I'm actually agreeing with the religious groups this time

[smileyeagle1021]

I really can't believe I'm having to post this.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081229/...s/civil_unions
For once I'm siding with the church. While I disagree with their stance I think this is an extremely dangerous precedent. This is the line that the religious right was afraid the gay rights groups would cross (and at least one gay guy was afraid would be crossed). I think that gay marriage should be allowed... I think the government should extend the same rights to gay couples as straight couples. That said... I don't think churches should be forced to recognize gay couples. If want to have the right to have a church I'm not a member of to force its views on me, I feel then that I shouldn't have the right to force my views on them. Even if I am a member of the church I don't think I have the right to force my differing beliefs on them... I have the freedom to leave if my views are that different than the church's official policy.

I'll be honest when I say I would like nothing more than to one day be accepted as a member of the LDS church as who I really am, not as I am expected to be... I actually would like a temple marriage to (and this feels awkward to say in the same sentence as temple marriage, shows just how strong social programming is... but that's a different thread) the man I want to spend my life with (if I ever find him )... that said, I don't want the cost to be the trampling of the LDS church's rights by the government forcing them to perform the ceremony. I'd rather remove my membership from the LDS church and join a church that would marry me of their own free will. Leaving my church is the price I'm willing to pay to preserve their Constitutional rights.

Anyone else have a take on whether or not this court case has crossed the line by forcing a church to perform a marriage they didn't agree with?
And while we're on the topic... sense it is likely that my long term options are, find a different church or find a different church, does anyone have suggestions?

[Rapscallion]

From what I read, the church didn't have to perform the marriage. They refused to rent out the property for a gay marriage, which is distinctly different.

This is the church and state issue all over again (I may move this thread into that forum shortly, actually, since it fits better there).

The church was renting out the property for money. Whatever it uses the money for is not at stake here, but the fact is that it was acting as a business. In those circumstances, it has to accede to the laws pertaining to businesses, including those regarding discrimination. They were open to the point that they were not willing to rent it because of the nature of the marriage.

It's a beachfront property. Had it been a church, then fine - that would have been interfering with the right of a religion to not have other views forced upon it. Had it been a regularly used religious meeting place, then fine.

It wasn't, or that would have been mentioned. Instead, it was a property from which the church derived income, and I can't see anything to say otherwise. Granted, I could be wrong, since it's a pretty sparse article, but I doubt I am.

The church was acting as a business and got caught in business legislation. Tough noogie, really. Would it be reasonable for a gay couple to demand a judge to force the church to allow them to marry in the church or temple itself? Definitely not. Would it be reasonable for them to demand that they should have the same rights as everyone else when renting something available to everyone else on a business basis? Damn right.

Rapscallion

[AFPheonix]

I know we had a thread on this a year or so back, but damned if I can find it. I think we came to the opinion that Raps expressed, more or less, especially since they rent the property to other non-christian stuff if I recall correctly.
Also, I think that church owned a big swath of that town.

[McDreidel09]

I agree with you,Smiley. Why should a priest marry a gay couple when he feels it's wrong? We don't like it when the church is trying to force something, so why should we force the church to do something that they feel is wrong?

If it is really important to be married in a religious establishment, I would suggest that people go around and talk with different church leaders. Some may be alright with it. Some may not.

Whether I marry a guy or a girl (I am going to marry my current SO, a guy.), I would have a court official do the ceremony, as I am not a religious person. Spiritual,yes. Religious, no.

[Rapscallion]

Why should a priest marry a gay couple when he feels it's wrong?

Um, no priest was forced to do this? Had they been forced to perform the ceremony, I would have been on their side. I don't agree with religion, but I wouldn't force that on someone. That would create martyrs, not equality.

If it is really important to be married in a religious establishment, I would suggest that people go around and talk with different church leaders. Some may be alright with it. Some may not.

Was it a religious establishment? It was a property owned by the church and rented out for various functions. Had it been primarily used for relgious gatherings - prayers, readings from holy texts, etc, then fine, I would have said it was a religious building and should come under the ideals of respecting a religion. All I can see in the article is that the church rented it out for money for - assumedly amongst other things - weddings.

I don't know if churches own shares or not, but I rather suspect the bigger ones do. Hypothetically speaking, should a church buy a large number of shares in a hotel chain, and then use that influence to force a 'no gay marriage on our property' policy, would that be right? I don't expect it to happen, but it's a principle of what is a business and what is a religion, and what should be expected from both and by both in a legal sense.

Rapscallion

[Greenday]

Also, I think that church owned a big swath of that town.

The church doesn't own a big swatch of that town. The church OWNS that town. Ocean Grove is a 5 minute drive from my house. I am extremely familiar with the area. As it is owned by the church, just about everything in that town is religiously based. The beachfront that the gay couple wanted to get married on is part of the town, meaning it's private property. With private beaches (at least in the US), you are allowed to choose who is and isn't allowed on your property. If I'm walking on a public beach and I cross onto a private beach, the owner of the private beach is allowed to have me kicked off his/her beach for whatever reason they feel like. Just because the owner of this specific private beach happens to be the church, it is somehow different. I'm sorry, but it's not. NJ tends to be a VERY liberal state, but when you are on a churches property (a church that does not believe in gay marriage), the church can say who can and cannot get married.

One small point: you don't need a ceremony to become married. You just need to get some papers signed with witnesses present. The actually public ceremony is completely unneeded, thus I'm not going to feel too much sympathy. I'm a firm supporter of gay rights, but there are plenty of PUBLIC beaches they could get married on. They chose a PRIVATE beach, owned by the CHURCH.

[Rapscallion]

With private beaches (at least in the US), you are allowed to choose who is and isn't allowed on your property.

When it's being treated as private property, sure. However, when it's being treated as a business, then the business is treated under the law of the land. If it's regularly hired out for similar purposes, then they're discriminating as a business, and that's where they fell foul.

If I'm walking on a public beach and I cross onto a private beach, the owner of the private beach is allowed to have me kicked off his/her beach for whatever reason they feel like.

Standard trespass laws. Perfectly correct. The couple wishing to get married weren't trespassing. They were trying to rent the same facilities as other people and being discriminated against because of their sexuality. They weren't trespassing - they were being denied the same business deal as anyone else, and the reasons given are pretty much that the business is owned by the church and therefore it can be biased. The judge thought other.

Just because the owner of this specific private beach happens to be the church, it is somehow different. I'm sorry, but it's not. NJ tends to be a VERY liberal state, but when you are on a churches property (a church that does not believe in gay marriage), the church can say who can and cannot get married.

It's not different at all. It's being treated as a business, which is how it's acting, so it fell foul of laws preventing businesses being discriminatory. It's a beachfront property that is - as far as I can tell - being rented out to pretty much everyone apart from a few people who happen to be gay.

As I said above, if a church said that certain people couldn't get married in a ceremony inside its temple/church, then I'd be on their side. If a church gets bad publicity, then that's a blow struck for the side of common sense - heh. On a more legalistic front, to force a religion to perform a ceremony against its beliefs is against acceptable practice. However, when the religion in question owns a separate building that is not used as a main point of worship and is rented out as a business, then it's falling under business laws.

Put it this way, if a business said that it was owned by the local Klan chapter grand wizard and therefore it would be allowed to discriminate against blacks, that wouldn't be acceptable. The biases of a business's owner is not grounds are fine as long as they're legal. Even if they have biases against protected groups, then that's fine - provided they don't act upon them. In the case cited, the church as an owner said it was biased against people of a certain sexuality and thus it committed what a judge agreed to be an illegal act.

One small point: you don't need a ceremony to become married. You just need to get some papers signed with witnesses present. The actually public ceremony is completely unneeded, thus I'm not going to feel too much sympathy. I'm a firm supporter of gay rights, but there are plenty of PUBLIC beaches they could get married on. They chose a PRIVATE beach, owned by the CHURCH.

I'll agree that if the couple in question had chosen the property for shock value and the chance to get back at an organisation they knew to be biased against them, then I'd have less sympathy. However, I would point out that if that was their aim then they damn well proved that the church in this case is illegally discriminating against gays.

I have to admit that I'd like to see more accurate information about the whole case. That was a very scant article.

Rapscallion

[Greenday]

When the issue was first raised, I don't remember reading anything about RENTING some of the property. I only recall them being denied permission to get married on the property. If the issue is that they would be RENTING and not just using their property like you would public property, then that would be quite different. Acting like a business, they should not be able to discriminate.

The situation really depends on what the case is really over. Honestly, the first time around with this issue, I don't remember hearing a word about RENTING the location.

[Rapscallion]

I was working from the article linked. I've not seen any other sources.

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,

As long as the information there is accurate, then my supposition is correct.

Rapscallion

[Rapscallion]

http://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases08/pr20081229a.html from the official adjudicators in this. They definitely mention rent.

When challenged, the association apparently decided to ban all marriages so they couldn't be forced to either accept a ruling to allow it or to pay reparations. That put off a similar case brought by another couple, since their application came after they changed their policy.

Effectively, they were cutting off the nose of heterosexual couples to spite the gays ones' faces.

Rapscallion

[Rapscallion]

A bit of googling and we find far more information.

http://seaqwa.com/blogs/qnews/archiv...an-couple.aspx

The owners were granted a tax exemption on the ground that the facilities would be open to all on am equal use basis. There had been many secular ceremonies before this application.

Looks pretty clear cut to me.

http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/...s-dispute.html

Actually, there's more to it - all about conveying a certain message and stuff in that link above.

Rapscallion

[smileyeagle1021]

OK, raps, hadn't heard about the tax excempt for allowing it to be open to all part yet... in that case, yes, the church group was wrong. That said... I can understand the principle the church is concerned about... so in this case, church wrong... but does that mean the principle they are argueing is wrong also?

[Boozy]

That said... I can understand the principle the church is concerned about... so in this case, church wrong... but does that mean the principle they are argueing is wrong also?

What principle do you mean? Raps has shown that this issue is pretty clear:

If the church is renting out one of its buildings for profit, then the church is behaving like a business and is thus subject to commercial laws.

If the church decides not to rent out its buildings, and uses them only for their own non-profit private religious ceremonies and practices, they are not acting as a business and can do as they please.

[smileyeagle1021]

If the church is renting out one of its buildings for profit, then the church is behaving like a business and is thus subject to commercial laws.

If the church decides not to rent out its buildings, and uses them only for their own non-profit private religious ceremonies and practices, they are not acting as a business and can do as they please.

what about the gray area of renting solely for the purpose of religious ceremonies... which is where this one is going towards.

[Rapscallion]

The area in question had been rented out for secular purposes as well, so they fell foul of the laws.

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