I hate it when it turns out I'm not a paraoid nutjob...

[Xiahou]

Does not sound like a church to me. Doesn't look like one, either.

It's owned by the church, and they perform church services there. What more do you want? There's no cosmetic standard for churches that I'm aware of.

In other words: are religious considerations inherently superior to non-religous considerations?

I think so, yes. Our constitution makes special allowances for the free practice of religion. Regardless, I would support the right of a restaurant owner to make any stupid decision that they want. It's their property, it's their business, it's their labor.

[Lemur]

It's owned by the church, and they perform church services there. What more do you want?

Actually, doing a little more reading, it seems the situation is rather more complicated than the NPR article let on. Apparently the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association owns the entire boardwalk in the town, as well as much of the town itself, as well as 1,000 feet of ocean (whatever that means). So the bulk of the town is owned by the church's holding company.

For the past two decades, everything that matters in Ocean Grove, specifically the beach, boardwalk and ocean front road, have been declared tax exempt. This was done because the Methodist leaders in Ocean Grove went to the State Department of Environmental Protection and asked the government to step in to get them off the tax rolls. That saves about $500,000 a year that otherwise Ocean Grove residents would have to pony up.

Further, according to U.S. Representative Frank Pallone (D-Monmouth), whose constituents include those in Ocean Grove, the Camp Meeting Association has been lobbying him for years--quite successfully I might add--for federal and state funds (when he was a state senator) that have gone directly into the community. When the Great Auditorium in Ocean Grove needed a new roof, Pallone helped get the Camp Meeting Association $250,000 from the state. Later, those same Methodist leaders would go to Pallone and ask for federal dollars to fix the Ocean Grove boardwalk, which was damaged in a 1992 storm.

So let me get this straight. The Methodist leaders in Ocean Grove say they are a private religious entity that has every right to prohibit civil unions from taking place in the community's pavilion, but at the same time they want to make sure they get as much PUBLIC money as possible to keep taxes down and keep the community resources intact--using tax dollars from citizens outside of Ocean Grove. Talk about wanting it both ways. The Camp Meeting Association doesn't have a leg to stand on in their suit against the state saying that their first amendment rights are being violated because civil unions go against the United Methodist Church's Book of Discipline.

So you've got a holding company which owns the entire sea coast of the town, takes all the state and federal dollars it can lay its greasy mitts on, declares the coast to be "public" when it suits them for grants and tax breaks, but declares it to be private and religious when a couple of Jewish lesbians want to have a marriage ceremony.

No, I think there's a lot more to this case than I'm In UR Churches Gayzoring Teh Lawsuits.

-edit-

A little more detail:

The beach and Boardwalk Pavilion are open to the public and the Camp Meeting Association has accepted public funds for their maintenance and repairs. They also cite the Association's application to the State of New Jersey for monies under the state's "Green Acres Program", which encourages the use of private property for public recreation and provides a $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. U.S. Representative Frank Pallone, Jr. (Democrat), in whose Congressional district Ocean Grove is located, stated "they've taken state, federal and local funds by representing that they are open to the public."

And just to be clear: Nobody said that the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association had to allow the lesbians to marry anywhere. All the courts said was that land declared "public" for reasons of tax avoidance and grant-getting are subject to open access. If the church suddenly remembers that it wants to treat that self-declared "public" area as a private religious area, they're going to lose their public tax break.

[Goofball]

Ouch! teh pWned!

Good digging Lemur.

I have so far been trying to be gentle with the particular religious organization in question here, because it did appear at first that they were being asked to compromise quite a bit.

But Lemur's research shows that I was wrong in that assumption, so the gloves are off. These particular Bible thumping bigots now no longer have a leg to stand on. They want their taxpayer pork, and to eat it too, preferably without any fags around to bother them while they get fat on public $$.

Absolutely disgusting.

[woad&fangs]

Ouch! teh pWned!

Good digging Lemur.

I have so far been trying to be gentle with the particular religious organization in question here, because it did appear at first that they were being asked to compromise quite a bit.

But Lemur's research shows that I was wrong in that assumption, so the gloves are off. These particular Bible thumping bigots now no longer have a leg to stand on. They want their taxpayer pork, and to eat it too, preferably without any fags around to bother them while they get fat on public $$.

Absolutely disgusting.

QFT

Good digging Lemur.

[Adrian II]

The Methodist leaders in Ocean Grove say they are a private religious entity that has every right to prohibit civil unions from taking place in the community's pavilion, but at the same time they want to make sure they get as much PUBLIC money as possible to keep taxes down and keep the community resources intact--using tax dollars from citizens outside of Ocean Grove.

Axe the Methodists, I say. Bunch of hipporcrytes.

Good work there, Lemur, my fellow hack. After digging a bit into the Massachusetts charity case (see above) I came up with a similar surprise. That charity operates on a government license and is shocked and surprised when it has to abide by government rules. Bunch of hyppacrites.

Next!

[Xiahou]

Private organizations getting public money is nothing new- it happens all the time. However, if they actually argued that the property, including the pavilion, was a public place they really set themselves up for this to happen in their greed for government largess.

[Ronin]

Private organizations getting public money is nothing new- it happens all the time. However, if they actually argued that the property, including the pavilion, was a public place they really set themselves up for this to happen in their greed for government largess.

it is not a public place per se but it is surely publicly funded...if it is publicly funded it can´t turn away members of the society that funds it....seems logical.

Religious organizations should receive no public funding anyway....then they can act like a private club and reject people as they see fit.

[rotorgun]

Ouch! teh pWned!

Good digging Lemur.

I have so far been trying to be gentle with the particular religious organization in question here, because it did appear at first that they were being asked to compromise quite a bit.

But Lemur's research shows that I was wrong in that assumption, so the gloves are off. These particular Bible thumping bigots now no longer have a leg to stand on. They want their taxpayer pork, and to eat it too, preferably without any fags around to bother them while they get fat on public $$.

Absolutely disgusting.

....for the love of money is the root of all evil. (Proverbs I think) I believe that Lemur has gotten to the absolute bottom of things on this one. That still leaves the main question though. Is this an example of Gay activists trying to use secular law to force a change of Religous priviledge for churches, or is it just another bunch of people (Pecuniary Gays) trying to screw some money out of another group of people (Law breaking Greedy Hypocritical Methodists), who are screwing another group of people (The Tax Payers) out of public funds, with everyone involved proclaiming doing it under the auspices of a worthy cause? (Whew...had to take a breath there!)

Wretched indeed!

[Adrian II]

....for the love of money is the root of all evil. (Proverbs I think) I believe that Lemur has gotten to the absolute bottom of things on this one. That still leaves the main question though. Is this an example of Gay activists trying to use secular law to force a change of Religous priviledge for churches, or is it just another bunch of people (Pecuniary Gays) trying to screw some money out of another group of people (Law breaking Greedy Hypocritical Methodists), who are screwing another group of people (The Tax Payers) out of public funds, with everyone involved proclaiming doing it under the auspices of a worthy cause? (Whew...had to take a breath there!)

Wretched indeed!

You mean as a taxpayer you are forced to pay for all the pwnage, screwage and ownage that's going on? Well, I guess that serves you right if you allow your goverment to subsidize religion.

But hey, I feel your pain.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You mean as a taxpayer you are forced to pay for all the pwnage, screwage and ownage that's going on? Well, I guess that serves you right if you allow your goverment to subsidize religion.

But hey, I feel your pain.

The United States "subsidizes religion?" In what way? Through tax credit "vouchers"? Through licensing adoption agencies who do state work? Through creating tax exemptions for churches and charities?

You understand that there is a difference between "subsidizing" not interfering, Adrian.

Any direct subsidies to religious institutions using government money should be questioned and terminated just like any subsidies that havn't been legititimately authorized.

The U.S. doesn't pay money to build Mosques or Churches like our French and Canadian allies.

[Don Corleone]

What Rotorgun and Tuff are failing to grasp is the Orwelian approach to tax-exempt status the left uses. To the left, tax-exempt status, a recognition by the government that they hold no levee power over you, is rephrased as a subsidy to a group by the government. So, by receiving tax exempt status on the beach pavilion, according to this theory, the State of New Jersey is actually 'giving' the tax payment they should receive to the church.

It all stems from where you believe the root of all authority lies. If you believe it lies with the individual, taxation is a levee imposed by a necessary evil, the government. But if you view the government itself as the ultimate authority, and the individuals within it are inherently subordinate, then in fact, taxes are the natural state, and exemptions are gifts. And by the way, you didn't earn a salary last week, the government GAVE you the 55% they didn't take out in taxes.

[Adrian II]

The United States "subsidizes religion?" In what way?

McGruff, my friend, you are not a man of many words, so I am going to be blunt with you. Can you read? If so, read the thread.