Human-Rights Group Wants NJ Town To Disinvite Kirk Cameron

The specter of Kirk Cameron’s homophobic comments on Pier Morgan Tonight has resurfaced: A human rights group in the resort town of Orange Grove, NJ, wants the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association to disinvite Cameron from two speaking engagements this summer.

Cameron, now a Christian-disaster-movie star in rapture flicks like Left Behind mouthed off to Morgan Back in March about how homosexuality was “unnatural” and “destructive to many of the foundations of civilization.”

Members of local activist group Ocean Grove United (OGU) have asked organizers to cancel Cameron’s talks at the Great Auditorium on July 27, when he’s schedule to talk about the importance of marriage as part of the yearly Camp Meeting Week celebration.

“If someone had made a racist or anti-Semitic remark, would you want to be sponsoring that individual?” said Harriet Bernstein, OGU’s co-chair. The Meeting Association is discussing the request this month.

Ocean Grove was founded by Methodists and has a strong connection to the denomination. It is, in essence, a beach town for the Methodist community, with ordinances in keeping with the tenets of the faith.

But Ocean Grove butts up against Asbury Park, a longtime getaway for LGBTs in the Tri-State area. That proximity that’s caused friction between the two communities: Several years ago, residents of Asbury Park complained that Ocean Grove officials wouldn’t let allow same-sex commitment ceremonies on the beach.

Complicating things further is the fact that Randy Bishop, the mayor of Neptune Township (which both communities are part of) is himself gay.

Bishop told the Asbury Park Press he’d be disappointed if Cameron were to bring his “hate speech” to the community.

“I’m sorry that he’s going to be here,” said Bishop, who himself is gay. “Bringing a lot of emphasis to this just helps [Cameron] sell his books. Whether he is disinvited or not, it seems no one wins except Kirk Cameron.”


Homosexuals who preach tolerance are being hypocritical by demanding that someone they disagree with not be allowed to speak, said Pastor Robert Turton of the Gospel Mission Corps, a Hightstown-based organization.

“Kirk Cameron has something to say,” Turton said. “If people don’t want to hear it, they should stay away.”

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #asburypark #kirkcameron #newjersey stories and more


  • EdWoody

    PLEASE stop posting articles with TK’s still in them. It’s remarkably unprofessional. If the article isn’t finished yet, don’t post it! And one solitary scan through for copyediting purposes would have caught it.

  • iDavid

    Biblical inhumane tyranny should be legally banned. It is inhumane to threaten gays every day via religious cultist gang like attack. It destroys the fragile emotional fabric of society with baseless voodoo-like fear. Society should in it’s entirety be a “protected” class from such intense evil. Witchcraft is illegal if found to effect someone negatively, this is no different. Religious cultists are casting spells over our nation via a vile false “god”, with horrendous effects. It’s time organized religious and non-religious public and published hate speech due to ignorance and bigotry be deemed illegal regardless of it’s origins. I strongly feel it’s time to plug the hateful pie-holes that degrades a naturally occurring fact of nature that gays are, via lawful punishment to include heavy fines, required rational sexual and non-discrimination education and public service. Emotional tyranny has devastating results on this level and we need to acknowledge and address it.

  • pedro

    @iDavid: Umm…this ain’t communist China…sorry buddy, your scary suggestions are not going to be implemented. Thank God.

  • iDavid


    U need look no further then Canada.

    I don’t see my intentions as “scary”. I see “scary” in the unbridled “freedom” to mangle and hold an entire country emotionally hostage by a minority of zealotous wingbat extremists. Similar to corporations on the financial level also raping “the system”. If that’s your cup of tea, so be it. Many do not hold the same values as you.

  • Carl 1

    Although should be free to say whatever h likes (and has done), he should also be made aware that if he sys something that offends many millions that it could well bite him on the arse – or make a hole in his wallet.

  • Chris

    “TK by Methodists”

    My daily mantra….QUEERTY! Hire an editor!

  • pedro

    @iDavid: I’ve never read the Canadian charter of rights, but I have read the U.S. constitution and there’s something in there called the First Amendment…It’s the amendment Americans tend to like alot…People have the right to their religious beliefs no matter how offensive, they have the right to think homosexuality is an abomination and to raise their children to think likewise…Do I like it? No, but it’s their right. Just as it’s my right to think the opposite and raise my children to think so.

  • pedro

    @iDavid: Who gets to decide what is and isn’t hate speech? Is there like a panel of experts who get to laud over the populace and determine what they can say, so long as it doesn’t offend somebody else? No thanks! I like Canada, but I do not want this particular law in the U.S…Besides the First Amendment would have to be either amended or outright overturned for that to happen…Hell will probably freeze over first. Thank God.

  • Matthew McHale

    While they may be next to each other, Ocean Grove and Asbury Park are NOT part of the same municipality and have separate mayors.

  • MikeE

    @pedro: by the way, you appear to be a little confused on the exact meaning of the 1st amendment. it has nothing to do with allowing people to believe what they want or raise their children the way they want.

    the 1st amendment simply says that the GOVERNMENT will not pass any laws that restrict the freedom of speech of citizens.

    and the Canadian constitution restricts speech that incites hatred toward any constitutionally protected minority group. nothing overly “repressive” there.

  • Ron Jackson

    Kirk certainly is a homophobic little shit of a closet case but ya gotta admit he was a hottie in the 80’s. woof! I say let him talk. He just digs his own personal hell hole a little deeper each time.

  • SteveC

    What’s the park in LA that Kirk Cameron goes cruising for gay sex in again?

  • Mark

    @SteveC: sure wish someone with a camera phone would catch him there if he really does go…..

  • dee-dee

    @SteveC: Gossip sites it’s the one that has a train for kids to ride in.

  • pedro

    [email protected]MikeE: um…the first amendment is a lot more than that. It guarantees freedom of speech…freedom of religion…freedom of association…freedom of the press…and the right to protest against the government…the supreme court has interpreted the freedom of religion clause to include the right of parents to educate their children however they see fit…and with whatever moral beliefs they see fit.

  • Rooney

    @pedro: What god? I don’t want any petty little gods who used to pride themselves on killing whole populations and whose followers are higher on hate than those miserable Russian junkies on krokodil.

  • Sharon

    Urging people to avoid something like this and requiring them not to do it are two different things. Tolerance does not require someone impacted by what is often coined hate speech to tolerate it…one can urge people to ignore it or to ban the people preaching it, but, in this case…they are not requiring anyone not to go.

    To Pastor Turton, they are not being hypocritical, but rather also voicing their concern and urging such speech does not enter their community.

  • BJ McFrisky

    Why are you people so threatened by this has-been? Because he says mean things about us? Awwwwwww, that’s just tewwible. The solution is simple: The less of a fuss made about his speaking engagement, the fewer people will hear about it. Ignore him and he’ll eventually go away. And blame people like Piers Morgan for giving him a platform in the first place.

  • Clark

    Why is this entire article in italics. And the TK is very sloppy.

  • samwise

    “Homosexuals who preach tolerance are being hypocritical by demanding that someone they disagree with not be allowed to speak, said Pastor Robert Turton of the Gospel Mission Corps, a Hightstown-based organization.”

    So Pastor Turton… I take it that you wouldn’t mind if a gay person spoke at your church (about any subject at all). I mean, you’re not a hypocrite, right? Right?

  • iDavid

    A Canadian man was fined $15K for publically protesting against abortion and $20K for protesting homosexuality. Any signage of a biblical nature protesting against either of these is illegal. Fred Phelps types are immediately arrested. Yes they are silenced, and I am all for changing laws in America to do the same. I don’t find school kids hanging themselves in their bedrooms due to “free speech” when it can kill, endearing. If you want to read how Canada is handling the religious right on gays and homophobia, read this article, it is very complete. We could learn a lot from our neighbors who have evolved out of mass verbal thuggery.

  • pedro

    @iDavid: Wow, your for people being fined for voicing their opinions….How fucked up is that shit!! People like you scare the shit out of me!

  • iDavid

    Under Canadian law, Kirk Cameron would be arrested charged jailed and fined. That is jsocial ustice.

  • pedro


  • Gus

    Ask Kirk to be the grand marshall of a gay pride parade!

  • iDavid

    It’s your choice to be scared if you like Pedro. I prefer to think of it as protecting the rights of a minority to live their lives within the peaceful enjoyment of their environment. If you promote public discrimination, your not alone.
    And I am not saying all hate speech would be completely restricted, only when it is used to suppress a minority. You would be perfectly free to publically state how much you’d like to copy Donald Trump’s hairdo tho you hate the guys guts, which I have heard you mention constantly. Even my lie would be legal. But if you say Donald Trump should be killed if he is gay, or that Wesley Snipes should be hanged at sunset for being black, via speech or signag in a public forum, you would be arrested and charged.

  • iDavid

    You’re seggweh inot spelchkrr is vrey tellnig. ; )

  • JAW

    @Matthew McHale:

    I think that the story was trying to suggest that Ocean Grove and Neptune are in the same town… But Ocean grove gets to do some of it’s own things… since the church owns all the land under all of the houses etc.

    Sad that Kirk will be there… but the church gets to do what it wants… GLBT’s have pissed the camp meeting assoc off by suing to use the beach for weddings… guess it is pay back time

  • Hyhybt

    @EdWoody: I was wondering what TK meant, and if it was some sort of placeholder. What does it stand for?

  • Alexi3

    @JAW: Is it really true that the Methodist Church owns all the land under all the houses? If so, this is another example of why the automatic tax-exempt status of churches should be reexamined, reevaluated and possibly changed. I have absolutely no problem with Kirk believing anything he wants to believe and no problem with him expressing them in any public forum. But when his beliefs and statements prove harmful to a group of people, either directly or indirectly, and taxpayers are paying for such hate being spread then a line has been crossed and it is no longer just his personal beliefs being expressed but the implied belief of the government’s through the tax-exempt status of the church. This doesn’t establish a state religion but it implies a state sanction of a particular religous belief just as school prayer did and should be just as objectionable for the same reasons. If the Methodist Church wants to say whatever it wants to say out in the open, public air, then let it pay taxes like the rest of us. But to claim tax-exemption due to the exercise of Freedom of Religion clause only to use that very freedom as a cloak for political speech is dishonest and hypocritical and thinking people religous or not should see it for what it is.

  • Hyhybt

    The tax exemption for churches would only imply “a state sanction of a particular religious belief” if only a particular church got it. Instead, they all do.

  • Sharon

    @ Samwise: @samwise:
    The thing is….churches tend not to teach tolerance, so…it’s not hypocritical for them to not allow speech they don’t approve to enter the minds of their congregation!

    You see how this logic works for believers? In my mind, all religions should be automatically tolerant through what they often term compassion….this, however, is where they are hypocritical!

  • EnRanc

    If this is how Canada operates, then it sounds like an annoyingly idealistic place that assumes everyone is liberal-minded and likes to suppress/coddle its citizens. Sorry, but I’m 100% for free speech. What you’re talking about is not the principal this country was founded on and I hope America never adopts such attitudes and laws as theirs. People in the U.S. are free to be negative and publicly preach whatever they wish, just as others are free to either not listen or challenge anything said that they disagree with. Trying to silence hate speech and other forms of “mean talk” does not stop it, but rather makes it go underground and fester — which can become even more dangerous.

  • Alexi3

    @Hyhybt: Point taken. What if a particular church was using their Freedom of Religion rights for mainly political rather than theological speech. Shouldn’t their tax-exempt status be reviewed? For example: I wrote to Rev. Hagee of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Tx.; a very large charismatic church with tv, radio and internet outreach and inquired, amongst other things, why so many of his “sermons” were largely of a political nature rather than expounding on Scripture. To my great surprise I received an answer that it was his view that God has a political agenda and that since Republicans were “closer” to pursuing God’s values he taught his followers to vote Republican. If you have never watched one of his programs, you should. It is really quite amazing how much time is devoted to a political agenda rather than a teaching on what Christ actually had to say. Not to mention that from a theological point of view the idea that God prefers one party over another is to believe that God ascribes to the secular, humanistic idea of relativism. An idea, a belief, that cannot in any way be supported by scripture. This is working for a political, social agenda under the guise of working for the Kingdom of God and is a poor bargain for the church whose actual mission is to be a witness for Christ to a watching, suffering world.

  • Hyhybt

    @Alexi3: If they’re telling people how to vote, that’s definitely politics.

    But just about anything short of telling people how to vote seems to me fair game for sermons. That something is currently a political issue does not stop it from being a moral one, whichever side you believe to be the moral one.

  • samwise

    @Sharon: Sharon, I think you misunderstand me. The pastor is wrong to say that gay people who complain about Kirk Cameron are hypocritical. The organization putting on this show has the right to invite whoever they want, or disinvite whoever they want. Much like, anybody, be they gay or straight, has the right to disavow or disassociate themselves from the organization for what it does.

    By the way, there are many churches that teach tolerance. Unfortunately, they are definitely a minority.

  • Nat


    “and the Canadian constitution restricts speech that incites hatred toward any constitutionally protected minority group. nothing overly “repressive” there.”

    No, it doesn’t. Restrictions regarding ‘hate speech’ are not part of the constitution. There are no specific provisions restricting expression in the Charter, only general limitations which can be used to ‘save’ legislation that otherwise violates s. 2(b) of the Charter.

    For example: restrictions on child pornography contained in the Criminal Code violate s. 2(b). However, most of the current provisions can be saved under s. 1, which functions as the limitations clause.

    For the record, s. 2(b) potentially affords a far broader base for speech than the First Amendment, and in some cases, speech is less restricted in Canada than in the United States (e.g. commercial speech is fully protected under s. 2(b)).

  • pedro

    @Sharon: You don’t get to decide what religions are tolerant of…sorry! Of course, you could start your own religion…just like Joseph Smith and L Ron Hubbard did…There’s now a geeky looking white guy in Australia claiming to be the reincarnated Jesus and he already has a lot of followers…You could certainly start a religion promoting whatever views you wish and there are suckers out there who would be more than willing to follow you to the ends of the Earth while giving you all their belongings.

  • Daez

    @iDavid: I totally disagree with Canada and England on this topic. It is a place where Canada is just England light. Both seek to control the populous through controlling their speech. They do this so they can set in place a constitutional monarchy. Such a monarchy simply does not exist with a nation that is free to say whatever it wants about any given topic. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are very important concepts, even when it is speech and religion we do not agree with. Our recourse is to protest, react to or ignore the speech and religion, but the people should have every right to express their beliefs openly and honestly.

    Plus, do you honestly believe that there is no hatred in Canada? You would be wrong. There have been homophobic murders in Canada (not that there have not in the USA). It is just that in Canada it is underground. I will take people hating me to my face and being open and honest about it over people hating me behind my back and sneaking around to do so ANY day.

  • Daez

    @iDavid: Oh, and I do not agree for one little minute that this hate speech leads to kids committing suicide. What leads to kids committing suicide is horrible parenting. The kids believe that their parents would never accept them for who they are and their parents have not raised them with necessary coping skills to accept who they are for themselves. They see no way out so they create one.

    Bullying and hate speech in schools and in communities and on the national level have greatly declined over the last 30 years while suicides have actually increased. It was because in the 1980s and 1990s children were taught that life was not perfect, you needed to be prepared to make it on your own and that you are a lot more than what people think you are.

    Now, children are taught that life should be perfect, everyone should treat you like you are the most special thing in the world and that mommy and daddy will always treat you like a jewel. When it starts becoming obvious that this web of lies parents spread around their kids is absolute crap the kids see no way out and create one.

  • Daez

    @Sharon: Some churches teach intolerance. Some teach tolerance. To paint them all with the same brush is just spreading ignorance and intolerance. Jerry Falwell would be extremely unwelcome in any Episcopal church currently in the Diocese in England and the United States.

  • Nat


    “They do this so they can set in place a constitutional monarchy. ”

    The Charter was spearheaded by anti-monarchists.

  • Michael Mouse

    Australia too has sensible solutions to ‘handling’ public hate speech and behavior. They have a nationally enshrined and widely respected Anti-discrimination Act which seems to work brilliantly. Although freedom of speech is part of the Australian culture, which demonstrates a robust level of discourse , the Act defines clearly that hate speech and behavior is answerable in law. It defines clearly the boundaries of actionable hate speech and protects defined groups , including Gays. It works very well here- people can say what they want- they just pay a price – or risk legal action- when they behave in ways that are covered in the Act. NWhy people get so heated about defending the freedom of people to spread hate is confusing to me. If any country could do with similar legislative protections I would kindly suggest it would be the USA , where hate groups seeem almost immortalized !

  • pedro

    @Michael Mouse: I like Australia, your footballers are hot (but your P.M. looks like a ginger bitch)…However, we do not need your hate speech laws…sorry…Still would love to come down there and spend a vaykay…

  • JB

    Australia shouldn’t be heralded as a shining example to heed when it comes to bigotry and social enlightenment. My parents recently took a trip to Australia and while there were greeted with bigoted/racist treatment from locals on virtually every stop they made. No one said anything directly racist to them, but they were repeatedly met with suspicious looks, were eyeballed and given cold/unwelcomed glances at just about every stop they made; from stores to bars. The message was very clear: you are not welcomed here.

    THAT is what happens when you try to “quiet” bigotry. It doesn’t go away, it simply manifests itself in other not-so-subtle ways.

    Places like Canada and Australia simply give off the illusion of a clean room, by cramming everything into the closet or under the bed, while pretending that discrimination doesn’t exist or isn’t tolerated there. In the U.S., bigotry isn’t swept under the rug, so when examples of it happen, yes it’s terrible…but at least dialogue occurs, right v. wrong attitudes are pondered…and from there changes are subtly — but more surely — made for the long haul.

    When you TELL people that they CAN’T be bigoted, it makes them cling to their attitude — even if quietly. On the other hand, when you SHAME people for being bigoted or argue their points down, a light switch is more likely to go off.

  • Brian

    The seaside town’s name is Ocean Grove—-NOT Orange Grove.

  • iDavid


    Free speech is already limited in America. Defamation through slander (spoken words) and libel (written and spoken) are sueable offenses. And I suspect if someone wanted to lawyer up, they could go after anti gay hate groups that state defamatory concepts about gay people.
    The difference in America compared to Canada is that the U.S. First Amendment states “the gov won’t interfere with free speech”, but the people in the U.S. can sue the pants off each other if they want. I don’t see how adding a Non Discrimination Act to protect minorities through American law would be negative. What is the basis for your opinion?


    Homophobia is going to exist no matter what the laws are. I think anti discrimination laws simply keep the extremists silent, and doesn’t stink up the media and the world for that matter with added overt penetrating hate. Americans are noted for being pompous arrogant loose-cannon assholes throughout the world, allowing hate mongering of each other just fuels that image.

    We are a very young country, how long do you feel we should stay in the “terrible two’s” throwing-publically-legal-tantrums stage? I assure you this, when the Kirk Cameron’s of the world get off camera, they go ballistic like unbridled running-through-the-isles bratty children with their own seemingly unresolvable gay sexual hate. Why in the world should we have to be open to the pretty packaged dead fish on porch syndrome for the mentally ill? Your position seems quite sadistic to me. And though hate speech does not cause suicide, it is a very culpable factor.

  • iDavid

    #47+48 is the iDavid throughout this thread.

  • Nat

    “Free speech is already limited in America. Defamation through slander (spoken words) and libel (written and spoken) are sueable offenses.”

    Liable. Sueable is not a word.

    “And I suspect if someone wanted to lawyer up, they could go after anti gay hate groups that state defamatory concepts about gay people.”

    They would lose.

    “The difference in America compared to Canada is that the U.S. First Amendment states “the gov won’t interfere with free speech”, but the people in the U.S. can sue the pants off each other if they want.”

    That’s not really the difference. The Charter had the benefit of other bills of rights. Section 1 of the Charter provides grounds for limiting other rights found in the Charter (e.g. a deprivation of life, liberty, and/or security of the person might be allowable, provided it meets the s. 1 limitations test).

    “I don’t see how adding a Non Discrimination Act to protect minorities through American law would be negative. What is the basis for your opinion?”

    You’re talking about something far broader than a non-discrimination act. Indeed, there are not as many restrictions on speech in regards to so-called ‘hate speech’ as you claim there are. Additionally, the SCC will soon have a chance to re-examine their approach to s. 2(b) claims; there is every reason to suspect that much of the language found in human rights codes that act to restrict speech will be found to be unconstitutional. Chief Justice McLachlin has always favoured a broader s. 2(b). The Court split 5-4 last time; this time, I suspect it might be 8-1 or even unanimous in overruling the ‘hate speech’ provisions.

  • Nat

    “Homophobia is going to exist no matter what the laws are. I think anti discrimination laws simply keep the extremists silent, and doesn’t stink up the media and the world for that matter with added overt penetrating hate.”

    The freedom that allows religious bigots to spout their beliefs is the same freedom that allows you to mock them. It is the same freedom that could shatter obscenity laws, laws restricting the dissemination of pro-LGBT literature.

    Restricting the marketplace of ideas always seems attractive when it’s your enemies on the other end. But you quickly forget that we were on the other end. It does no good to fuel that rapacious tendency of government to control every aspect of our lives.

    “Americans are noted for being pompous arrogant loose-cannon assholes throughout the world, allowing hate mongering of each other just fuels that image.”

    Most of the rest of the world is in no place to lecture Americans on anything.

  • iDavid


    I think it is important to recognize that when the Constitution was written, we were fresh out of England with a passion to never honor religious control via government. Hence sep of ch and st. But it doesn’t stop religious vitriol from occurring. My sense is our forefathers could have felt they had covered all the tracks but as we have seen, such is not the case. I sense to have instilled non discrimination language then would have been overkill and probably not necessary at that time.
    I understand your concern for losing freedom, but I am still not convinces through evidence, that anti-discrimination laws would be bad for America. I don’t see Canada and Australia as a neg, they are two of the most respected countries and peoples of the world. If you have any facts about those countries where these laws have been at issue with rational logic, please provide.

  • Michael Anthony

    @pedro: How terribly sad, Pedro, that you respond in such a deeply sexist and , i’m sad to say, typically gay ,anti-woman manner. Calling the Australian Prime Minister a ‘ginger bitch’ says way more about you and the kind of person you are than it could ever do about her. I’m not one for Nationalist sentiment so I will avoid even going there, but you really need to grow up and if you can’t add to this discussion in a civilised, non- discriminatory way then just……fuck off. But do have a nice day while you’re doing it.

  • Michael Anthony

    @Nat: Nat I understand your reaction but I might just add that most of the rest of the world doesn’t present itself as the ‘Leader of the world- the world’s greatest Power,’ as most Americans seem to think it is. THAT is why perhaps so many non-US citizens look on you in horror when you mindlessly, and so very often, without due cause. (if ever there is one). invade countries. Did you learn nothing from Vietnam???? The world is suspicious of you because you have made them suspicious. I imagine this comment will unleash a torrent of bullshit but I would like to add that “Nationalism is the last refuge of scoundrels”….just look to your own Timothy McVeigh.

  • Daez

    @iDavid: Two fold:

    1) You can not stop hate speech and hate. It will always be there. You can make laws to keep it from being prominent in the public media, but it will still be there. I would much rather know who hates us then have them take it underground.

    2) Slippery slope! Freedom of speech is a right. If you start limiting that right then what is to keep you from continuing to limit that right. Besides, people say stupid things, often without meaning what they say or thinking about what they say. This line of logic goes along with the PC era of the 90s (especially regarding women’s rights) where if an 80 old man called a female sales clerk sweetie she wanted to sue the company.

  • Daez

    @Michael Anthony: However, it was not the United States that invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. It was a united front on behalf of the United States and their allies. Many of the major world powers were involved in the invasion of both countries. Trying to claim otherwise is simply rewriting history.

    I will agree that the United States is often out of line when it tries to brand itself as the only superpower in the world and more important than any other state.

  • iDavid


    I certainly see that Canada and the US have two different views on how to handle discrimination. It may be just weighing the lesser of two evils. Canadians do feel suppressed regarding free speech and a good friend in BC thinks both the US and Can version are equal in their application, neither really dealing with the actual problem of hate in the human mind. I think my biggest issue is when it is attached to religion or “god said this” form of poppycock. It takes it to a whole lower level of societal abuse. I can take a str8 guy being nauseated about gay sex and dealing with him in that format. Not a problem. When he pulls the god card exgay lie etc, I definitely max out at the power of that unholy facade.
    Human evolution is really the only application that is going to take care of discrimination. That is a waaaaaays off.

  • Jessica

    The town is Ocean Grove not Orange Grove. Ocean Grove has a very large LGBT population also, maybe even larger than Asbury Park. The didn’t want LGBT people marrying in the Boardwalk Pavillion, not the beach.

    Maybe you should do more research before you post such an error laden article.

Comments are closed.