“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.” [AP]
Steve
Many years ago: Some hotel owners refused to rent to black people; Some restaurant owners refused to serve black people; And, some owners refused to rent their facilities to black or inter-racial couples.
The anti-discrimination laws say, if you want to rent out property or sell food, you have to treat all buyers the same. An owner cannot rent only to non-black people. And, a restaurant cannot sell food only to non-black people.
Substitute “gay” for “black”. All the same reasoning applies.
Most of the arguments against equal rights for gay people are, almost exactly, the same as the arguments against equal rights for black people were, just 50 years ago.
Brian Miller
What an idiotic ruling, and it was incredibly stupid of the couple to push this lawsuit.
Now the law has ruled that a church must provide a venue for gay marriages, whether or not they actually want to.
This gives rhetorical (and possibly) legal ammo to the pro-Prop 8 claim that gay couples will be able to force churches to marry them if civil marriages are open to LGBT couples.
Wonderful.
Jon
@Brian Miller: This is not the same as demanding being married in a church as the religious right wants you to think. The beach and Boardwalk Pavilion are open to the public and the Camp Meeting Association has accepted public funds for their maintenance and repairs. The Association’s also applied to the State of New Jersey for monies under the state’s “Green Acres Program”, which encourages the use of private property for public recreation and provides a $500,000 annual property tax exemption. In their application for these funds, the Camp Meeting Association reportedly stated that the disputed areas were open to the public. U.S. Representative Frank Pallone, Jr. (Democrat), in whose Congressional district Ocean Grove is located, stated “they’ve taken state, federal and local funds by representing that they are open to the public.”
Qjersey
Brian Miller and the other twits commenting on every other blog carrying this story fail to read ‘the fine print.’ Thank you Jon for providing clarification (which would not be needed if people would clink the link to the full AP story).
All they see is “church” and “gay rights” and then start flaming. The Fundies will undoubtedly do the same.
And ONE MORE TIME, not all Christians are anti-gay, but when a ruling goes against the anti-gay churches/fundies they scream anti-christian.
Qjersey
and more…
I grew up near Ocean Grave…and it was the gays that moved in and starting cleaning up the town in the 70s, just as they/we are doing now in Asbury Park next door. Actually 30 years ago, Asbury had a huge cluster of gay bars downtown, just across the lake from Ocean Grove. So people would go to the bars then walk home to OG. The church which technically owns the entire town had no problem with this… as the town had become full of boarding houses with “less than desirables.”
Alan down in Florida
Last night I happened on an old episode of M*A*S*H in which an AWOL soldier tries to claim sanctuary in the mess tent that doubles as the church for Father Mulcahy’s services.
The ultimate ruling by the Chaplains Commander on the validity of the mess tent as a church was that as a temporary structure it could not be considered a church.
That episode seems almost prescient considering this story. Just because it is owned by a church doesn’t make it a church.
Timothy
Your headline is misleading to the point of being just flat wrong. It was a religious organization, not a church. It was on property that the Association had deemed “public freeway” for over 100 years (to avoid taxes). And they were not ordered to allow the ceremony – the couple was just given the right to move forward with their lawsuit.
Thanks, Jon, for providing facts missing from the blip.
Rick Heintz
@Jon:
Thanks Jon! Was worried about it until I read what you wrote.
Charles J. Mueller
@Jon:
My sincere thanks too, Jon.
It’s always so refreshing, as well as being educational, to read the commentaries of folks who have obviously done their homework and gotten their facts straight instead of having to wade through the bullshit spat out by someone who feels the need to fly off the handle and make a big stink over every little shit.
Jaroslaw
I actually contacted the local newspapers when this story first hit and they wanted to know who I was! After I informed them I was just a regular citizen, I didn’t hear anymore.
But what I was able to scavenge for various sources backs up everything Jon said. I just want to add that even if they hadn’t accepted public money and did other things to avoid taxes, that particular venue on the boardwalk was open to the public in every other way. So they indeed should not be allowed to discriminate.
If they were operating a church there for ONLY church members that would be a different thing.