A good decision, I think.

The Methodist Association that owns the Gazabo where marriages, and other public gatherings used it, put it in the position for use of anyone without discrimination. They discriminated against this Civil marriage, and when another gay couple tried they changed their Methodist rules and now no marriages can be performed there for anyone. How’s that for clipping their own Methodist noses off for use of Methodist’s marrying there. They evidently would rather do this than be soiled in their Methodist beliefs against LGBT. The county paid to bring in sand, etc. to bring the beach up to snuff and they have enjoyed this and never paid a cent for it. Public use was intended when they did this job.

Very good case and I’m so proud of the couple.

Homosexuals claim that same sex unions will not affect churches that choose not to involve themselves in such activities but they of course lie as demonstrated here. But of course what is built on a lie will of course be full of lies.

cknuck-
It is not homosexuals….it is reasonable people who claim that same sex marriages will not effect churches. The pavilion is not a church…it is an outdoor facility that has been used for many types of weddings including Jewish and Pagan ceremonies….as well as concerts and other events. The couple is not suing because they were denied use of a “church” but rather, they were denied use of an outdoor pavilion that is not used exclusively for religious services….nor even exclusively for Christian events.
As Henrietta has noted, the property was upgraded and improved at tax-payers expense because it is a public use facility.
The only lies are those used in an attempt to justify prejudice, discrimination, and bigotry.
Peace!

ck,
They have not asked the church to perform or even authorize their marriage. All they want is equal access to the facility that has been made available to the general – non-Methodist – public. So instead of being open to the public the Methodists have shut the whole thing down. “I’m taking my toys so you can’t have them and going to my room” We’ve all heard it before, but on playgrounds and in family rooms. The methodists have reduced the discussion to a playground argument, and then tried to make it sound like someone else’s fault. It does not speak well for them.
It is time for the government to give some serious thought about its role in marriage. Weddings are an entirely separate issue. I expect some lines will be drawn and some parties will feel offended. But in order to serve the greater public, the government has to look at the cause of the minority as well as the expectations of the majority. It will be an intersting philosophical debate. Is the government expected to champion the minority, defending it from overwhelming influences, or is it to maintain and reinforce the status quo against all who would change it. Stay tuned!

ck,
The lie is purely on your part. This was a public use facility. Gay people, whether you like it or not, are part of the public. If the Methodist Campground Association allowed Rastafarian ceremonies, they have no business denying the pavilion’s use to gay couples.
You make it sound as if the Methodist Church was forced to perform a same-sex marriage.
And it is lies like yours that have caused this very ‘loss’ to Methodists themselves.

Cknuck,
Here is a perfect opportunity to show yourself as humble and apologize for throwing stones out your extremely breakable argument.

If the facility was public it would not be owned by the church, period.

ck,
Au contraire, mon ami! Ownership does not necessarily mean private. I know churches that own and operate gas stations and convenience stores. A church can receive real property as a bequest or they can buy in as an investment. Some churches wind up as landlords of very inadequate housing, creating incredibly awkward situations. In this case, it is something they have had and made available to the public. Therefore they are bound by the rules that relate to publicly available facilities. If they close it down and make it members-only, then they may eventually have a case But they have to be prepared to defend each use, case by case.

Funny!! If they close it down it’s their business because “they own it”. They pulled the marriage use of it out for anyone, and they can do this because “they own it”. What they couldn’t do is forbid civil marriages between gay people, because they knew that the beach and area is owned by the county, and it is Public domain. If they were to have stopped the gay couple from marrying then they might have been billed thousands of dollars for the beach repair and boardwalk.

They are not stopping the homosexual couple from marring they do not wish to be a party to it in any way or fashion. If it is against their religious standards to be involved then that should be respect and they should not be forced to do anything they are against.

If you agree to buy a pavillion on Public Domain as they did ck, then you have agreed to let the public use your pavillion. It’s a legal thing we are discussing not a religious question. Or whatever you sign your name on be aware of what your rights are. Also be aware of what your public rights are, as the gay couple were.

Well if it is as you say H22 then that will be determined. I say it is a bullying tactic by homosexuals. Also I am not as clear on the law as many want to be lawers may think they are.

Easily amused jest? Forcing someone to submit to your wishes can lead to bullying tactics and this in my opinion is one. Now of course I was not moved by bullies in my youth so my opinion of bullies might some what differ from those who remember bullies punching them out or something. But I understand.

OMG, Fed up with ignorance, are you calling me ignorant?! I read some of what you posted here in the Asbury Park Press yesterday, news from a few days ago, actually. I’ll have to be honest it was just too darn much trouble to straighten it all out, so I didn’t. What I posted was mostly info from a year or more ago that I read in the APP, and the local peoples comments. The couple that was mentioned pd. 250.00 to rent the pavillion and the manager of the Methodist whatever took it. I guess when they found out two Lesbians planned to have a civil marriage there they hit high C, and gave their money back and told them they couldn’t use their pavillion. The article also mentioned another gay couple had already used their pavillion to be married in prior to this latest couple. Personally I know the area, but I’m sure it’s nicer than I remember, now. In the 30′s and 40′s you couldn’t drive into it’s town on sunday, and couldn’t do much else either. Very, very extreme religious people. People from NY visiting liked to look across the lake and comment on how quaint after all these years, tee hee! Those same people would have a culture shock in the U.S.A. now if they were alive.
I feel this way about the Methodist Pavillion, if everyone who used this facility was allowed to rent it and only two sweet ladies who wanted to spend their life together weren’t, if I were them I would have fought against it, also. Do you not see how degrading what this church is doing and the rest of the churches “tired of ignorance”? Oh, you don’t, well that’s your problem.

ck,
If these folks had been turned down because they were hispanic, black, Catholic, Moslem, Asian, handicapped, poor, or homeless, the world would be in an uproar. The same is true here. Public access means accessible to everyone. You can’t close the door to some, even if they are not just the people you expect them to be. I expect these folks would be better renters and more respectful of the property than many other folks who rent places for weddings. You should not ignore or discount their humanity, though many people have proven that they can. I really doubt there was any more bullying fro the prospective renters than there was from the property owners.

I’m not sure why my comment was removed. It’s possible I went overboard, as I tend to do. I still maintain that cknuck is being irrational in assuming that the actions of this one couple, right or wrong, should speak for the entire LGBT community.

Mordred08, Fed Up with Ignorance, was removed, also. She was rather irate to say the least. Reason for my post back to her. I hunted it down this a.m. in my delete file from Dec. 30. In essence this is how it is: After a yearlong investigation, the state’s Civil Rights Division Director J. Frank Vespa-Papaleo ruled that Bernstein and Paster had probable cause in their discrimination complaint against the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. The finding was important because it said that a religious organization which participates in commercial enterprise is subject to the Law Against Discrimination.
The OGCMA is in business with their Pavillion, renting it out for all manner of use by the public. All other business’s are subject to N.J. laws against discrimination, and they are no different. So now they will not rent it out for ANY wedding to keep LGBT marriages out of the Pavillion.

jest both you and H22 blinded by your homosexual agendas assume much that is not in evidence of being fact. H22 calls them sweet ladies and you claim they would be better renters (than who) the list you reviewed “hispanic, black, Catholic, Moslem, Asian, handicapped, poor, or homeless,”?
The church obviously does not want to be a party to a ceremony they do not believe in and is against their attempt to be respectful and holy to God. I feel they should not be pushed just because of the point and agenda that is being waged. By the way Hispanic should definitely be capitalized I already know your feelings on using the small case b for “black” when referring to African Americans.

Perhaps I owe you an apology Mordred08 I am sure that this couple does not speak for the whole homosexual community.

Ck they are not being pushed. They are in business as other businesses in NJ. The law is, NO DISCRIMINATION. Not even for a church who is in business. If they are in business and it certainly seems that’s the case I wonder if they pay income taxes on this pavillion in question. They are not holding any marriages in their pavillion because of how they feel about GLBT marriages. I don’t understand your take on this, it is the law of NJ.
I don’t understand Mordred08′s take on the lesbian couple either. Why any GLBT person wouldn’t mind that another GLBT person is being discriminated against. Pehaps M didn’t understand the law aspect of this case.

“I don’t understand Mordred08′s take on the lesbian couple either. Why any GLBT person wouldn’t mind that another GLBT person is being discriminated against. Pehaps M didn’t understand the law aspect of this case.”
I didn’t go to law school, so legal arguments pretty much make my head spin. I don’t know how you interpreted “let the courts decide” as “I don’t care that they’re being discriminated against”. Of course I’d like for them to succeed. I’d also love for them not to be stuck with a “civil union” so as not to hurt certain people’s feelings.
Unfortunately, as I’ve seen time and again, if you support a gay person who goes up against a Christian group, you’re labeled as part of the “homosexual agenda” against the biggest and most powerful religion in this country, which is somehow also the most oppressed. Again, I was simply commenting on cknuck pointing at this story and saying “See, this proves I’m right. Homosexuals are lying bullies who just want to oppress Christians.” Nevermind the fact that there are LGBT people who follow Christianity (granted in a slightly different form) whose religious freedom is trampled simply because they don’t believe that marriage is limited to heterosexual couples.

M8 your long post was deleted so I didn’t remember all you said. I did remember you said that the women did not speak for the whole GLBT. The only thing that interested me in this case was justice for the laws of NJ. And justice for GLBT not to be discriminated against. When you said the women didn’t speak for you, I assumed you didn’t understand the aspects of this case. Because what these women are going through would affect any gay person and their rights of not being discriminated upon. The Fundamentalist believing people are not the strongest religion in America as you said. There is no one religion that informs our laws in the U.S.A.. None of us should care if we are labeled with the “Homosexual Agenda”. Also there is no religion in America that is oppressed. This isn’t Iraq or any other Arab country.

“The Fundamentalist believing people are not the strongest religion in America as you said.”
I’d like to believe that. I really would. But the evidence seems to say otherwise. For example, them coming out in droves to support Proposition 8 in CA, as well as similar laws that have been passed throughout the country, including in my home state of Alabama. We’re not even allowed civil unions or domestic partnerships, so I don’t want to hear anyone try to tell us that we’re being treated equally. Maybe my perspective on this comes from living in the “Bible Belt”, I don’t know. But the way I see it, fundamentalist Christians do have a great deal of influence in this country, and yet they cry persecution whenever anyone opposes them. It doesn’t make sense.

“When you said the women didn’t speak for you, I assumed you didn’t understand the aspects of this case. Because what these women are going through would affect any gay person and their rights of not being discriminated upon.”
Okay, H22, that really was not what I intended to say. I’m not even sure what I intended to say right now. I was very frustrated when I made that first comment, and I guess I still am. I’ve just been seeing a lot of people talk about LGBT people as if they weren’t real people. You know, as if they weren’t individuals with their own concerns and motives, but just some political agenda. I remember this story floating around about some anti-Prop 8 protesters (allegedly) attacking an elderly woman and how that somehow was supposed to prove that the LGBT were violent or dangerous or whatever. I hate how everytime someone makes an effort towards equality in this country, those opposed to LGBT equality somehow twist things around and use it to attack us.

H22 you are not a lawyer so you don’t get to make the call, no matter how full of yourself you may be the case will be heard without your assistance. M has every right to be not involved without you pushing. I know homosexuals who are content living the life they enjoy here in America and are not attacking churches.

Churches do much more good than most folk realize but when they have to spend money to defend themselves against people like this then that is money that is taken away from the good they could be doing. They don’t want to be a party to any homosexual marriage imitations; it’s not holy in their eyes, leave them alone.

“If the facility was public it would not be owned by the church, period.”
BWAHAHAHAAA!!! Yet another lie. There are so many ‘church-owned’ facilities that have been renovated/fixed up/repaired etc. by way of public funds (i.e. taxpayer – aka citizen-paid – which includes gay citizens) and this particular facility is one of them.
Why is the ‘right’ so delusional? You would do well to actually find the facts of the case before making such ridiculous remarks.

Mordred
I think you will find Henrietta is quite sympathetic to your position, as am I.
Basically, the decision was that the case can go formward. No final pronouncement has been made. It will be nice of the case can procede without any fear mongering or stereotyping from either side. We need to accept each other – from both sides – without caricaturing or demonizing.
I think we need to listen to and read each other’s copmments carefully and not let our boiling blood or seething passions obscure our vision or sense of each other.

Your Name who said I was so full of myself. Does it make you feel superior to say that to me? I was just explaining how the case read in the APP. Is the APP full of themselves, too?

M8 you and your GLBT people are important to me, you are important to Barack Obama, and he understands diversity, injustice, and justice. Things are going to change for all of us in every way in the future. The Right are indignant, and hostile because they can see that justice will prevail in our government and in our nation. Just hold on, the ride won’t be smooth, but we’ll all get there.

H22, FYI, no matter how sincere you may be your post sounds so condescending.