I'm actually agreeing with the religious groups this time

[Flyndaran]

....
If you're contemplating whether or not they should be forced to rent out - for example - their main temple/church for such a wedding, then I would think that to be infringing their rights to practice their religion under the US constitution. I would imagine that an entirely reasonable stance would be to say that if a building's primary purpose is to be used for religious worship, then they get to say what happens in there. A place owned by a church that is used primarily as a business investment should fall under the business laws.

Not certain about the legalities of all this, but it seems reasonable to me.

Rapscallion

That seems too vague for laws. What constitutes primary purpose? There's no way to tell outside objectively if a place is used mostly for people believing something together as a group.
If they rent something out for whatever bizzarre reason, they must follow the same laws the rest of us do. I can't disallow handicapped, women, or black people from renting my X place. So they can't disallow the same groups or any others just because they think said group is icky, evil, or full of cooties without reasonable legal justification.

[Rapscallion]

That seems too vague for laws. What constitutes primary purpose? There's no way to tell outside objectively if a place is used mostly for people believing something together as a group.

I suppose that we'd have to rely on the common sense of the judge presiding over the case. A building built for the purpose of worship and used primarily for that - at least fifty percent of the gatherings held there - would be a good base point. Had the group in question obtained that boardwalk pavilion and held weekly services there, then it would have been a far more grey area (ignoring the 'open to all' provision in the tax exempt status). Had they sent one person down there to proselytise at passers-by per month, that would be unreasonable to claim it as a religious building.

I'm only stabbing in the dark here as to what I think is reasonable. Fortunately, the case in question was very clear cut. They had rented it out regularly for secular purposes, so it was a very easy decision (or at least it was for me).

Rapscallion

[Flyndaran]

I suppose that we'd have to rely on the common sense of the judge presiding over the case. ...

I'm only stabbing in the dark here as to what I think is reasonable. ...
Rapscallion

I'm not a fan of "common sense". It all too often means I hope they see it the way I would but I won't say what that is.