Ocean Grove Methodists vs NJ Gays

[Daniel]

Civil Union Dispute Pits Methodist Retreat Against Gays Who Aided in Its Rebirth

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/03/nyregion/03ocean.html

[Daniel]

That is- for a small area designated as 'public'.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/ny...on&oref=slogin

Group Loses Tax Break Over Gay Union Issue


By JILL P. CAPUZZO
Published: September 18, 2007
A boardwalk pavilion in the seaside town of Ocean Grove, N.J., that has been at the center of a battle over gay civil union ceremonies has lost its tax-exempt status because the state ruled it no longer met the requirements as a place open to all members of the public.

~

“When people hear the words ‘open space,’ we want them to think not just of open air and land, but that it is open to all people,” said Ms. Jackson. “And when the public subsidizes it with tax breaks, it goes with the expectation that it is not going to be parsed out, whether it be by activity or any particular beliefs.”

I have no doubt that this decision is going to get conservatives around the country all riled up.

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

I've been following the Ocean Grove story for some time. Frankly, I think that this organization's claim that they are some how bound to follow the United Methodist Book of Discipline just as though this pavilion was a church building is pretty bogus.

The University Chapels at both Duke University and Emory University (which are Methodist-related institutions) have opened their chapels for same-gender commitment ceremonies performed by United Church of Christ clergy. The logic of this decision is that those chapels serve a campus with an ecumenical constituency. Also, those chapels don't really fall under the Book of Discipline as churches. I don't believe Ocean Grove's pavilion does either.

These Ocean Grove folks aren't following church law, they're following their own prejudices. Unfortunately, they have an association of right-wing lawyers looking to score points against LGBT people involved.

Steven Webster

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

These Ocean Grove folks aren't following church law, they're following their own prejudices. Unfortunately, they have an association of right-wing lawyers looking to score points against LGBT people involved.

And they've been doing it at the tax-payers expense too, claiming that past practice allows them to continue to discriminate in a private way on land touted as having public access. If this doesn't give the unfortunate impression that the church is a private club, I don't know what does.

While there is no mention of it, I wonder if the church is going to continue it's legal manuevers? One would think, however, that because of NJ's laws regarding discrimination and Civil Union, they don't have a leg to stand on.

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by Daniel

And they've been doing it at the tax-payers expense too, claiming that past practice allows them to continue to discriminate in a private way on land touted as having public access. If this doesn't give the unfortunate impression that the church is a private club, I don't know what does.

While there is no mention of it, I wonder if the church is going to continue it's legal manuevers? One would think, however, that because of NJ's laws regarding discrimination and Civil Union, they don't have a leg to stand on.

Daniel,
If I am not mistaken "the church" is not involved in this law suit. The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association--an organization with some kind of Methodist roots, is the party involved in the suit. No where in the news stories that I've seen have I seen an indication that any United Methodist Church or United Methodist Conference is involved in this.

As I said, I thiink this is just a bunch of prejudiced individuals backed by an organization of right-wing lawyers who are using the official stance of the United Methodist Church as an excuse for their prejudices. If they allowed the same-gender union to occur in their pavilion, they would not have broken any United Methodist Church law.

This all is my informed opinion, of course, I've not read any facts about this case that contradict this understanding.

Does anyone out there know of any involvement in this case by an official unit of the United Methodist Church? Anyone know what the actual legal relationship of the Ocean Grove Association is to the United Methodist Church?

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Here's a link to Ocean Grove's website

http://www.ogcma.org/pages/aboutus

This organization does not claim an official relationship to the United Methodist Church. They only refer to a requirement that their trustees be United Methodist. If they were part of the United Methodist Church their trustees would be elected by the United Methodist Annual Conference or some other official United Methodist body. Having trustees who are United Methodist does not make their organization an official unit of the United Methodist Church required to comply with United Methodist law.

See my post above.

Steven Webster

[Daniel]

Thanks for the correction Steven. My use of the word 'church', while not technically correct, perhaps illustrates how the public- the gay public in particular- gets this kind of issue mixed up: the actions of the Camp itself as a stand-in for the Church proper.

That's unfortunate.

I apologize for not making the distinction.

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

No doubt these folks are trying to argue separation of church and state and religious freedom. However, the pavillion in question is most definitely not a house of worship with regular weekly worship and a congregation. Nor, as far as I know, is it actually owned by the United Methodist Church. It is owned by a not-for-profit organization with a Board of Trustees who happen to be Methodist. As the LGBT folks are claiming this pavillion is a "public accomodation."

If these Ocean Grove trustees can claim the right to discriminate simply because they are Methodist, then what is to stop any old landlord who happens to be Methodist or Baptist or whatever from discriminating in the same way. The right-wing lawyers who are arguing for the Trustees would love to create a precedent that would allow any business owner to discriminate against anyone based upon their religious prejudices.

Steven Webster

[Alecto]

I think you hit upon THE interesting point in a lot of arguments: many legal battles ARE over the presumed right of any individual to discriminate in his or her workplace merely based upon their beliefs outside of that workplace.

Pharmacists want the right to refuse to sell the morning after pill (the morality of which I have no desire to debate, incidentally; it is just another example though). Justices of the Peace, in areas that finally gain equal marriage rights, want the right to refuse to carry out those marriages that include same-sex couples. And I have to stop and ask: with however many years of experience, and however much schooling it took for you to get there: if your job goes against your personal beliefs that much, you couldn't find another job? Wouldn't you WANT to find another job, if you're being asked to do something that goes against your beliefs? And I try to be understanding that this is a time of change, and many people probably were perfectly comfortable in their jobs before the change happened, but it does come down to doing one's job. Or, just not.

I'm not very articulate today, but I think you can see what I'm getting at. I guess I'm just saying this has been a source of frustration for me in the past, and that it is something I can see as a pattern.

[out2live]

It is interesting that this topic has hit our forums...

I have attended a few times in the past and sometimes watch online services from a church in Old Bridge, NJ. This is a very large evangelical church and I remember them mentioning in the announcements one Sunday morning the 'hearing' (I guess is what it was) and how anyone who could make it should show up and support whoever runs the Ocean Grove pavilion. I remember thinking to myself...well, first of all, I don't plan on going, and second of all if I did, I wouldn't be supporting the discrimination that they were promoting.

Some recent events in my life have helped me see the need to get out and take a stand for what I believe to be right.