Replies

The first incident cited is invalid as the property in question was “public” - meaning the church had agreed to that definition as a stipulation. The Law is the Law, whether we like it or not. Solution? Get the law changed!

I agree the law should be changed, but that property is not "public" property, it's private property owned by the ministry and rented out for certain occassions, but it is still part of a church. They have their Christian standards, and that includes not doing business in a way that contradicts their Christian knowledge. This is a trampling of the members of the ministry's First Amendment rights, period. No state law can take away your constitutional rights--well, that used to be the case, anyway.

The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association is a religious organization, and it does own the pavilion in question. But at the core of Judge Solomon Metzer’s decision is the fact that the pavilion’s tax-exempt status was not protected under a religious provision. In 1989, Ocean Grove applied for a Green Acres real-estate tax exemption, a New Jersey property subsidy for conservation or recreational purposes. One of the requirements to qualify for the exemption is that the property be “open for public use on an equal basis.” Thus, when Ocean Grove refused to allow a same-sex couple to utilize its pavilion, it was violating its agreement with the state of New Jersey:

As to “free exercise,” the LAD is a neutral law of general application designed to uncover and eradicate discrimination; it is not focused on or hostile to religion. To the contrary, it carves away exceptions on behalf of religious organizations… Respondent can rearrange Pavilion operations, as it has done, to avoid this clash with the LAD. It was not, however, free to promise equal access, to rent wedding space to heterosexual couples irrespective of their tradition, and then except these petitioners.

IOW - the church agreed to the conditions in order to obtain a tax exemption, then violated that agreement.

After the incident, they restructed and, as the judge conceeds, they CAN now prohibit such ceremonies on thier property.