Boop the Bottle! Don't Annoy the Baby!
All Babies Love Their Bottles
Donate monthly and end FReepathons!
Sponsors will donate $10
For each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 01/17/2012 3:23:31 AM PST by scottfactor
Here is a link to the Ruling
1. Two people wanted to rent a Beach Front Pavilion for a "wedding". The property was owned by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association.
2. The association is very closely related to the Methodist church.
3. The church was not asked to perform a ceremony.
4. The people were homosexuals.
5. The church denied the lease based on the couples homosexuality.
Up to here, nothing real "controversial" as far as the law is concerned.
6. "In July 1989 respondent applied for a Green Acres real-estate tax exemption for Lot 1, Block 1.01, which includes the Pavilion and the adjacent boardwalk and beach area. The application describes the area as public in nature. The Green Acres program is designed to preserve open space and the statutory scheme authorizes a tax exemption for non-profit corporations utilizing property for conservation or recreational purposes. One condition of the exemption is that the property be “open for public use on an equal basis,” N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.66; N.J.A.C. 7:35-1.4(a)(2).
IOW, the church requested and received a tax exemption, for a boardwalk property and agreed to the conditions imposed by the agreement. They enjoyed this tax advantage for close to 20 years.
Respondent argues that it didn’t need a Green Acres tax exemption for the Pavilion; it could at any time have obtained the same benefit by applying for a tax exemption as a religious organization. Indeed, after these events that is exactly what it did. We are, however, bound by the facts that were, not those that might have been, or that came to pass in the aftermath of petitioners’ application. Respondent accepted a particular form of tax exemption that required it to keep the Pavilion open to the public on an equal basis, N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.64; N.J.A.C. 7:35-1.4. Neptune Township was skeptical that this could be achieved, but respondent persuaded the DEP and renewed that promise every three years. Thus, it not only interacted with government, it acknowledged the very thing that the interaction test seeks to assess.
IOW, the church knew what the conditions were and repeatedly had to convince the state that they could and would provide equal access to the property. The judge even concedes that had they used the religious organization exemption, the facts in dispute change!
IOW, the only real issue is the determination as to whether the property was "public". There were other reasons the judge cited for reaching this conclusion - but it is mainly based on the contract between the church and the state.
I humbly offer that, by accepting the hysteria generated over this ruling, we are allowing the other side to dictate what will be the generally accepted meaning of the ruling. If this had been any other nonreligious organization (say, the American Legion), the ruling would be nothing more than a footnote as it is plain on it's surface that a contract with the state had been broken.
Please don't allow the other side to misrepresent what this ruling really means!
I appreciate your patience and wish you a pleasant day, whether we agree or not.
IOW this is part of the homosexual agenda to remove the tax exempt status of organizations that object to homosexual behavior as “normal.”
When the application was done the law was different. This is akin to taking via regulation.
The law was changed after the approval to force homosexuals on the church. the law has to be changed back to the time of approval.
Did you even bother to read what I posted?
The ruling does not remove any religious tax exemptions. The church CHOSE a different exception which included the provision to allow access to the property.
The law was changed, yes. New Jersey changed the law to allow "civil unions". Whether that was done to force homo's on the church I have no opinion.
Again, please don't let the other side dictate what the meaning of this ruling is! They WANT you to believe the court ruled broadly, when instead the court ruled on a very narrow matter. If the church had used it's relgious exeption for the property, the Homo Lobby would have LOST this case.
You may want to rephrase that.
“If there were a Trangendered Scouts of America, that would be an interesting half-step in-between, but again, that would be missing the point that transgendered girls are girls—not anatomically, but still in their minds, in their actions, and in how they perceive themselves and they perceive the world.”
And if I want to believe I’m a refrigerator, then I AM a refrigerator.
What absolute horsepuckey.
They spin it as goodness and christianity oppressing the gays when it is evil that has an active cap on inherent goodness. The game is to spin a supression of evil by making good a supressor of it when it is evil which supresses good in the first place and there never was a supression of evil or “taboos” in the first place.
Freud messed that one up big time because he was a twisted biggot.
Who isn’t calm? I am not in the least “hysterical.”
This is one of many, many cases (I have written extensively about a number of them, inluding this very column) of homosexual activists challenging Christian churches, businesses and groups to bend to the will of the homosexual activists, dragging Christians to court. This is happening all across our country. It is not hysteria; it is a fact.
It would appear this Methodist group was targeted for the very reason that the homosexuals and their lawyers knew they could win this case against the Methodists, because of the “details” of that tax-exempt status. This was the first homosexual challenge to that particular location.
These homosexual activists, like the Islamists, seek to use our laws against us. Where there are no laws to support their wrong-headed positions, they get activist judges or politicians to “create” new laws.
The bottom line is still the same: We’re losing our constitutional rights in America. These kinds of attacks on Christians by homosexuals will continue, and they will not be limited to “public” private property.
I appologize. I did not intend to intimate that your were not calm or were hysterical. The first was simply a call to your reason. The second, an observation on what I have seen on the net regarding this (on both sides!).
So, please accept my appology. No offense was intended.
I agree with you last post for the most part. I too am certain that the homo lobby only took on the case because of that loophole - and likely to get exactly the situation we have now! The decision itself is being misrepresented by the media and a lot of people are reacting to it without learning what it REALLY says.
Once we allow the other side to propagandize this decision until everyone THINKS it means something it doesn’t, we loose the battle.
I also agree that we are allowing an erosion of our rights by the government and the courts - just not in this particular case.
For the record. According to it’s moral teachings, the church was right to refuse the two the use of it’s facilities, regardless of the law. Of course, breaking the law has consequences, but the price is small compared to the price of betraying one’s moral convictions.
Again, I am sorry that my words earlier insulted you.
; ). Glad you caught that! I meant to say exactly what I said
No, I wasn’t insulted. I just thought maybe you misunderstood my tone as not being calm. No need to apologize!
You make strong, detailed arguments, and that’s what is important in these “stupid” legal battles. The devil is in the details, and we really need to pay attention to them and not get off track, as you pointed out.
If the gay agenda in schools is compatible with public harmony, if foul entertainments and public expressions are likewise compatible, then certainly nothing is wrong with visibly identifying as a religious believer. So, let’s raise three cheers for iconic public gestures of faith like crossing yourself or “Tebowing”. We need more of that.
Or bend over forward...because that is what they do.
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.