NJ rules against church group in gay rights case

MOUNT LAUREL, N.J. — A church group that owns beachfront property discriminated against a lesbian couple by not allowing them to rent the locale for their civil union ceremony, a New Jersey department ruled Monday in a case that has become a flash point in the nation's gay rights battle.

The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights said its investigation found that the refusal of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association to rent the oceanfront spot to the couple for their same-sex union in March 2007 violated the public accommodation provisions of the state's Law Against Discrimination.

While the ruling is decisively in favor of the couple, Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster, it does not end the case. An administrative law judge still must decide on a remedy for the parties.

"What this case has always been about from my clients' perspective has been equality," said Larry Lustberg, the lawyer for the couple. He said they will seek an order that requires the pavilion to be "open to all on an equal basis."

Brian Raum, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Scottsdale, Ariz.-based group that represents the Methodist organization, Camp Meeting Association, said his clients would keep pushing back against being forced to allow civil unions on the property.

"Our position is the same," he said. "A Christian organization has a constitutional right to use their facilities in a way that is consistent with their beliefs."

Meanwhile, the parties in the dispute are awaiting a ruling from the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on whether the issue should be decided in the division on civil rights or in federal courts. A lower federal court has ruled that the state could consider the case.

The dispute has become a rallying point for both sides in the political battle over gay unions.

Story continues below

advertisement

Supporters of gay rights say the discrimination shows that New Jersey's two-year-old civil unions law falls short of its intent to give gay couples the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples.

Earlier this month, a state commission headed by J. Frank Vespa-Papaleo, the director of the Division on Civil Rights and the author of Monday's ruling, recommended that the state allow gay couples full marriage rights.

Opponents of gay marriage cite the case as a prime example of their contention that by recognizing same-sex couples, states are interfering with religious freedoms.

"It's something we have to be careful about," said the Alliance Defense Fund's Raum. "As the rights of same-sex couples increase, the tendency is to have it conflict with the First Amendment rights of religious organizations."

___

On the Net:

New Jersey Division on Civil Rights rulings: http://www.nj.gov/oag/dcr/

Comments

[Horus]

I don't claim to understand the law, or what it means to be FREE in the United States, but I would like to think that if I owned a business and sold products or even provided a service, that I could pick and choose who I wish to serve and who I don't. The discrimination is what makes this an issue so the church should've simply said that they don't wish to rent it out to the two ladies because they don't like them and don't want to do business with them, and just left the fact that they are sodomites out of it entirely.

[oldbrit]

A marriage is between one man and one woman.

WRONG!

In most churches that disdain same-sex marriages, a marriage is between one man and as many women as he can get to marry to him - as long as it's only one woman at a time. (Or, between one woman and as many men as she can get to marry her - as long as it's only one man at a time.)

Special Covenant: A married man or woman can have as many boyfriends and girlfriends as he (or she) desires as long as his (or her) spouse doesn't catch them.

Special Note: Southern Baptists have the highest divorce rate of any religious sect in the U. S.

[oldbrit]

The people claiming that churches will be required by law to marry same-sex couples is part of a propaganda campaign to create irrational fear, hatred, and anger that people like Rick Warren and John Hagee use to keep the money rolling in.

Those here who are making this claim aren't stupid. They understand the issue but are intentionally distorting it because they want their religious beliefs to be enacted in law so that all Americans must obey their code of behavior.

It doesn't do any good, but I keep reminding them that the only path to a world at peace is full civil and human rights for all people and that the civil rights protections in our constitution protect their right to worship as they please, restrict membership in their faith community, and marry whoever they choose to marry.

The idea that the civil rights spelled out in our constitution protect them falls on deaf ears. They think they don't need the protections in our constitution because they are in the majority, will always be in the majority, and will, therefore, always have the power to impose their will on everyone else.

If they get their way and succeed in eliminating separation of church and state from our constitution, be prepared for blood in the streets as the various Christian sects attempt to impose their version of Christianity upon each other.

[Jezreel]

This case perfectly illustrates what Pastor Rick Warren and most Christians have long suspected and feared about the issue of gay marriage. As soon as gays win the legal right to marry they will start showing up at Christian churches and facilities and demanding the facilities be used as locations for same-sex ceremonies. And the first minister or church group that refuses will be sued for so-called discrimination.

Although gays and supporters of gay marriage tried to discredit and smear Pastor Warren, his assessment of the ramifications of this issue was spot on.

[Artemis34]

They did not show up at a church. Read the article. No one is saying what can go on inside any church!

If the 'church' choses to operate a public facility they are subject to public law. If they chose not to abide by public law they can't operate a public facility.

Totally aside from the church, they want to own and operate a commercial enterprise that serves the public. And they want to operate their commercial operations in a way that violates the law.

They are free to welcome into their church whom ever they chose. They are free to define marriage however they chose.

They are not free to operate a commercial enterprise in an illegal way. That is the point.

[majii]

Glad to hear this about this case.

[abbeyroad]

i meant to type "over a certain amount of money each year", not a "fixed amount".

[abbeyroad]

i know that there are some churches that do some very good things with their money
(it seems that the compassionate churches that do good work are always the broke ones).

perhaps the tax exemption could apply only to churches that generate a fixed amount of money each year.

the LDS is worth over $30 billion dollars. they don't pay taxes.
they spend less than 2% of that money on charity .

and of course, the catholic church is loaded.

[abbeyroad]

can you imagine how much money can be generated by taking away their tax exemption status ?

states like california are flat broke.

we could take all that extra money and rebuild the crumbling infrastructure in this country.
we could build more schools. create more jobs. help the poor get back on their feet.

that tax money could do some REAL good in this country.

[jlarue]

That is a real hard topic for me. I am a member of a small poor parish. Losing our tax exemption would force us to close our doors. We are an inclusive Episcopal Church with a married gay priest...married right here in California before Prop 8 by the way.

[Artemis34]

If you are doing good works, you have a lot of good karma and will be safe.

It is those who are professing that they are doing good works but rather actively seeking to harm others that are racking up a lot of bad karma and will not be safe.

Have faith.

[jlarue]

It makes me laugh to hear the churches claim they are being discriminated against.....That is a complete joke. I am a Christian, too! They need to shut the eff up and start treating all humans with dignity. Excuse my language but this is just so irritating to me. We dont get to choose who we love and treat with dignity as Christians. Loaning money at interest is also a sin in the bible.....do they let bankers rent this place? Do they check to make sure no one is wearing clothes made of two different fibers or has had an affair or cut their hair.......There are something like 700 laws in Leviticus but they are especially found of this anti gay one. Hypocrites.

[scalleywag]

REC!

....that's an old Yahoo messageboard thing...

[Jezreel]

You claim to be a Christian, jlarue. You are lying. No Christian can write that churches should shut the eff up while claiming to follow Jesus Christ.

[klmebane]

the church IS NOT JESUS. it is an institution. one can follow jesus christ and have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH AN ORGANIZED CHURCH.

[flydoghead]

take away their tax exemption

[JZ735]

Ocean Grove is such a weird place...Bible thumpers galore among gay couples spilling over from Asbury Park...and why any gay or lesbian would want to live among such religious nuts is beyond me...still glad to see rationality and sanity rules for a change...hear that, moronic Californians who voted for intolerance?

[CrankyCurmudgeon]

Seems to me basic human rights trump free speech any ol' time. Slam dunk. Everybody's equal with respect to civil rights or nobody's equal. You can talk all you want about your religion; just don't tell me discriminatory actions are the same. Free speech, my derriere.

[ElBruce]

They could disallow same-sex union ceremonies from being performed there, provided that they weren't simultaneously renting it out to others. It's either private, in which case there are no restrictions on how you control it, or it's public, in which case there are. You can't have it both ways, even if you're a church.

[oldbrit]

Actually, no. As part of the purchase agreement, they are required to make the gazebo available to the public.

[abbeyroad]

Frenchie25 is 100% correct.

that's why the mormon church in London lost it's tax exemption.
because they wouldn't allow the public into their "temples".

this story is a perfect example of how homophobic these church members really are.

they can shout from the rooftops that they're not homophobic, and that they "love gays" and "approve of civil unions", but their ACTIONS SPEAK VOLUMES.

NIETZCHE WROTE:
"there was only one true christian, and he died on the cross".

[Jezreel]

The USA is not London. Here, 70% of Americans still believe in God and we will not allow Secularists, atheists, humanists, agnostics or the LGBT community to deny us our freedom to worship as we choose or the benefits of providing charitable services to the poor and underprivileged. As long as we have a Christian President, your proposal will not reach fruition. And we will not elect someone of your ilk any time soon.

[Artemis34]

This ruling doesn't have anything to do with freedom to worship or who believes in g-d.

BTW, you can believe whatever you want, regardless of what goes on in the rest of the world. You thoughts are your own, which is something you probably did NOT learn in church.

We do have separation of church and state, in case you haven't heard.

No one is trying to deny you your freedoms. But do realize that with rights come responsibilities. So, the Methodist may have a right to invest in a commercial operation serving the public, and, in doing that, they take on the responsibility to operate it within the confines of the law.

If the Methodists do not want to obey the law with respect to commercial operations, then they should not engage in commercial activities.

Don't play the victim. No one is attacking you.

[frenchie25]

There should probably be a law that denies a religious group the right to purchase and own beachfront property. What does the Metohodist Church need with NJ ocean front? Shouldn't the beaches in NJ belong to the people of NJ? What's next? An ashram in Times' Square?

[oldbrit]

I see nothing wrong with an Ashram in Times Square. In fact, it would be rather cool.

[jukesgrrl]

My understanding is that all beachfront property in NJ is owned by "the people" who have access to all of it (as is also the case in Hawaii). I read a long article in the Asbury Park Press a couple of summers ago detailing the rich-people enclaves that were trying to restrict beach access by putting up barriers so only home owners with beachfront property could get onto the beaches in front of their houses; they were challenged and then ordered by the court to add access pathways for the public to enter the beach every so many yards.

Ocean Grove was started as a Methodist chautauqua society and the camp meeting grounds still remain there and are used every summer, which is somewhat of an anachronism. The area includes an oceanview gazebo-style band shell; perhaps that is what the society rents for weddings. The Ocean Grove beach itself is run like all other public beaches in Monmouth County. The Methodist religion has a history of supporting civil rights for people of color. I'm surprised and disappointed to see them go conservative over this issue.

[Jezreel]

Maybe they did it because most Christians and people of color do not consider gay marriage as a civil rights issue. 70% of us think that gay marriage is a matter of personal choice and therefore a moral issue.