NJ Rules Against Church Group In Gay Rights Case

DeSwiss

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Dec-30-08 08:23 PM
Original message

NJ Rules Against Church Group In Gay Rights Case

NJ rules against church group in gay rights case

The Huffington Post | GEOFF MULVIHILL | December 29, 2008 05:55 PM EST | AP

MOUNT LAUREL, N.J. — 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.

While the ruling is decisively in favor of the couple, Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster, it does not end the case. An administrative law judge still must decide on a remedy for the parties. "What this case has always been about from my clients' perspective has been equality," said Larry Lustberg, the lawyer for the couple. He said they will seek an order that requires the pavilion to be "open to all on an equal basis."

Brian Raum, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Scottsdale, Ariz.-based group that represents the Methodist organization, Camp Meeting Association, said his clients would keep pushing back against being forced to allow civil unions on the property. "Our position is the same," he said. "A Christian organization has a constitutional right to use their facilities in a way that is consistent with their beliefs."

Meanwhile, the parties in the dispute are awaiting a ruling from the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on whether the issue should be decided in the division on civil rights or in federal courts. A lower federal court has ruled that the state could consider the case. The dispute has become a rallying point for both sides in the political battle over gay unions. Supporters of gay rights say the discrimination shows that New Jersey's two-year-old civil unions law falls short of its intent to give gay couples the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples.

Earlier this month, a state commission headed by J. Frank Vespa-Papaleo, the director of the Division on Civil Rights and the author of Monday's ruling, recommended that the state allow gay couples full marriage rights. Opponents of gay marriage cite the case as a prime example of their contention that by recognizing same-sex couples, states are interfering with religious freedoms. "It's something we have to be careful about," said the Alliance Defense Fund's Raum. "As the rights of same-sex couples increase, the tendency is to have it conflict with the First Amendment rights of religious organizations."

Also see: New Jersey Division on Civil Rights rulings: http://www.nj.gov/oag/dcr/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/30/nj-rules-against-church-g_n_154128.html">LINK

- First, I'd like to disabuse the above asshole of a lawyer of the idea that religions have freedoms under our Constitution. THEY DON'T.

It's "THE PEOPLE" who have the freedoms, including the freedom of religion, not the religious institutions themselves. The only institutions that have enumerated freedoms (or powers) under our Constitution are the two levels of government that are cited within it -- the feds and the states. That's it. And it states further that if there are any freedoms that aren't listed there, then they belong to the people. Not the church.

Secondly, I'd like to tell the other Bozo that same-sex rights don't "interfere" with anyone practicing their religion either. No more than laws against racial discrimination do, nor parking in a hospital zone. Its the law. It applies to everyone.

However, if one's religion (as in the case of any other organization), acts in a way that discriminates against someone illegally, then you not only can't practice your religion that way, but you'd better expect to be called (or sued) on it. And the reason its illegal for a church to do this is because of its tax-exempted status, which in order to receive, churches and other non-profits must agree not to discriminate. Simple, eh?

And this would apply to any church or other kind of institution. And if one's religion requires that its adherents violate the laws of the Constitution in order to be a member, then I would define such an organization as an illegal one, and that they should subject to the full force and effect of the law. Up to and including being shuttered, broken up into little pieces, and then sold to highest bidder. Like any other failed non-profit, or for-profit organization, or those institutions that are seized by the government for violations of the law. Say, like a drug dealer's criminal organization would be. Same difference.

After which if they choose, then these "churches" can then take their hatreds, their ignorance and their Bronze-Age Magic Buddy beliefs back underground in the dirt. Where they started and where they belong today.....
==============================================================================
DeSwiss

http://www.atheisttoolbox.com/">The Atheist Toolbox

Quote 'O The Day:

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

"Prayer is just a way of telling god that his divine plan for
you is flawed -- and shockingly stingy" ~ Betty Bowers