NJ rules against church group in gay rights case

[LiberalNation]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081229/ap_on_re_us/civil_unions;_ylt=Asv6fJufmwHte53pAb2lr.1vzwcF

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.

[darin]

people are celebrating a COURT taking away freedom of an organization to run itself the way it sees fit? If I were the church, I'd consider closing down the beach before compromising it's principles.

[Psychoblues]

Admittedly, I don't know much about the case, but it seems the church was offering the property up for public consumption/use for a fee.



people are celebrating a COURT taking away freedom of an organization to run itself the way it sees fit? If I were the church, I'd consider closing down the beach before compromising it's principles.

You and the rest of the homophobes just need to get over it.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Immanuel]

This decision is wrong. The state has no right to dictate to any business who it will do business with as long as the transactions are legal. It can tell a business who it can not do business with i.e. a bar can not do business with a minor, but it can not insist that I give my services away to someone with whom I do not want to do business.

I'm not saying whether or not the business is right in its decision not to rent to this couple, that is besides the point. The fact is though that the government does not and should not and I pray never will dictate business practices to a free society.

Immie

[darin]

Admittedly, I don't know much about the case, but it seems the church was offering the property up for public consumption/use for a fee.




You and the rest of the homophobes just need to get over it.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

I'm afraid of homos. Yup. I'm afraid they are spreading their sickness to the masses. When courts rule for special rights for homos, the homos have won.

[Psychoblues]

Every society whether it calls itself "free" or not has laws, immie.



This decision is wrong. The state has no right to dictate to any business who it will do business with as long as the transactions are legal. It can tell a business who it can not do business with i.e. a bar can not do business with a minor, but it can not insist that I give my services away to someone with whom I do not want to do business.

I'm not saying whether or not the business is right in its decision not to rent to this couple, that is besides the point. The fact is though that the government does not and should not and I pray never will dictate business practices to a free society.

Immie

Even Jesus chastised his disciples for their disagreements with the laws of their society.

The church, in this case, is attempting to dictate bigotry and the laws are apparently not in agreement with their arbitrary policies.

Again, I am not entirely up to snuff in the legal wranglings of this case and I suspect you aren't either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Immanuel]

Every society whether it calls itself "free" or not has laws, immie.




Even Jesus chastised his disciples for their disagreements with the laws of their society.

The church, in this case, is attempting to dictate bigotry and the laws are apparently not in agreement with their arbitrary policies.

Again, I am not entirely up to snuff in the legal wranglings of this case and I suspect you aren't either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues


No, I am not up to snuff on the case and I had meant to say so in my initial post. Regardless, I am fully of the belief that the state has no business dictating who an establishment does business with especially when there is an endless supply of other businesses which will do business with the buyer. I might agree with you, if this were a black couple back in the days of segregation, but in today's society things are so much different.

This couple could go to any secular business it wants, but, instead they have chosen to attempt to force themselves upon a church that disagrees with their lifestyle.

Immie

[Psychoblues]

Just what "special rights" are the homos asking for, dimples?



I'm afraid of homos. Yup. I'm afraid they are spreading their sickness to the masses. When courts rule for special rights for homos, the homos have won.

Can't think of any? Maybe you need a doctor more than anything that can be discussed on this board.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Psychoblues]

How do you know that the couple was not a black couple, immie?!?!?!??!?!?!?



No, I am not up to snuff on the case and I had meant to say so in my initial post. Regardless, I am fully of the belief that the state has no business dictating who an establishment does business with especially when there is an endless supply of other businesses which will do business with the buyer. I might agree with you, if this were a black couple back in the days of segregation, but in today's society things are so much different.

This couple could go to any secular business it wants, but, instead they have chosen to attempt to force themselves upon a church that disagrees with their lifestyle.

Immie

Obviously that makes a difference for you?!?!?!??!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Excuse me, cowgirl, I have to clean my monitor again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Immanuel]

How do you know that the couple was not a black couple, immie?!?!?!??!?!?!?




Obviously that makes a difference for you?!?!?!??!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Excuse me, cowgirl, I have to clean my monitor again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

You're drunk. It doesn't make a difference today. Note the qualifications of my statement:


if this were a black couple back in the days of segregation

We are no longer, thank God, in the days of segregation. For the most part everyone is treated equally, again Thank God. This couple has no right to force this business to provide services to them. They can request the services be provided. They can not force the business to make the sale.

Immie

[avatar4321]

So much for freedom. What a disgrace...

[Psychoblues]

I don't know what century you're trying to live in, immie, so I guess I have to be rather ancient to attract your unmitigated attention.


You're drunk. It doesn't make a difference today. Note the qualifications of my statement:



We are no longer, thank God, in the days of segregation. For the most part everyone is treated equally, again Thank God. This couple has no right to force this business to provide services to them. They can request the services be provided. They can not force the business to make the sale.

Immie

The couple requested service and were accepted. When it was determined the service was for a gay couple the services were withdrawn. Ignorance on either part is inexcuseable in my opinion but withdrawal of services due to personal differences with the lifestyle of the customer is no reason to withdraw delivery. Retail is retail. If the church/proprietors wish to enforce arbitrary and ignorant rules they have no business (key word there, business) offering their services in a retail market.

As a former business owner and retailer I think I can speak with at least minimal authority and credibility on that particular subject.

The homophobes really do need to get over it. Whining is not the answer.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Immanuel]

I don't know what century you're trying to live in, immie, so I guess I have to be rather ancient to attract your unmitigated attention.



The couple requested service and were accepted. When it was determined the service was for a gay couple the services were withdrawn. Ignorance on either part is inexcuseable in my opinion but withdrawal of services due to personal differences with the lifestyle of the customer is no reason to withdraw delivery. Retail is retail. If the church/proprietors wish to enforce arbitrary and ignorant rules they have no business (key word there, business) offering their services in a retail market.

As a former business owner and retailer I think I can speak with at least minimal authority and credibility on that particular subject.

The homophobes really do need to get over it. Whining is not the answer.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

Sorry, but once again, you are wrong. This may be poor business practice, but regardless, it is still the right of the business to refuse service to whomever they so desire.

Immie

[Psychoblues]

Given that you are obviously not in business and have no retail experience I can forgive you.


Sorry, but once again, you are wrong. This may be poor business practice, but regardless, it is still the right of the business to refuse service to whomever they so desire.

Immie

But the laws of the land will not, given the offended party chooses to legally contradict your most arbitrary and ill-advised position.

I agree that as a retailer I have a right to refuse service to anyone. But I also understand that my decision to refuse service must be based on a substantial reason and not covered by existing law. In this case, the homophobes lose, big time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wanna bet?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[crin63]

From my understanding of how churches can protect themselves against this kind of nonsense they have to have specific language written into their churches constitution but it has to be equally applied. For example if a church accepts a straight couple who are living together and unmarried into membership then they have to also allow a G.L.B.T. couple the same opportunity for membership. Otherwise they open themselves up to a discrimination lawsuit. They cant say one sex sin is more acceptable than another.

In this case it will probably depend on the language in their constitution regarding homosexuality and whether or not they have been consistent in their dealings regarding sex sins.

Personally I think they should be able to deny anyone they want too, for whatever reason they want too and never have to explain themselves to anyone because its their property.

[Psychoblues]

Wuzzup, CR!!!!!!!!!!!! Long time no see!!!!!!!!!!!!! I think in this case the church owns commercial property that is normally used for matrimonial purposes and is advertised as such. It is a good way for religious fundraising and without all the tax reporting bullshit that is ordinarilly involved in such commercial adventures, but that is a different story.

It appears to me that the couple in question here requested the use of the property for matrimonial purposes and were accepted as qualified customers. When the church realized that the couple was a same sex type they withdrew the services as beforehand agreed. That is a no-no IMHO.

Maybe the churches need to give up their tax exempt status and just operate as the retail establishments that they actually are?!?!?!?!?!??!????!?!?

Can I get you something to settle your contemplations?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[PostmodernProphet]

getting sick of seeing "homophobe" used in a response to every objection to something homosexuals are doing.....I suspect the proper designation for those who use it would be intelli-phobe, since they have a fear of anything intelligent.....

[Psychoblues]

So,,,,,,,you neg rep me rather than attempt to discuss anything?!?!?!?!???!??!


getting sick of seeing "homophobe" used in a response to every objection to something homosexuals are doing.....I suspect the proper designation for those who use it would be intelli-phobe, since they have a fear of anything intelligent.....

Have I ever negged you, pimp? The answer is NO. I have not. You are getting about as silly as a few more around here. If you want to call yourself an intelli-phobe rather than a homophobe that's certainly fine with me and I don't have to neg rep you for feeling that way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have a nice day, homophobe, I mean intelli-phobe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[crin63]

Wuzzup, CR!!!!!!!!!!!! Long time no see!!!!!!!!!!!!! I think in this case the church owns commercial property that is normally used for matrimonial purposes and is advertised as such. It is a good way for religious fundraising and without all the tax reporting bullshit that is ordinarilly involved in such commercial adventures, but that is a different story.

It appears to me that the couple in question here requested the use of the property for matrimonial purposes and were accepted as qualified customers. When the church realized that the couple was a same sex type they withdrew the services as beforehand agreed. That is a no-no IMHO.

Maybe the churches need to give up their tax exempt status and just operate as the retail establishments that they actually are?!?!?!?!?!??!????!?!?

Can I get you something to settle your contemplations?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

Hey PB! It's good to be back out in the world of DP. We finally have internet and everything networked after the move.

The church in this case is probably in trouble for accepting them and then changing their minds. They should have asked all the questions up front, I know I would have. Although I think they should still be able to say no and do what they want to with their property regardless of their 501c3 status.

At my church we don't offer to rent our auditorium and our pastor is not obligated to perform marriages or funerals. It's solely at his discretion whether he performs either. We are prepared to give up our tax exempt status at any time rather then to compromise on our beliefs. We figure its just a matter of time before it happens. Being able to write off tithes, offerings and gifts is just a bonus but not necessary.

A cup of coffee would be most excellent to aide in my contemplations!

[LiberalNation]

This decision is wrong. The state has no right to dictate to any business who it will do business with as long as the transactions are legal. It can tell a business who it can not do business with i.e. a bar can not do business with a minor, but it can not insist that I give my services away to someone with whom I do not want to do business.

Immie

most states have anti-descrimation laws when it comes to renting, you can't not rent to a black, minority (which covers gays) ect.

personally I think if it's your business you should be able to descriminate on those criteria but the judge made the correct ruling considering the law.

[Immanuel]

most states have anti-descrimation laws when it comes to renting, you can't not rent to a black, minority (which covers gays) ect.

personally I think if it's your business you should be able to descriminate on those criteria but the judge made the correct ruling considering the law.

Last time I looked (and it has been a while) most states did not include "sexual preference" in the laws governing rent control. I'm not certain that it has not changed.

Personally, I don't believe anyone should discriminate against anyone regardless of race, sex, creed etc including sexual preferences. I, myself, would not have made the decision that this business made. However, I do not believe we want our government dictating our political and religious beliefs. This is a religious property and thus if they do not want to serve a same sex couple they should not be forced to do so.

What's next? Will "The 700 Club" be prevented from discussing gay and lesbian issues on TV because they "discriminate" against GLBT's?

Note: I do not watch, in fact, I can't stand "The 700 Club".

Question for you LN. Do you think a "Gay Bar" that rents itself out or certain rooms out for events should be required to allow Fred Phelps to rent its facilities in order to preach against homo-sexuality? (assuming of course they were not instigating a riot)

Immie

[5stringJeff]

Every society whether it calls itself "free" or not has laws, immie.

Even Jesus chastised his disciples for their disagreements with the laws of their society.

The church, in this case, is attempting to dictate bigotry and the laws are apparently not in agreement with their arbitrary policies.

Again, I am not entirely up to snuff in the legal wranglings of this case and I suspect you aren't either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

You are 100% wrong on this, PB, and so is the court.

This is private property, owned by a church. The state has absolutely no right to infringe on the church's practices. That's in the First Amendment, right before the part about free speech.

[PostmodernProphet]

So,,,,,,,you neg rep me rather than attempt to discuss anything?!?!?!?!???!??!

I have attempted to discuss things with you for months....all I ever get is the rantings of insanity in return....I figured it was time I neg-repped you, since you are insufferably dense about the truth......


Have a nice day, homophobe, I mean intelli-phobe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

all joking aside, Psch....you are a fucking idiot and responding to your posts is as close to total waste of time that you can find around here....