Isn't that just standard private property stuff? They can do what they want, it's their property.
First Amendment or State Antidiscrimination Laws
You can't have both.
What if Neo-Nazis wanted to have a day camp on land owned by a Jewish synagogue?
Is it any different if homosexuals want to get "married" on land owned by a church?
http://www.nbc10.com/news/13539323/detail.html
What if Neo-Nazis wanted to have a day camp on land owned by a Jewish synagogue?
Is it any different if homosexuals want to get "married" on land owned by a church?
http://www.nbc10.com/news/13539323/detail.html
TRENTON, N.J. -- A lesbian couple barred from holding their civil union ceremony at a beachfront pavilion in Ocean Grove has filed a state civil rights complaint against the church group that owns the property.
The couple, Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster, of Ocean Grove, alleged in a complaint filed Tuesday with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights that they were denied use of the boardwalk pavilion because of their pending status as same-sex civil union partners.
"They have weddings there all the time," said Bernstein, a semi-retired educational consultant. "We wanted to have our ceremony on the boardwalk, on the beach, because it's a beautiful setting, just like any married couple would want to do."
Division on Civil Rights Director Frank Vespa-Papaleo said the complaint was the first to deal with discrimination in public places under New Jersey's new civil union law, which took effect in February.
The boardwalk pavilion the couple applied to use is owned by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a Methodist ministry that owns all the land and the boardwalk in the oceanfront enclave of Victorian homes that is now part of Neptune Township.
The couple applied in March to rent the pavilion for a Sept. 30 ceremony. Their application was rejected and their $75 deposit returned.
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Public accomodations laws. Come on, you don't think they could refuse to allow its use by people of only certain races, do you?
If it's my property I'll do what I please. May not be right, but that's the way it is. Someone wants to sue, then so be it.
That's the problem with this country anymore - it's not about right or wrong, it's about popular and unpopular. Can't hurt anyones feelings anymore either.
That's the problem with this country anymore - it's not about right or wrong, it's about popular and unpopular. Can't hurt anyones feelings anymore either.
Were they hot lesbians?
I know...I know......now some of you are mad......
But seriously, they don't have to getmarried unionized(?) at that beach. They don't like it, they can waddle on down the coastline.
I know...I know......now some of you are mad......
But seriously, they don't have to get
:rotfl:Rammstein said:Were they hot lesbians?
I agree with weeks. If it is private property they should be allowed to refuse service to anyone they please. That's the one part that disturbs me about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I don't think anyone should discriminate against other people based on race, religion, or nationality, but I also don't think the government has any business telling private owners what they have to do with their property/business. If Joe Blow doesn't want blacks in his bar then why can't he refuse to serve them if it is his bar? He's the one hurting his own business. If every bar in the South closed their doors to blacks I guarantee there would be one bar that would open up to them and they'd make bank.
To me it is a big no-no to try and force the gay issue in a church. You're going to have the government go into a church and tell people they have to allow gays to be married? Well when will it stop? Soon the government will be telling the church they can't preach about spanking kids or husbands leading their wives. Seperation of church and state should work both ways.
To me it is a big no-no to try and force the gay issue in a church. You're going to have the government go into a church and tell people they have to allow gays to be married? Well when will it stop? Soon the government will be telling the church they can't preach about spanking kids or husbands leading their wives. Seperation of church and state should work both ways.
PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/nyreg ... ref=sloginA boardwalk pavilion in the seaside town of Ocean Grove, N.J., that has been at the center of a battle over gay civil union ceremonies has lost its tax-exempt status because the state ruled it no longer met the requirements as a place open to all members of the public.
In a letter to the administrator of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a Methodist organization that owns the pavilion property, the state commissioner of environmental protection, Lisa Jackson, declined to recertify the pavilion as eligible for a real estate tax exemption it has enjoyed since 1989 under the state’s Green Acres Program, but did renew the tax-exempt status of the rest of the boardwalk and the beach, also owned by the association.
The issue arose after the association, which has owned the land, the beach and 1,000 feet of the sea itself since 1870, rejected the requests of two lesbian couples to have their civil union ceremonies at the Boardwalk Pavilion.
The couples complained to the State Division on Civil Rights, which began a discrimination investigation. The association sued the state, claiming that the investigation violated its First Amendment rights because civil unions were contrary to the beliefs of the United Methodist Church.
Please elaborate on this. Good that they lost tax exempt status for doing what they want on private property because it isn't popular?budder said:Good.
Good that they weren't legally considered open to the public when they weren't open to the public.wsweeks2 said:Please elaborate on this. Good that they lost tax exempt status for doing what they want on private property because it isn't popular?budder said:Good.
EDIT: MP, could you fix your link so that we don't have to scroll?
Taken to its logical conclusion, all (well amost all) churches in the U.S. will lose their tax emempt status.
This has large ramifications.
This has large ramifications.
I have no problem with gay marriage at all. As far as I am concerned, if a gay couple wants to be married that is their business.
As well, religious organizations should be free to exercise their beliefs without being held hostage by state sanction. Therefore, if a church, synagogue, mosque, etc decides that homosexuality is a sin and not to be sanctioned by their belief, they should be free to exclude homosexuals.
Just as I don't believe the state has any function in prohibiting personal choice, especially one as private as marriage, so do I think about state interference with religious beliefs. The state has no legitimate function in either.
As well, religious organizations should be free to exercise their beliefs without being held hostage by state sanction. Therefore, if a church, synagogue, mosque, etc decides that homosexuality is a sin and not to be sanctioned by their belief, they should be free to exclude homosexuals.
Just as I don't believe the state has any function in prohibiting personal choice, especially one as private as marriage, so do I think about state interference with religious beliefs. The state has no legitimate function in either.
+1 To the words in bold.Mobster989 said:I agree with weeks. If it is private property they should be allowed to refuse service to anyone they please. That's the one part that disturbs me about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I don't think anyone should discriminate against other people based on race, religion, or nationality, but I also don't think the government has any business telling private owners what they have to do with their property/business. If Joe Blow doesn't want blacks in his bar then why can't he refuse to serve them if it is his bar? He's the one hurting his own business. If every bar in the South closed their doors to blacks I guarantee there would be one bar that would open up to them and they'd make bank.
To me it is a big no-no to try and force the gay issue in a church. You're going to have the government go into a church and tell people they have to allow gays to be married? Well when will it stop? Soon the government will be telling the church they can't preach about spanking kids or husbands leading their wives. Seperation of church and state should work both ways.
PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
Freedom of Association
The way I see it, not with any legal analysis or anything, is that the 1 Am. protects freedom of religion only up to the point of hurting other people and also protects freedom of association, so like-minded people can get together among "their kind" and exclude others from their little private club if they wish.
If a church opens its property to anybody to rent for weddings, birthday and graduation parties, etc, and those other people can be of any race or religion, then it's wrong to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Why? Because discrimination is generally a bad thing and on these facts that church can't say that it would be seen as approving or sanctioning that the participants are doing right by God. The renters of the property would be customers, not parishoners, not members of "the flock." Of course they would have to supply their own minister or other official to perform the ceremony.
Now when it comes to churches discriminating who can be members of the congregation, attend services, worship during their normal religious services, THEN I think they can ban homos, if being gay or having gay sex is totally contrary to their religion. (Of course I'd wonder how many such churches ban sexually-active unmarried heteros, or married people who are notoriously unfaithful to their spouses? Does the bible assign more weight to some sins than others?)
If the KKK were to have a car wash fundraiser in a public place and advertised to the general public, I think they should have to wash EVERYBODY and ANYBODY's car who shows up with money. It should be illegal discrimination to do otherwise. But if a black guy wants to attend a cross lighting on KKK-owned land which is wholly private, and the KKK decides that this little ritual will be for members wearing the robes only... (NEVERMIND THIS LAST ONE IS A BAD EXAMPLE) ;-)
The way I see it, not with any legal analysis or anything, is that the 1 Am. protects freedom of religion only up to the point of hurting other people and also protects freedom of association, so like-minded people can get together among "their kind" and exclude others from their little private club if they wish.
If a church opens its property to anybody to rent for weddings, birthday and graduation parties, etc, and those other people can be of any race or religion, then it's wrong to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Why? Because discrimination is generally a bad thing and on these facts that church can't say that it would be seen as approving or sanctioning that the participants are doing right by God. The renters of the property would be customers, not parishoners, not members of "the flock." Of course they would have to supply their own minister or other official to perform the ceremony.
Now when it comes to churches discriminating who can be members of the congregation, attend services, worship during their normal religious services, THEN I think they can ban homos, if being gay or having gay sex is totally contrary to their religion. (Of course I'd wonder how many such churches ban sexually-active unmarried heteros, or married people who are notoriously unfaithful to their spouses? Does the bible assign more weight to some sins than others?)
If the KKK were to have a car wash fundraiser in a public place and advertised to the general public, I think they should have to wash EVERYBODY and ANYBODY's car who shows up with money. It should be illegal discrimination to do otherwise. But if a black guy wants to attend a cross lighting on KKK-owned land which is wholly private, and the KKK decides that this little ritual will be for members wearing the robes only... (NEVERMIND THIS LAST ONE IS A BAD EXAMPLE) ;-)
Make it Personal
Suppose you lived in a state where church carry (and carry at church-sponsored functions whereever they may be held) was perfectly legal. But your church decided to "take a stand" against gun violence and declare their church and all it's parking lots and any event that they organize to be off limits for weapons. Can they ban you from attending services while armed? Can they tell you you're not welcome at the picnic at the local city park they've scheduled for Sunday afternoon, unless you promise to leave all guns at home?
I think they can, because they have the freedom to associate only with pacifists of that's a core belief of their group's morals and values. And their decision doesn't hurt you. You are free to do your worship elsewhere, and other churches will let you in.
Suppose you lived in a state where church carry (and carry at church-sponsored functions whereever they may be held) was perfectly legal. But your church decided to "take a stand" against gun violence and declare their church and all it's parking lots and any event that they organize to be off limits for weapons. Can they ban you from attending services while armed? Can they tell you you're not welcome at the picnic at the local city park they've scheduled for Sunday afternoon, unless you promise to leave all guns at home?
I think they can, because they have the freedom to associate only with pacifists of that's a core belief of their group's morals and values. And their decision doesn't hurt you. You are free to do your worship elsewhere, and other churches will let you in.
Re: Freedom of Association
Not to get too far off-topic but I agree that there is a HUGE bias towards certain sins by the "Christian" churches. According to the bible the only sin that is really placed above other sins is blasphemy against the holy spirit. While some sins are generally considered worse than others. For example, murder is considered worse than burglary. I also think that it is hypocritical of any church that rejects members based on their past sins. A hospital doesn't turn people away based on the extent of their injuries. Likewise a church shouldn't turn someone away because they have committed a sin that is perceived to be worse than others. They should try to help them as best they can.
Not to get too far off-topic but I agree that there is a HUGE bias towards certain sins by the "Christian" churches. According to the bible the only sin that is really placed above other sins is blasphemy against the holy spirit. While some sins are generally considered worse than others. For example, murder is considered worse than burglary. I also think that it is hypocritical of any church that rejects members based on their past sins. A hospital doesn't turn people away based on the extent of their injuries. Likewise a church shouldn't turn someone away because they have committed a sin that is perceived to be worse than others. They should try to help them as best they can.
Re: Freedom of Association
Help them get "married"? :lol: :roll:Mobster989 said:Not to get too far off-topic but I agree that there is a HUGE bias towards certain sins by the "Christian" churches. According to the bible the only sin that is really placed above other sins is blasphemy against the holy spirit. While some sins are generally considered worse than others. For example, murder is considered worse than burglary. I also think that it is hypocritical of any church that rejects members based on their past sins. A hospital doesn't turn people away based on the extent of their injuries. Likewise a church shouldn't turn someone away because they have committed a sin that is perceived to be worse than others. They should try to help them as best they can.
Why not just hang out the sign "whites only"...."blacks not allowed"...not much different than "straights only"..."no gays" Haven't we matured past this yet?
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing
A forum community dedicated to Georgia firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Nemo
428 Replies
Malum Prohibitum
332 Replies
seajay
136 Replies
Recommended Communities
