Posted on 12/30/2008 9:58:08 AM PST by Publius Valerius
MOUNT LAUREL, N.J. (AP) | 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 ceremony in March 2007 violated the public accommodation provisions of the state's Law Against Discrimination.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
NJ is the same state that forced eharmony.com to start allowing gays on to find matches.
Yes. This strikes me as a bit more of an interesting fight, since it’s a church group that owns the property. What a state!
Then don’t rent it out. Let church “members” use it after making a tax deductable donation. That way the state loses twice.
Freedom of Religion is a Constitutional Right so is freedom of assembly, funny but I cannot find anything about Gays in the Constitution r even discrimination. So how is it that perversion trumps religious morals?
Perhaps it’s time to mail cans of tuna and swatches of carpet to the New Jersey Division blah, blah, blah, until they can’t move their feet.
I remember in the 60s, Ocean Grove was a place that on Sunday’s was carless. One could not drive any vehicles on the roads on Sunday.
Wow how times have changed.
The Freedom to associate is predisposed by a freedom NOT to associate. Ask the Boyscouts. This loses on appeal to a higher court. In fact it should have lost on that precedent.
Private property, right?
Un friggin believable!
It has been the agenda of groups like the ACLU to have the Court redefine the Constitution to make freedom of sexual expression replace freedom of religious expression. The ACLU rushed to the defense of a high school girl who wore a t-shirt to school depicting a Barbie (doll) as a lesbian but then they continually try to suppress religious expression and drive it behind closed doors and out of public life. They even tried to ban the display of crosses that were placed on the side of the road to mark a loved one’s death.
New Jersey: America’s repository for heathens and savages.
Ping
Bookmark.
And they said scuttling prop 8 would have no effect on religions....yeah right.
So much for private ownership rights.
What a country! /Y.S.
You've got a good point there, but I don't think the church should be forced to take their property "out of the market," thus drastically reducing their opportunities to lease the property as they choose.
I would dispute that this was really a case of discrimination based on something like sex or color or race, a personal attribute, rather than a matter of act or behavior.
If a person who "happened to be gay" wanted to rent the facility to house a sports tournament, a cooking class, or a high school reunion, I don't think the property owners could object. But if the activity to be held thereon is something the owners are morally prohibited from cooperating with, they are not discriminating against the person, but drawing the line an an objectionable activity--- in this case, a marriage which Christianity, Judaism, and Islam would find, on the basis of their Scriptures, "abominable."
It's like a professional event videographer being asked to produce a favorable video of a Holocaust-denial-Hamas-support rally. If the photographer is (say) Jewish, he can't discriminate against a Muslim customer per se, but surely he can decline to take a job which requires him to accommodate an activity he finds morally offensive?
Gotta do some pinging tomorrow.
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.