Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 25 of 25

Thread: NJ rules against church group in gay rights case

  1. #16
    Elite Member RevellingInSane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Where Being PC is understood as a fault!
    Posts
    11,592

    Default

    As much as I hate to say this, I agree with the church in this particular situation.

    The owner, in this case a church, has the right to decide what happens on that property. If the church's viewpoint on same-sex marriage is an opposition, it would be a conflict of interest to allow same-sex ceremonies on that property.

    I agree with the poster who cited situations such as this as why Christians vote against same sex marriage. To find churches being sued for not allowing something, which clearly violates their doctrine, to be performed on their property is very frightening.

    Why even approach a church with disagrees and request to use their land? This really seems like nothing more than an attempt to leverage law enforced acceptance of same-sex marriages beyond church protected boundaries.

    The church should not dictate how anyone lives. Conversely, no one should dictate the the rights of churches to worship and believe as they choose because those beliefs conflict with his or her lifestyle.

    I'm sorry, but this is the very, oft negated, slippery slope mentioned. No church should be forced to allow same-sex unions, or any other unsupported activity. Having the same legal rights as heterosexual couples is one thing. Forcing churches to accept homosexuality is wrong and violation of civil rights. This is a perfect example of infringing on someone's rights needlessly. They should have sought a privately owned, non church affiliated, hall to conduct their ceremony.

    I've heard,"Keep religion out of government," argument a million times. What happened to keeping civil,governmental issues out of churches?



  2. #17
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    *snort* they took gov funds, they have no legal right to discriminate.

    The law is against them. Tough shit for them. Can't have their cake and eat it too. The fact that they try to UNFAIRLY discriminate, basically flouting the law, is just one example of how 'religious' organizations have enjoyed a total double standard in society.

    I'm sorry, but this is the very, oft negated, slippery slope mentioned.
    Yeah, if you ignore all the legality behind it, which fundies and church nuts often do. Churches want to be protected, fine. They should obey the law and make sure they run according to it then. Crying that you're being sued after taking gov money (essentially degating any protection you had at that point) is stupid.


    FUck em. Bring em down.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  3. #18
    Elite Member RevellingInSane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Where Being PC is understood as a fault!
    Posts
    11,592

    Default

    While I agree, there was a clear conflict of interests, which should have been obvious to both the church and the government program which distributed the funds, this may serve as a catalyst for all churches to be proactive and take the steps to prevent their freedom of religion, especially within states which have laws allowing any type of recognition of same-sex couples or no laws specifically banning it. If the whole town is owned by the church, that alone proves this is a unique situation, of a government recognized entity, a city, still owned by a church-affiliated institution. Really, they have been given the right to straddle the fence. Only the government could have prevented this by insisting they choose one side or the other and not retain the rights of both.

    This will not be the last challenge. In every conflict, there will be people, who push the envelope. This is exactly why many Christians refuse to support same sex unions. At what point will the line be drawn? Since their is no clear answer, they vote against it.

    What can come from this is that churches take precautions and steps to protect their doctrines, many of which I don't agree with, so I don't wander in, get pissed off, then sue when they won't humor me. State doctrines clearly and completely. State, with no exceptions, activities which are not in compliance with church doctrine will not be allowed. Have every affiliation, tie, or partnership evaluated for any weak links and make adjustments.

    How hard is it to stay away from religious affiliations? It seems as if this particular place was chosen because it was in the gray area and could be used as a landmark case defendant.



  4. #19
    Elite Member SweetPea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Garden State
    Posts
    4,839

    Default

    We've been to this beach before around 20 years ago and we were not allowed onto the beaches until Sunday mass was over. It seems like a very religious community but I must say I felt like I was in the invasion of the body snatchers. Everyone walked around without expressions. It was very creepy.
    Into the sunrise. The sunset is sad to me….it only means the night is coming.

  5. #20
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RevellingInSane View Post
    It seems as if this particular place was chosen because it was in the gray area and could be used as a landmark case defendant.
    Sounds more like it was chosen because it's beachfront property. Lots of people want to get married with views of the ocean. Seems like a no-brainer.

  6. #21
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    33,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SweetPea View Post
    We've been to this beach before around 20 years ago and we were not allowed onto the beaches until Sunday mass was over. It seems like a very religious community but I must say I felt like I was in the invasion of the body snatchers. Everyone walked around without expressions. It was very creepy.

    It's changed a lot. I remember when it was like that as well, and they had the blue laws, and closed the entrance on Sundays so you couldn't drive into the town. It is still dry though, and the beaches still are closed on Sunday mornings.

    It's become a big gay community, along with neighboring Asbury Park. They brought a lot of change to this area....galleries, shops, restaurants- really revitalized Ocean Grove, and the parts of Asbury where they've opened stores- although most of Asbury is still bad- very poor.
    It's no longer a dog whistle, it's a fucking trombone


    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  7. #22
    Elite Member sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    fellow traveller
    Posts
    51,892

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl View Post
    They've taken state and federal money, under NJ's Green Acres Program, and get $500,000 annual property tax exemption. In their application for these funds, the Camp Meeting Association reportedly stated that the disputed areas were open to the public.

    Either it's a public place or a private one. They can't have it both ways. Once they took the money they lost the right to discriminate.
    exactly.
    it sounds to me like they want the best of both worlds.
    if they want to run it according to their beliefs, they can pay for it. if the state gives them money, then they are bound to respect the state's laws - i.e. secular and equal rights for all.

    look at it this way, and not in terms of whether or not the church is for or against gay marriage. it's about the separation of church and state and the fact that churches/religious organisations can't ask for state money and then discriminate. the state is secular. if they don't like it, then they can use their own funds.
    I'm open to everything. When you start to criticise the times you live in, your time is over. - Karl Lagerfeld

  8. #23
    Elite Member DeadDwarf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    5,816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sputnik View Post
    exactly.
    it sounds to me like they want the best of both worlds.
    if they want to run it according to their beliefs, they can pay for it. if the state gives them money, then they are bound to respect the state's laws - i.e. secular and equal rights for all.

    look at it this way, and not in terms of whether or not the church is for or against gay marriage. it's about the separation of church and state and the fact that churches/religious organisations can't ask for state money and then discriminate. the state is secular. if they don't like it, then they can use their own funds.
    Yes, this has been posted several times in this thread, I still don't understand why a few posters don't get it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

    If the church is taking state funding and getting tax exemptions, then they STFU and as the bible says, "abide by the law of the land." When they want to foot the bill on their own, then they can make their property private and rent it out to non-gays only. Why is that so hard to understand?

  9. #24
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RevellingInSane View Post
    While I agree, there was a clear conflict of interests, which should have been obvious to both the church and the government program which distributed the funds, this may serve as a catalyst for all churches to be proactive and take the steps to prevent their freedom of religion, especially within states which have laws allowing any type of recognition of same-sex couples or no laws specifically banning it. If the whole town is owned by the church, that alone proves this is a unique situation, of a government recognized entity, a city, still owned by a church-affiliated institution. Really, they have been given the right to straddle the fence. Only the government could have prevented this by insisting they choose one side or the other and not retain the rights of both.

    This will not be the last challenge. In every conflict, there will be people, who push the envelope. This is exactly why many Christians refuse to support same sex unions. At what point will the line be drawn? Since their is no clear answer, they vote against it.

    What can come from this is that churches take precautions and steps to protect their doctrines, many of which I don't agree with, so I don't wander in, get pissed off, then sue when they won't humor me. State doctrines clearly and completely. State, with no exceptions, activities which are not in compliance with church doctrine will not be allowed. Have every affiliation, tie, or partnership evaluated for any weak links and make adjustments.

    How hard is it to stay away from religious affiliations? It seems as if this particular place was chosen because it was in the gray area and could be used as a landmark case defendant.
    ]

    Darn, churches actually have to make sure they aren't engaging in a legal double standard. How awful for them.

    Perhaps if they'd done their due diligence beforehand they wouldn't be in this tizzy of a pickle. They actually have to make sure they're obeying the law as it was written, how HARSH and unfair!



    Spare me.

    I welcome this. It will make sure the churches have all their ducks in a row and it will keep their asses in check. It's a win win.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  10. #25
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeadDwarf View Post
    Yes, this has been posted several times in this thread, I still don't understand why a few posters don't get it. ?
    They get it, they're choosing to ignore it because it's convenient. They'd rather dig up the scaremongering "slippery slope" crap and wail about how unfair it is for religious institutions to be targeted for not obeying the law, citing some mass effort to bring down religion as a whole as the main culprit.

    It's really stupid, but it's all they have left.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Gay rights group to protest at Fl. Governor Charlie Crist's wedding
    By Belinda in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 4th, 2008, 04:41 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: April 30th, 2007, 07:29 PM
  3. Replies: 16
    Last Post: October 22nd, 2006, 04:15 PM
  4. Replies: 7
    Last Post: October 14th, 2006, 11:01 AM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 17th, 2006, 11:02 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •