New Jersey Rules Against Methodist Group in Gay Rights Case

The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a non-profit group with United Methodist ties, refused to rent their facility to a lesbian couple for a same sex union ceremony last year, and has been found by a New Jersey agency to be in violation of state civil rights laws. A judge still has to decide the remedy for the parties.

This organization is obviously not a United Methodist congregation, and as far as I know, there is no UM church building at this beachfront facility. So technically, it appears that church law (which states that no same sex unions will be performed in UM church buildings) is not conflicting with New Jersey law in this case. But what if this has been an actual United Methodist Church? Do we want the government telling us how we can and can't use our church buildings? Will this ruling affect actual churches in New Jersey?

In the past, my church has refused to allow pagan and new age groups to use our building. I wonder now if we're just a lawsuit away from losing the ability to make that kind of decision for ourselves.

This is obviously a First Amendment issue. The question is whether or not a federal appeals court will step in and fix things.

Comments

[Jim]

How about Satanic groups forcing their way onto church property to perform animal sacrifices or other rituals? If church property is reduced to being a "public accommodation" churches can't discriminate on the basis of religious belief, let alone sexual practices. Church camps can be forced to sign leases for gosh knows what (tantric seminars and practice groups?) The UMC had better stand up for its own freedom of religion or it will be lost. What's next, Baalism in our sanctuaries? There is no line of demarcation, no limits to the implications of this ruling.

[Craig L. Adams]

I think the Ocean Grove case turns on whether their pavilion is a public accommodation. It certainly is an odd case. But, I don't think the principles in this case can be extended to apply to local churches.

[texan]

The hypocrisy of the "separation of church and state" crowd is astounding. The prinicple only works one way. We'll be in house churches before long if we want to be faithful Christians.

[Gavin Richardson]

being from the south jersey area, ocean grove is a very methodist entity. i am sure there are things happening there that do not represent the umc, but i know our camps in the tn conference have non umc happenings. but they don't contradict what the church claims as proper practice. even if i personally don't care for that particular practice. its right for ocean grove & the umc to stand up for itself. i bet this is some incident of a judge who didn't want to be the bad guy and pushed a decision that will eventually be overturned.

[Craig L. Adams]

I guess maybe I wasn't being clear. Sorry.

In this particular case Ocean View is entangled with NJ state government on the issue of funding. As I understand it, they receive funds through New Jersey's Green Acres Open Space Program. Because the pavilion is part of this Open Space Program the issue arises whether it is an public accommodation. If it were not part of the Open Space Program, this issue would not arise.

See, for example: http://moremusingson.blogspot.com/2008/10/will-gay-marriage-threaten-tax-exempt.html

I appreciated Gavin's remarks about Ocean Grove.

[Craig L. Adams]

Oh, and I just found this interesting discussion of the legal issues in the Ocean Grove case:
http://notapottedplant.blogspot.com/2008/12/lesson-in-discrimination-law.html

[Rev. Jeremy Smith]

Church laws are different than when churches run public properties. Your claim of "how long until we let FSM-worshippers use our fellowship hall or ELSE" becomes invalid when we leave the church doors because the laws change.

Box Turtle Bulletin has a good outline of the hazy intersections of church and state here that examines the facts a bit more clearly.

[Rev. Jeremy Smith]

Hmm...no anchor tags. Let's try it again.

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/12/29/7702

Sorry for the double post. First timer here! :)

[Creed Pogue]

(Originally posted on wrong thread)

The "court" did not rule. The NJ Division of Civil Rights which already chose to intervene in the case "decided" that Ocean Grove violated the Law Against Discrimination. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals may still rule that the state agency doesn't have jurisdiction. Ocean Grove doesn't receive public funds. It does have a tax exemption for recreational purposes which has been taken away. Ocean Grove is considered a religious community where worship services are conducted, including on the Pavilion. I believe this is a case of majoring in the minors on both sides, but forcing a place to host a ceremony against its beliefs isn't going to bring anybody together.

[Dave in Dallas]

Hmm... well depending on which "facts" are actually "facts" what's the big deal?