.
According to the Blade report, the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights has threatened to prosecute the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of the United Methodist Church for refusing to allow the lesbian couple's civil union ceremony in their seaside pavilion.
"Religious groups have the right to make their own decisions without government interference," said Brian Raum, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative organization defending the Camp Meeting Association, in a prepared statement on the suit. "The government can't force a private Christian organization to use its property in a way that would violate its own religious beliefs. This action by the State of New Jersey is a gross violation of the First Amendment."
So why is this lesbian couple suing, and the state intervening, to force a religious group to allow its property to be used in a way that violates its religious beliefs?
Conservative (that is, anti-gay) religious groups often charge that the ultimate aim of the gay movement is to force them to alter their religious beliefs and, in particular, perform gay marriages. Gay activists routinely call that nonsense. This case doesn't quite go so far as to insist that the Methodist group perform the ceremony, but it comes pretty close. It's the collectivist, "use the state to force our way" grain of truth that energizes conservative claims. And it's entirely gratuitous and unnecessary.
Freedom of choice for gays cannot be premised on denying others, particularly religious groups, freedom of conscience (not to mention respect for their property rights!).
64 Comments for “Stabbing Ourselves in the Back”
posted by wunderguy on
The church is trying to equate the running of a business with religious privilege. Other pieces on this article have shown that the church has used the facility for many activities other than those that are church related. The couple involved did not at any time demand that the Methodists conduct the ceremony or have anything to do with it.
If churches are allowed to buy up property and then deny the rights to others, what would stop a church supported by an Aryan Nation group from denying facilities to Blacks or Jews?
posted by nick on
wunderguy is right. Score one for buying the opposition’s line about the case without actually reading the details.
The truth is, as I understand it, that the church owns the entire beach and boardwalk in Ocaen Grove, and the only way that it’s been allowed to retain ownership is to allow everyone in the city public access. The boardwalk has been defined numerous times as a place of public accomodation, much more akin to a grocery store, and a category in which we would never place a Church or Parish Hall.
It’s a shameful bit of hate.
posted by ETJB on
Darn. The truth debunks the latest ‘its gays & liberals fault that some conservatives are bigots’ mantra.
posted by Brian Miller on
The church group is about to learn that “discrimination law” is a double-edged sword — they most likely support a law that would force a gay country club to permit a heterosexual wedding, after all.
posted by Avee on
So we’re not looking to force religious groups to do our bidding, except (once we have sufficient political power in a given state) we are. Now there’s a successful roadmap! Left-liberals just can’t help using state power to force the end they want, regardless of anyone else’s rights. Might (state power) is right, in their view–once liberals are wielding the state cudgel!
posted by Bobby on
Fucking brilliant, those lesbians could have gotten married anywhere they wanted, but they HAD to want the one place that doesn’t want them.
Wunderguy, a church is not a business, and even a business has the right to refuse costumers (“no shirt, no shoes, no service”). Property rights are sacred, you cannot host a satan convention in my hotel if I don’t want you there.
This story is the kind of crap that creates homophobia and ill will towards gays.
And it’s completely unfair, as a fan of Friday the 13th movies, I always wanted to visit the camp where those movies were shot. But I can’t, why? Because it’s owned by the Boy Scouts and you can’t visit without their permission. If I were to follow gay logic, I would have to sue the BSA, right? Who cares about property rights?
And for those religious haters out there, let me remind you that the first amendment protects freedom of religion. What those lesbians are trying to do is the equivalent of gay priests suing the church to remain working there.
People, that’s not how it works! If a religion rejects you, get the fuck away. That’s what I did.
posted by Greg Capaldini on
I have to agree with Bobby. We protect free-association rights in this country even when they manifest themselves in ugly ways.
posted by Brian on
If you look into the matter, you wil see that the open-air pavillion has been used for public functions for as long as anyone can remember. Because it is a public facility, that is where a potential problem comes in (segregated lunch counters were eventually deemed unconstitutional because of the public function they serve). If this were just a regular old church, there wouldn’t be an issue.
Furthermore, I believe the state is attempting to mediate between the couple and the group who owns the pavilion (which is not actually a part of the Methodist church either). And if that mediation is unsuccessful AND during the course of that time the state determines a law is being broken (ie the pavilion has traditionally served a public function), THEN the state will press charges.
Non-discrimination laws applying to public functions is nothing new in fact.
posted by Michael M. on
The lesbian couple isn’t suing. They filed a complaint. The Camp Meeting Association is the party that has filed a lawsuit.
It continues to amuse me that this place bills itself as “Independent” when it’s clear that Mr. Miller among others model their so-called journalism after Fox News tactics. Twist the truth and jump to conclusions that are unverfiable if not downright false, all in support of a rigidly right-wing ideology that, one way or another, ends with “gays shouldn’t be allowed to do that.”
posted by Craig2 on
Quite simply, it goes something like this. One- religious groups have the right to freedom of belief, conscience, assembly, speech and broad areas of religious practice, including their right to ordain whom they define as fit (subject to internal controversy).
This does not extend to the provision of services that are not used as places of worship or religious assembly continuously,
or are hired out to other patrons for secular uses. The latter is service provision discrimination.
As for the United Methodists, I’d have to say that mainstream UK, Australian*, Canadian* and New Zealand Methodists aren’t fundamentalists, and are horrified at the behaviour of their US counterparts over this issue…
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
*within ‘Uniting’ or ‘United’ amalgams of Methodist, Presby-
terian and Congregationalist
Churches.
PS: Ordination rights are still under debate in NZ’s Anglican and Presbyterian churches, but
that’s the only issue of discriminatory religious practice left for us to cross.
posted by Bobby on
“The lesbian couple isn’t suing. They filed a complaint. The Camp Meeting Association is the party that has filed a lawsuit.”
—Just the fact they filled a complaint makes gays look bad. The CMA is counter-attacking before it gets really bad for them. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense. Frankly, I don’t blame them, I’m sure a judge will rule their way.
“It continues to amuse me that this place bills itself as “Independent” when it’s clear that Mr. Miller among others model their so-called journalism after Fox News tactics.”
—Just because you don’t like the stories don’t mean they aren’t truthful or independent. As for Fox News tactics, at least Fox News reports on stories the mainstream/liberal media won’t report, like judges that give pedophiles light sentences, mayors who tell cops not to report illegal aliens to ICE, even if they have commited serious crimes; the school in colorado that invited speakers who told the students that drugs are good and that they should experiment with sex. But of course, you don’t watch Fox News, you watch Keith Oberman, CNN, MSNBC and you probably read the New York Times and believe every word they say.
“all in support of a rigidly right-wing ideology that, one way or another, ends with “gays shouldn’t be allowed to do that.””
—Just because gays want something doesn’t mean they absolutely have to get it. Look, gays have made great advances, there’s the all-gay cable channel LOGO, there’s gay pay-per-view porn on Comcast, there’s domestic partnerships in many states, gay adoption is legal in most states, lots of openly gay celebrities in the media, and when you watch SNL, they are more likely to make fun with gays instead of making fun at gays. This does not mean they have the right to marry in someone elses property, or force a country club to give them memberships.
Besides, sometimes straight couples can’t marry where they want, they either don’t have the right religion, or they can’t afford exhorbitant church fees. In fact, for the Catholic church to allow a wedding of a catholic and a protestant, the protestant has to agree that the children will be raised catholic. Or else the Church will not perform the marriage.
Sometimes discrimination is acceptable. Ever seen an an adult classified for porn stars? They discriminate on the basis of age, weight, race, body hair, etc. Should we sue them?
posted by Xeno on
Has no one here, especially Brian Miller, noted that the CMA has been taking public funds to repair the the broad walk? Tax payer money went into this location, the general public use it for nonreligious activities as if it were public space. The religious argument has no merit here. Either they return the tax payer money and build a church or compound over the broad walk and beach, or they let the gay and lesbian couples marry there.
posted by Bobby on
That doesn’t mean they can automatically marry on the board walk. If you want to get married in the Statue of Liberty, you need a permit. The same if you wanted to get married in a public street.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
When I first read Steve’s blog post, I agreed with him, but when I read further I changed my mind. The long use of the location as a public space, the non-religious nature of the business, and the CMA’s use of public funds for it, all call into question the applicability of the First Amendment to the case.
Of course, there are non-legal considerations. In general, I think that gay people should bend over backwards to avoid seeking to coerce churches, or even the appearance of doing so. But the more churches diversify and spread into non-religious businesses, the harder such conflicts are to avoid.
In any case, I do think we should examine the specifics of a case before jumping on our high horse.
posted by Jimbo on
Has no one here, especially Brian Miller, noted that the CMA has been taking public funds to repair the the broad walk?
These days, thanks to both big-government “liberals” and big-government “conservatives,” it’s hard to find a nonprofit, religious or otherwise, that isn’t touched in some way with government funding. I think Richard’s point above, is spot on (even though Richard distances himself a bit from it): gay people should make it a high priority to avoid even the appeareance of seeking to coerce churches. That the lesbian couple in question pressed the NJ state authorities into action is, strategically speaking, deeply counter-productive, and Steve was right to call them on it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So, since most LGBT community centers operate as places of public accomodation and accept state and Federal funds, homophobe groups should be able to demand that said centers rent space to them — and file lawsuits if the center does not do so.
And remember, you’ve all established the precedent that you cannot deny anything to people just because you don’t like their belief system.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, no one says most LGBT community centres operate as places of public accomodation. If they did that would be a fair assessment.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30, this case is not the same as the Hurley case, which most of us at IGF agree was correctly decided. A group with a parade or march permit has a right to bar participation by groups that in its view would be in conflict with its expressive purpose. Non-profits that accept public funds are at least arguably on shakier ground, but the BSA v. Dale decision makes it clear that a private group does not have to accept members it views as in conflict with its principles.
I don’t think anyone here would argue that the lesbian couple has a right to use a church against that church’s wishes. But the seaside pavilion is in a different category; it has a history of use as a public facility, as has been discussed. Distinctions make a big difference in the law. If this particular distinction does not impress you, fine, then make your case. But do not conflate different cases where the points at issue are different.
All of this being said, I still see no advantage to our side in picking this fight.
posted by Carol Rizzo on
I would like to inject some facts into this discussion.
First I have lived in Ocean Grove for the past 5 years and it is one of the most tolerant places in this country. People here treat one another with respect and dignity and I am proud to call Ocean Grove my home. Ocean Grove is an enclave, owned by the Methodist Church but governed and policed by the Township of Neptune. Our town council representative, elected exclusively by the citizens of Ocean Grove, is gay. Many of the businesses are owned and successfully operated by gays and lesbians.
First of all, every resident of Ocean Grove; gay and straight, jew, gentile and atheist leases the land they live on from the Camp Meeting Association. The Camp Meeting Association is the the business arm of the Ocean Grove Methodist church and is dedicated to improving the spirituality of its residents. The OGCMA does not demand in its lease agreement (as that would be illegal) that one be of any particular religion or orientation.
Second, the beaches of New Jersey are owned by the citizens of the state (with the exception of national seashore beaches)and towns bordering the beach may provide access. The beach is managed by the OGCMA who provide cleaning and life guards for a fee. Funding for this is supplemented by Neptune Township and the state of New Jersey.
The boardwalk to the beach is the responsibility of Neptune Township and not the Methodist church or OGCMA. The pavilion, which rests upon the boardwalk, was built by the OGCMA who also manage its usage (also for a fee). This same pavilion has housed concerts, weddings of all faiths and other activities. It is refuge for many of us in the rain and just a nice place to sit and get out of the sun. When damaged some years back, it was restored with public monies from the state of NJ and the township of Neptune.
AND THAT IS WHAT MAKES IT A PUBLIC ACCOMODATION!
Now having said all this… I am a big fan of the Methodist church who often bring in preachers and other religious speakers to minister at our wonderful Great Auditorium who haved waxed elegantly on the subject of accepting gays and lesbians. By the way, the Camp Meeting Association also runs the Saturday evening concerts whose artists included Johnny Mathis, Michael Finestein, Peter, Paul and Mary, Neil Sedaka, etc. They don’t seem to mind the sold out crowds or the fact that these artists are gay friendly and have gay audiences. By the way, the upcoming Johnny Mathis concert is sold out!!!
Let it be said and mark my words… Scott Hoffman, the CMA administrator wants a public forum and loves the attention. He’s ;ooking to make a national name for himself so he can lead at the national level ala Ralph Reed or Jimmy Swaggart or Jerry Falwell. (Lets face it… theres a void in the nation and he wants to fill it)
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Non-profits that accept public funds are at least arguably on shakier ground, but the BSA v. Dale decision makes it clear that a private group does not have to accept members it views as in conflict with its principles.
This is not a question of accepting members into a group. This is a question of whether or not an organization can be forced to lease space to people to whom it does not want to lease space on the grounds that its spaces are a “public accomodation” and supported in any way with public funds.
The reason you ought to care is that virtually all LGBT community centers fall under that description.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30, Carol has just explained in some detail how and why the pavilion in question is a public accommodation. I do not see how the average gay community center is in the same category. We are not talking about forcing them to rent their church out to people they don’t like. When a church gets so far into non-church-related business, it’s a bit ridiculous to treat everything as part of the religious function. If a gay community center were truly in a comparable situation, then it would be properly subject to the rules regarding public accommodations. As I have said, I don’t think this is a fight worth picking, but the lesbian couple appears to be on solid ground.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What Carol pointed out was this, Richard:
The pavilion, which rests upon the boardwalk, was built by the OGCMA who also manage its usage (also for a fee).
In short, it is their property. They may allow other people to use it on an ad hoc basis and temporary basis without chasing them away, just as you could walk into a church to sit down for a second or get out of the sun; however, that does not entitle you to the right to hold an event there, or to demand that they lease you their building. The same “public accomodation” logic would then apply to any LGBT community center who has a lounge, open door, or any place where the general public can come in, get a drink, sit down, or use the restroom.
Furthermore, the bulk of Carol’s argument is that, since government monies were involved, the use of the pavilion cannot be denied. However, the claim is that LGBT centers built with public monies should be allowed to arbitrarily discriminate against whomever they choose.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Yeah, I think that this couple didn’t have to sue. It’s unproductive. A public facility for a religious ceremony with a minister who would perform the ceremony would have been fine.
Forcing the religious insitution, is EXACTLY the wrong tactic. The civil marriage laws here in California specifically state that no religious institution has to perform the ceremony against their will.
This lawsuit is giving fodder not only to those religious people who keep complaining this will happen.
This has also compromised the hate crimes bill because religious groups say they will be forced or by threat of action, to muzzle themselves regarding homosexuality.
There are always alternative choices WHERE to have the ceremony.
The more important point is having the option to a ceremony in the first place. I say city hall where you get the license is the brass ring.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30, read the rest of it.
If some gay community center were running a cafe or some other clearly public accommodation, and they were refusing to serve fundamentalists, I say let them be sued. I know that DC’s anti-discrimination statute is neutrally worded, and my GLAA colleagues and I have stood firmly by the fact that the law protects a straight person facing discriminatino by a gay person just as much as vice versa.
posted by Brian Miller on
I hope antidiscrimination laws cost church groups billions, force them to religiously marry lesbians in four-way-polygamous relationships, and more. That’s the only way churches will finally get the message that the special rights they demand for themselves through “nondiscrimination laws” for religious choices are just as unreasonable as the laws that force them to accomodate gay people. Perhaps then they’ll recognize that the right to freedom of association should be absolute for everyone — not just some people.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “This is not a question of accepting members into a group. This is a question of whether or not an organization can be forced to lease space to people to whom it does not want to lease space on the grounds that its spaces are a “public accomodation” and supported in any way with public funds.The reason you ought to care is that virtually all LGBT community centers fall under that description.”.
You haven’t made the case that “all LGBT community centres fall under that description” and with your history of habitual lying its insane of you to think anyone’s going to accept your assertions on face value. Having a bathroom or floorspace the public might occupy is not the same as being in the business of leasing space. When the primary purpose of a business is serving the public in general you’re obligated to do so whether a church run business or an LGBT business. Private organizations catering to a private group such as the boyscouts are allowed to discriminate. It’s the same reason Catholic adoption agencies are required to accept gay clients in non-descriminating jurisdictions if they want to do public business.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You haven’t made the case that “all LGBT community centres fall under that description” and with your history of habitual lying its insane of you to think anyone’s going to accept your assertions on face value.
Ah yes, the LGBT person who clearly is unbiased towards Christians.
The bible you claim to worship and follow clearly sanctifies polygamy and incest. Any Christian attempts to deny that they support such things are clearly lies given their unbridled support and promotion of it as the unblemished word of god.
Should it surprise you, then, that this church has no interest in letting LGBT people use its facilities? It knows full well what LGBT people think and are claiming about it and its religious beliefs. This is no different than an LGBT community center, which invariably receives public funding and leases rooms to members of the public, refusing to lease to homophobic groups.
posted by Lori Heine on
Of course a religious group has the “right” to restrict the use of its facilities.
But once they start citing their supposed religious convictions as the “justification” for that, it is only fair for the public to demand consistency.
Are they as stringent in their judgmentalism toward ALL those who attempt to rent their facility? They will be subjected to scrutiny about this, and I don’t want to hear any crying for them about it. They brought it on themselves.
Incidentally, if the people being restricted from using the facility — whatever it is — happen to be members of the church and/or denomination, that opens up an additional can of worms.
If I were to suddenly be barred from celebrating a holy union, an anniversary or whatever else on the grounds of the church I attended — and of which I am a contributing member — you’d better believe I would be looking for some heads to knock together. Nor would I accept the “it’s a free country, and they have religious freedom” line.
All God’s chillun got religious freedom. Anti-gay Christians are hardly the only ones who can make such a claim.
posted by Carol Rizzo on
I just want to remind everyone that the lesbians here did not sue the church, they filed a complaint. The state was mediating a settlement when the OGCMA decided to take the fight public after assuring everyone that they wanted to handle this with dignity and go through non binding mediation. Scott obviously decided there was much to gain by accepting the offer of the Alliance groups.
posted by Carol Rizzo on
STATE SEEKS TO DISMISS LAWSUIT
Mon Aug 27, 2007 8:37 pm (PST)
http://www.app. com/apps/ pbcs.dll/ article?AID= /20070827/ NEWS/70827060/ 1001/rss
State seeks to dismiss Ocean Grove civil union lawsuit
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 08/27/07
BY BILL BOWMAN
COASTAL MONMOUTH BUREAU
OCEAN GROVE ? The judicial doctrine of federal non-interference in state matters mandates that a federal civil lawsuit claiming the state is infringing upon the religious freedom rights of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association be dismissed, according to court papers expected to be filed later today.
The state Division on Civil Rights will later this afternoon file a motion to dismiss a suit brought against it by the association over the state’s ongoing investigation into claims by two Ocean Grove same-sex couples that the association violated the state’s law against discrimination when it denied the couples the use of the boardwalk pavilion for their civil union ceremonies.
The association’ s suit, filed by the Scottsdale, Az.-based Alliance Defense Fund, alleges that the investigation violates the association’ s first amendment and religious freedom rights.
But the state, in the brief to be filed today, will argue that prior U.S. Supreme Court decisions established the so-called Doctrine of Abstention, which holds that federal courts should not interfere in cases where there is an ongoing
state-level proceeding.
Reading from a draft copy of the brief, Lee Moore, a spokesman for the civil rights division, said that in the case Ohio Civil Rights Commission vs. Dayton Christian Schools, “the (U.S.) Supreme Court held that because (1) the federal complaint was filed at a time when a state administrative proceeding was ongoing, (2) the elimination of discrimination is a significant state interest, and (3) the constitutional claims of the federal plaintiff could be adjudicated in the state proceeding, including in state court appeals subsequent to the administrative action,” the abstention doctrine applies and the federal case should be dismissed.
More details will follow when the brief is field in federal court.
posted by Bobby on
“Incidentally, if the people being restricted from using the facility — whatever it is — happen to be members of the church and/or denomination, that opens up an additional can of worms.”
—No it doesn’t. Being a member of a church, the ACLU, the Boy Scouts or whatever doesn’t mean anything. You’re not in the leadership, just like in the Catholic church the Pope has absolute power, in any church the pastor or whoever is above him has that power.
posted by Lori Heine on
“You’re not in the leadership, just like in the Catholic church the Pope has absolute power, in any church the pastor or whoever is above him has that power.”
Wow, Bobby, you really are an ignoramus. Didn’t you ever go to college, or did you order your diploma from the back of a comic book?
There was, like, uh, this thing called the Reformation. My own church, those uppity, rabble-rousing Lutherans, were the first in line. And one of the main issues was the authority — or rather, the lack thereof — of the Pope.
If you were to come into a roomful of Lutherans, or for that matter of most Protestants, and make a statement like that, you’d be laughed right out of the county.
Go crack a book and learn something, or foray out among actual people, before you make a statement like that. You just sound like a damn fool.
posted by Lori Heine on
And in anticipation of your next whine-rant, Bobby, the purpose of the Reformation was not merely to get out from under the actual Pope himself — it was a massive move away from letting anybody in the church have that much power.
You really are funny. I’m going to get a lot of good laughs at church this week.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “This is no different than an LGBT community center, which invariably receives public funding and leases rooms to members of the public, refusing to lease to homophobic groups.”.
LOL, “invariably”?! You are the biggest bullshitter I’ve ever known. Given the habitual liar you are if you want to prove that statement you’ll need a summarry of ALL LGBT centres proving they ALL receive public funds and ALL lease rooms to the public. Of course you won’t do that because you can’t and this is nothing new for you, wild unsubstantiated claims, anything you can think of to bash LGBTs. Stop dreaming Northdalass, no one’s going to take your word at face value.
posted by Bobby on
“Wow, Bobby, you really are an ignoramus.”
—You remind me of a bumpersticker, “God loves you, everyone else thinks you’re an asshole.”
“There was, like, uh, this thing called the Reformation. My own church, those uppity, rabble-rousing Lutherans, were the first in line.”
—Well genious, I wasn’t talking about your stupid little church specifically. I was talking about churches in general. Churches have LEADERS who, what do they do you? They lead! Right? Right. So if I’m the Pastor at the Church of Jesus Christ I Don’t Give A Fuck About You, and you come to me asking for favors, I’m gonna tell you to get the fuck out of my church.
Ever heard the word “schism?” That’s what happens when a congregation becomes too liberal or conservative from the mainline. They end up breaking up.
Or they lose the funding, which is what happened to a Baptist church that was gay friendly in Georgia.
That’s why most gays don’t even bother with mainstream congregations. Because most gays have enough common sense stay in their own place. It’s only a few asshole gays that want to be pastors at straight churches or get married in or in the property grounds of straight churches.
posted by Lori Heine on
Bobby, you’re so angry it’s hard to stay angry at you. It must suck to be that torn up inside with rage all of the time.
Maybe someday you’ll grow up enough to realize you don’t have to denigrate people simply because they make different choices than you do. Of course that presupposes you ever really become comfortable with the choices you make for yourself.
If you choose to reject organized religion, then go for it, dude. Knock yourself out. The absurd amount of time you spend telling everybody what a stupid decision this supposedly is gives lie to your assertion that you’re sure yours was the right one. You’re really primarily talking to yourself.
But what the hell do I know? I belong to a “stupid little church,” I’m an “asshole” who demands to be treated like a full member of that church, and — since I’m a woman who doesn’t hate myself — I’m obviously a liberal.
Maybe I am. If it’s something you hate that much, it must be a real badge of honor.
posted by Bobby on
You denigrate people all the time, Lori, and I quote:
“Wow, Bobby, you really are an ignoramus. Didn’t you ever go to college, or did you order your diploma from the back of a comic book?… Go crack a book and learn something, or foray out among actual people, before you make a statement like that. You just sound like a damn fool.”
So don’t go around calling the kettle black.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You are the biggest bullshitter I’ve ever known. Given the habitual liar you are …….this is nothing new for you, wild unsubstantiated claims, anything you can think of to bash LGBTs. Stop dreaming Northdalass, no one’s going to take your word at face value.
I think Lori phrased it best:
Maybe someday you’ll grow up enough to realize you don’t have to denigrate people simply because they make different choices than you do. Of course that presupposes you ever really become comfortable with the choices you make for yourself.
posted by Bill from FL on
I don’t see why the OGCMA should have to allow this ceremony. I don’t think they should have to be consistent or explain anything or even play fair. A couple rhetorical questions for the OGCMA: If tomorow you suddenly decided you didn’t want Catholics marrying in your gazebo, or non christians sitting in it, could you or couldn’t you legally decide that? Could the OGCMA, as a religious group have opted not to allow property leases to homeowners that will sell to gays? A religious corporation that isn’t under government contract for certain things should be allowed to do most anything it sees fit. Even if it’s not fair! Period. MCC doesn’t have to allow Pat Robertson in for a visit or a wedding does it?
I am from near Ocean Grove. I have sat in that pavillion and walked that boardwalk (mostly in the late 90’s) scores of times after a night at neighboring Asbury Park’s Club Paradise and for concerts with my elderly religious aunt. Hopefully they can settle this case easily. Not to mention the big quagmire they call NJ law (i.e. what is a public accomodation and how is it defined since there is a boardwalk and ocean there etc), Ocean Grove is a special sort of town….Neptune Township is not a dry area but all of Ocean Grove IS. A big cross nicely graces (graced?)a section of the beach-all of which which is closed on Sunday until after 12 noon. Ocean Grove’s Volunteer Citizen’s Patrol–fully uniformed and with RED lights kept/keeps watch in cooperation with township police. Point? Not your average NJ shore town or I dare say American Town. Take a look at their history-it’s unique.
Hopefully this doesn’t become something for the Religious Right and friends to raise funds with, and hopefully the ADF or the RR doesn’t benefit from this in their (ADF’s) obvious impact litigation case. (I doubt the OGCMA would need the ADF’s help in state court/with the DCR?they aren’t without resources!) The ADF could have butted out as this was only a stupid little complaint with the state’s bureaucracy…not a lawsuit! My unqualified guess is NJ would have dismissed the complaint on religious freedom grounds eventually
.
Ocean Grove came back with BIG help from the area’s gay population and has coexisted well, IMHO. Hopefully that won’t change.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Yes Lori, you should respect ND30’s choice to tell lies and not denigrate his decision to be a duplicitous and arrogant asshole.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Yes Lori, you should respect ND30’s choice to tell lies and not denigrate his decision to be a duplicitous and arrogant asshole.”
Where the hell did that come from?
CP, please fight your own battles. Don’t try to drag me into them. I have enough of my own to fight.
Next week, Bobby and I are appearing at Madison Square Garden. It’ll be ten rounds…
Oh, that would be great. Unfortunately it ain’t gonna happen.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Guilt by association, Lori.
Since I quoted you, you MUST be guilty, regardless of the facts surrounding the event, and thus you must be torn down and destroyed.
You hit on the problem, which is the fact that the natural reaction of those who are insecure in their own beliefs is to eliminate those who question them. It’s a common tactic among the worst of the religious fundamentalists, and it’s merely repeated by the gay “fundamentalist” movement that ColoradoPatriot represents.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
I apologize Lori, my comment was for Randi…I saw your name in ND30’s post and wrote your name in error. I wasn’t attacking you or Randi in my post though; I was just following ND30’s logic about “choice” to its end. I didn’t mean to offend you and I apologize if I did.
posted by Bobby on
” Could the OGCMA, as a religious group have opted not to allow property leases to homeowners that will sell to gays?”
–Sure, you don’t even have to be religious to do that. Condo’s and coops can refuse to sell to singles, people with kids, people under 55, etc.
I was lucky I bought directly from the developer. My sister and my brother in law had to face a gestapo-style condo board with all kinds of questions.
They even did a study where a person called a rental community with an African American accent, and then with a white accent, guess which one wasn’t told there was no vacancy? The writter of Freakonomics even proofs that it’s harder to get a job when you’re name is too black. In other words, you’ll do better if your name is Alex instead of D’vonne.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “I think Lori phrased it best: “Maybe someday you’ll grow up enough to realize you don’t have to denigrate people simply because they make different choices than you do. Of course that presupposes you ever really become comfortable with the choices you make for yourself.”.
Northdallass, CP put it best:
In your delusion I “should respect [your] choice to tell lies and not denigrate [your] decision to be a duplicitous and arrogant asshole”.
When you’re a habitual liar me pointing that out isn’t denigrating you, its acknowledging the reality of your reputation. I AM comfortable making the choice to be an honest decent person and apparently you’re just as comfortable being a chronic gay-bashing liar – shame that.
Now back to the issue at hand you’ve been trying to dodge – you said “This [church’s situation] is no different than an LGBT community center, which invariably receives public funding and leases rooms to members of the public, refusing to lease to homophobic groups.”.
You’ve been asked to prove that with a list of every LGBT community centre demonstrating that they all receive public funding and lease rooms to the public. You have been unable to do so because as is typical of you, you can’t resist lying.
If a group running an LGBT community centre was operating a business catering to the general public they would be just as obligated to rent to people they don’t like. You haven’t made the case that this is the situation and of course you’ll never make the case that this is “invariably” the situation.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Of course, Randi, that is fully dependent on your definition of “honest decent person”.
Which includes making statements like this about all Christians:
The bible you claim to worship and follow clearly sanctifies polygamy and incest. Any Christian attempts to deny that they support such things are clearly lies given their unbridled support and promotion of it as the unblemished word of god.
And that example of LGBT behavior goes a long way towards explaining why Christian churches should not be forced to lease their facilities to LGBTs, just as LGBT community centers should not be forced to lease to blatantly-antigay groups.
As long as the LGBT community and its supporters like Carol Rizzo tolerate and endorse this sort of behavior by LGBTs like Randi Shimnosky, any Christian church should owe them exactly squat.
posted by Brian Miller on
If a group running an LGBT community centre was operating a business catering to the general public they would be just as obligated to rent to people they don’t like.
Which is one reason why this country is collapsing into a heap of squabbling factions all using government power to “get one up” on each other.
Democrats and Republicans — conservative Christians and leftist gay activists — have forgotten one of the fundamental liberties that is core to the founding of this country. . . freedom of association.
Gay people don’t have the right to force the Boy Scouts to accept them — and the Boy Scouts don’t have the right to government funds.
Gay people don’t have the right to force churches to marry them or open up their property to them — and the churches don’t have the right to government subsidies.
Churches don’t have the right to demand special rights for their members, such as “nondiscrimination laws” in private employment — and individuals don’t have the right to apply “nondiscrimination” laws to religious groups to force them to change their views or practices.
The problem is, this age-old right has been so thoroughly trampled by social engineers that we’re engaged in a scorched-earth war of attrition. My hope is that one side will eventually be so burnt out by the conflict that they’ll withdraw their forces and call for a return to those ancient values that served us so well, for so long, and get Nanny Government out of the social engineering business.
Judging from the exchange so far, I am not optimistic.
posted by Bill from FL on
Bobby:
” Could the OGCMA, as a religious group have opted not to allow property leases to homeowners that will sell to gays?”
–Sure, you don’t even have to be religious to do that. Condo’s and coops can refuse to sell to singles, people with kids, people under 55, etc.
Makes sense IMHO but this is different than a condo association….which is still subject to laws. (like say, they cannot bar blacks or jews) OGCMA has been around since the 1800’s.(You rent the property for a small amount from OGCMA I think for 99 years, correct me if i am wrong). Another example of their uniqueness: On Sundays up until I think the mid 80’s you could not have drive a car park it therein. Front gates locked. I think the ACLU or something came along and sued and Neptune Clownship took over. You had to move it/park in/to neighboring Asbury Park and walk across a footbridge.
posted by Bobby on
Well, I guess I stand corrected Bill.
Brian, you said:
“and the Boy Scouts don’t have the right to government funds.”
If that was the case, no private group would ever get money because all private groups have something objectionable about them. But as you know, government is arbitrary and they choose what to fund in the name of the so-called “public good.”
posted by Brian Miller on
If that was the case, no private group would ever get money because all private groups have something objectionable about them.
That’s exactly the point. The government violates the Constitution every day of the year with impunity — that doesn’t mean it’s not violating the Constitution.
Perhaps someone could point out the section of the Constitution that entitles private religious groups like the Boy Scouts to federal funding. I can think of at least two that prohibit such an arrangement. . .
posted by DragonScorpion on
~”Conservative (that is, anti-gay) religious groups often charge that the ultimate aim of the gay movement is to force them to alter their religious beliefs and, in particular, perform gay marriages. Gay activists routinely call that nonsense.” ~ Stephen Miller
That is absolutely right, I’ve encountered this in so many debates about this issue. I’m sure we all have. There is a genuine fear among many that churches will be forced to marry same-sex couples and that those who perform sermons condemning homosexuality will be prosecuted under ‘hate crime’ laws…
It is preposterous that religious institutions, doctrines, sermons and speech in general would be criminalized to benefit homosexuals. I would hope that most of us who believe in true liberty would agree. I think we have to take the fear and appearance of this very seriously. We lose credibility if we don’t make it clear that this is not part of our “agenda” including if we remain silent when certain individuals or even groups go too far. This looks to be one of those incidents and if so I think the gay community overall should be critical of it; at least certainly not to defend it.
posted by Randy on
“We protect free-association rights in this country even when they manifest themselves in ugly ways.”
No, no, no, and double no! If you operate a restaurant or a boutique in this country, you may NOT refuse service to blacks, latinos or asians just because you do not like them. If you operate a public accomodation establishment, you may refuse service to those who don’t meet objective criteria, such as not being able to pay, not wearing shoes, being disruptive, that sort of thing, But you may not establish a blanket policy of excluding any group, especially if they are part of a suspect class. In NJ, gays are legally defined as a suspect class.
Therefore, any public accomodation establishment must allow any persons to use it. And yes, many whites in the south made the argument of 1st amendment free asociation rights, and property rights, and liberty and all that. What they were really arguing, and what some of you are arguing, is for the freedom to discriminate against a class of people.
The debate was settled since at least the 60s, and your argument failed then, and it fails now. If you own a house, you can refuse to admit anyone you please, because a private house is NOT a public accomodation. Once you open a place of business, however, it becomes a public accomodation. If you don’t like this, then don’t open a business.
That’s the law, and it’s a good law. I don’t know why anyone has a problem with it.
posted by Randy on
Marriot Hotels are primarily operated by the Marriot family, which are Mormons. Suppose Marriot Hotels had a public policy that they will not serve any gays? Not in their rooms, restaurants or ballrooms.
Apparently, many of you would think this is perfectly fine, since it’s a matter of private property. However, it would most definately violate the law. Don’t like it? Change the law so that you can be excluded from any restaurant in America. Maybe then you will be happy.
posted by Brian Miller on
Suppose Marriot Hotels had a public policy that they will not serve any gays? Not in their rooms, restaurants or ballrooms.
Then there’d be celebrations at Hyatt, Hilton, Kimpton, and other competitors as massive amounts of business streamed into those institutions that was either turned away or insulted by the Mariott stance.
Major corporations with sexual orientation nondiscrimination policies (which exist independent of the law) would instruct traveling employees to blacklist the Mariott chain.
As revenue declined and losses piled up, Mariott shareholders and creditors (including major banks) would apply pressure to the management to change. As the chain continued underperforming for three or four quarters and negative publicity piled up, the shareholders would revolt and replace management.
If the management had enough shares to hold on to their seats, the banks would begin hiking interest rates as deteriorating revenue impacted its credit line — eventually calling in loans as hotel after hotel succumbed to poor sales.
With such a massive cash-flow problem, poor profits, a depressed stock, and no lenders willing to finance them at competitive rates, Mariott would shrink into a shadow of itself or simply collapse entirely into liquidation.
No government needed.
posted by Brian Miller on
many of you would think this is perfectly fine, since it’s a matter of private property. However, it would most definately violate the law. Change the law
That sounds like the far right’s argument against same sex marriage. . . or their prior argument (before the SCOTUS’s Lawrence decision) in favor of sodomy laws making consensual sex with your partner in your own home a crime.
The reality is, bad laws — be they anti-gay marriage laws, sodomy laws, or the special privilege laws you’re promoting — should always be opposed, especially when they violate the rights of a group of people (as all three categories do).
posted by Bobby on
“The reality is, bad laws — be they anti-gay marriage laws, sodomy laws, or the special privilege laws you’re promoting — should always be opposed, especially when they violate the rights of a group of people”
—That has no bearing in this case, even if gay marriage was legal, it doesn’t mean you can marry anywhere you want. Would a gay church want David Duke to get married there? I think not.
posted by carol Rizzo on
Free speech cry could cost Grove tax break
To receive break, area must be open to public
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 08/31/07
BY BILL BOWMAN
COASTAL MONMOUTH BUREAU
Post Comment
OCEAN GROVE ? A pending renewal of a state tax exemption on land including the embattled
boardwalk pavilion could become an issue in the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association’s ban on same-sex civil unions in the pavilion, and could end up costing the association hundreds of thousands of dollars.
That’s because one of the requirements for land qualifying for the exemption ? administered by the state Department of Environmental Protection’s Green Acres program ? is that the land “must be open for public use on an equal basis,” according to the program’s rules.
And whether the pavilion is open to the public on an equal basis or a religious structure subject to conditions imposed by the Methodist Church Book of Discipline is at the heart of the controversy, which has now spread to a federal courthouse in Trenton.
According to the application, which lists Sharyn Krzyzanowski as the contact person, there are no restrictions on the public use of the boardwalk ? on which the pavilion rests ? while users of the beach must pay a fee in season.
In response to the application’s request to “list what segments of the public use your property, how many visitors and how often,” the association answered, “All segments open to all public. Use estimated at 140,000 per year,” according to the application.
Under the law creating the program, the association’s renewal application must be decided upon by DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson by Sept. 15. If Jackson denies the application, the association could be liable for rollback taxes ? which the law creating the program defines as the total of taxes that would have been paid in the current year and each of the previous two years ? that could amount to “hundreds of thousands of dollars,” Neptune tax assessor Bernard Haney said.
“Based on current numbers, taxes on the beach and boardwalk would be about $400,000,” he said. If rollback taxes have to be paid, the amount would “absolutely be in the mid-hundreds of thousands of dollars.”
The pavilion, Haney said, “is within the confines of the Green Acres exemption. The boardwalk and the beach are exempted under the Green Acres exemption, and the pavilion is part of that.”
What is not clear is what affect the association’s winning its federal lawsuit against the state would have on the Green Acres tax exemption.
The association has filed a federal lawsuit against the state Division on Civil Rights, claiming its free speech and religious freedom rights have been abridged by a state investigation into complaints filed by two lesbian couples who were denied use of the pavilion for their civil union ceremonies.
The couples and their supporters claim the pavilion is a “public accommodation” and therefore must be open to them under the state’s Law Against Discrimination.
The association maintains that the pavilion is a religious structure, much like its
Tabernacle, and the Methodist Book of Discipline forbids same-sex ceremonies in its religious structures.
The association maintains this stance even though, as noted by former Neptune Mayor Joe Krimko, the pavilion is located in an area zoned “Historic District Recreation,” which, according to the township’s zoning ordinance, does not permit places of worship.
Among the accessory uses for the zone, according to the ordinance, are “pavilion(s), not fully enclosed, for passive recreation use only.”
The ordinance specifies that, “All uses not expressly permitted in this Ordinance are hereby prohibited.”
DEP spokeswoman Karen Hershey said she could not comment on whether the association’s position on the pavilion’s use would have any effect on Jackson’s decision to approve or deny the tax exemption renewal.
Lee Moore, a Division on Civil Rights spokesman, would only say that the division “is aware” of the pending renewal application.
The Rev. Scott Hoffman, the Camp Meeting Association’s chief administrative officer, could not be reached for comment.
posted by Carol Rizzo on
Following the above story from the Asbury Park Press is a comment section. The writer here appears to be a lay minister and as I suspected, the Methodist Church does support its gay members. As I said, people in this town are tolerant and respectful and the methodists in the tent homes we pass on the way to the beach see me and my partner walking down the street together and always greet us warmly.
Further, as I suspected, it does appear that the CMA is a business arm and has used the church affiliation to claim exemption status. I have copied the blog commentary as it appears after the story.
I think mrd is correct this has nothing to do with the United Methodist Church. I’m an active Methodist lay minister, not an expert, but it’s my understanding the Camp Meeting Association has no actual tie to the church. It was founded by some Methodists long ago (more than a century right?), but it formed its own legal entity to do business including selling real estate (including to gay couples, so its stance on the pavilion is rather schizophrenic).
The only tie I can think of to the UMC is if the CMA uses its own advocacy of Methodism as purpose to get the 501(c)(3) tax exemption. I don’t know if you have to get sanction from the church to get the religious exemption. In my experience, the IRS wasn’t picky about the church vouching for the group for it to call itself religious.
With all due respect to reporter Mr. Bowman, I think he overstates the Methodist tie in his articles and seems to lead people to think something that I don’t think is true. It’s not resolved in the UMC how to deal with gay members, even gay ministers. Defrocking of the lesbian minister in Pennsylvania remains in dispute.
The preamble to the Discipline says we accept gays in every way with all equality. There is a line in the text that was added at a general conference in recent years that can be interpretted as contradicting that, but the correlation of those conflicting passages is still debated within the UMC.
The United Methodist Church, in fact, has quite a few reconciliation churches, which are UMC churches that do perform civil union ceremonies of some sort (maybe or maybe not in the sanctuary and perhaps with ecumenical guest ministers, I don’t know exactly). So the claim the UMC forbids gay unions isn’t absolute.
To be blunt, I think the CMA is making up its own draconian “rules” and blaming it on us Methodists. And shame on them for bearing false witness, IHMO. Most of us are not bigots and follow the words of Christ, not Leviticus, and I believe Jesus would be fine with marrying gay couples if he were with us in flesh today.
Posted by: justaguy on Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:17 pm
posted by Carol Rizzo on
The OGCMA has a public meeting on Monday morning and Ocean Grove United has called upon the community to show up at that event. I will report afterwards as to the events.
As I drove into the Grove this evening, I was really heartened to see the equality flags flying on so many of the Main Street homes. As I said, this community loves us and we love it. We have worked hard to be good neighbors and it is so nice to see so many of our neighbors flying the flag in a show of support.
Here is another post from NJ.com from one of the members of the Ocean Grove Methodist community.
Posted by JaneR on 08/26/07 at 12:21PM
“I am an active United Methodist in Northern NJ, and I also own a vacation home in Ocean Grove. I am very disappointed in the leadership of the Camp Meeting Association, which turned fellow residents away when they requested use of the Boardwalk Pavilion on the same basis that other secular couples and event planners have in the past. The OGCMA is Methodist only in its history, being founded by Methodists, and requiring that the voting members of the board be a member of a Methodist church somewhere. It IS NOT a Methodist church, and the Bishop and leadership of the “Greater New Jersey Annual Conference” (the Methodist version of a Diocese) have no authority over it. The controversy has brought various groups in the section of Neptune Township known as Ocean Grove together like nothing else in the past few years. I thank God for this blessing in disguise and pray everyday the leadership here will recognize how destructive recent nationwide headlines have been, will call off the out-of-state deep-pocketed Alliance Defense Fund, and unite with the rest of the town.”
posted by Bill from FL on
Carol Rizzo:
Thanks for all your insight and commentary on this. Interesting stuff. My hope is this will work out for the best….I always loved “The Grove” when I lived in NJ. I can only imagine what NJ 101.5’s (conservative) Jim Gearheart is flapping and fuming about regarding this one during drivetime.
Bobby:
I didn’t intend to “correct” you (sounds too harsh) just to point out it’s different than a condo ass’n but yours was a fair comparison I think.
posted by raj on
I am amazed that you do not understand the situtation with this post. Let me explain it to you, from the article that you cited.
The Chamber of Commerce web site for Ocean Grove dates the seaside town back to the 1800s, when it was used as a setting for open-air religious revivals. The town is still owned by the Camp Meeting Association, which uses the pavilion and other buildings for worship services, Bible programs and gospel music ministry programs, among others. But the Association also leases its land to business and property owners
It is business property. I’m amazed that you apparently cannot understand that. The vermieter (sorry, the lessors) are constrained by the non-discrimination laws of the state.
posted by Carol Rizzo on
Hello to all.
Well I guess it is no surprise that the meeting did little to change the demeanor of the OGCMA but much to Scott Hoffmans credit he allowed everyone to stand up and speak. After all was said and done,it is wonderful to know that only 6 people got up to speak out for the OGCMA position. There were over 100 people who spoke against it and I would say it was 50/50 gay straight. So basically I am as proud of my neighbors as before. And I still love this town. So I guess its onto court. By the way, everyone with an HRC equality flag got a letter from Deb who told us she was praying for our souls and that she loved us.
Here is a report from the Asbury Park Press.
Hundreds protest Ocean Grove civil union stance at annual meeting
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 09/3/07
BY TRISTAN J. SCHWEIGER
TOMS RIVER BUREAU
OCEAN GROVE: Hundreds of protestors turned out at this morning’s Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association to call on the association to change its policy of banning same-sex civil unions from the boardwalk pavilion.
The association has contended the pavilion is a religious structure, and subject to conditions imposed by the Methodist Church Group of Discipline. Same-sex couples filed complaints earlier this year after their requests to have civil unions performed at the pavilion were denied, and the couples contend that the pavilion is a public structure and must be open to all.
The meeting held this morning is an annual tradition of the association, at which the group’s leadership gives the community an update on its finances, programming and other mattters. Association leaders touched on the civil unions issue only briefly, and Scott Rasmussen, president of the group’s board of trustees, said the association had filed a federal lawsuit against the state to “ensure that the Camp Meeting can continue to use our facilities in a manner that’s consistent with our history and our religious beliefs.”
But during the public portion, association leaders faced a long line of questioning and criticism by protestors for the civil union stance. Couples at the heart of the debate were in attendance.
Emily Sonnessa, 77, who is seeking a civil uinon with her longtime partner Jan Moore, said it was the couple’s dream to have the union performed on the boardwalk.
“The dream has turned into a nightmare, and we hope you will reverse your decision and allow us to celebrate almost 38 years together,” Sonnessa told the leadership. “Please don’t tell us there is no room for us at the inn.”
U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J., spoke briefly at the meeting, arguing that the
association has received federal and state money for the boardwalk and other maintenance, and thus should follow the rules pertaining to other public places.
posted by carol rizzo on
posted by JaneR on
I am an Ocean Grove homeowner and active member of a northern NJ United Methodist Church. I sing in the Great Auditorium Choir during the summer months. Carol Rizzo included some of my comments as posted on another forum previously.
I agree with most of what she says, except for one thing, her comments about “Scott” actually appear to be attributable to Mr. Scott Rasmussen, the President of the OGCMA Board of Trustees, rather than to the Rev. Scott Hoffman, the hired “Chief Administrative Officer.” Not that their opinions really differ, or that both aren’t out to look good to the national “Christian Right.” But it was Mr. Rasmussen who ran the meeting. He was elected to chair the group a few years age by a very slim margin.