Sunday, January 4, 2009

NJ Methodists Forced to Permit Gay Civil Unions On Its Property

Per FoxNews:

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, a New Jersey department ruled Monday in a case that has become a flash point in the nation's gay rights battle.

The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights said its investigation found that the refusal of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association to rent the oceanfront spot to the couple for their same-sex union in March 2007 violated the public accommodation provisions of the state's Law Against Discrimination.

While the ruling is decisively in favor of the couple, Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster, it does not end the case. An administrative law judge still must decide on a remedy for the parties.
"What this case has always been about from my clients' perspective has been equality," said Larry Lustberg, the lawyer for the couple. He said they will seek an order that requires the pavilion to be "open to all on an equal basis."

Brian Raum, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Scottsdale, Ariz.-based group that represents the Methodist organization, Camp Meeting Association, said his clients would keep pushing back against being forced to allow civil unions on the property.

Secularism strikes again. You can chalk this up to a couple of different things, I suppose. One, it could be attributed to the same judicial disease I mentioned a few days ago where judges (including ALJs) decide to re-invent the meanings of words. In this case, the ALJ decided to re-write the 1st Amendment of the Constitution to delete the "Free Exercise" clause. Not that it means much anymore anyway. Plenty of this buffoon's ilk have been chipping away at free exercise for years. This is just one more drop in the bucket.

You could also, and more meaningfully, ascribe this to a rejection of the Social Kingship of Christ called for in Quas Primas. This is what happens in secular states, and popes have been warning about it for a couple of centuries now. Of course, the question now is how long until a Catholic church is forced into the same position. Or forced to "ordain" a woman as a priest due to our "discriminationatory" all-male priesthood. It's coming, friends. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow. But soon.

Be prepared.


Paul said...

Would you feel the same way if, instead of gays, the church refused to permit African-Americans to use their property while allowing others? If so, at least I commend you for your consistency.

Throwback said...

Would I still think that the decision is unconstitutional? Yes.

Would I still think this puts on a slippery slope to Catholicism being forced into the sorts of situations I mentioned? Yes.

Would I feel a sense of moral outrage if the scenario involved blacks rather than gays? Yes, due to the fact that African-Americans getting married would not be contrary to the teaching of the Church. I'm not sure there's much of a comparison to be made between the two.

Consider it this way. The Church views this whole exercise as sinful and dangerous to the souls of the participants. With that in mind, why would any person who is serious about their religion do something that would facilitate the proposed civil union?

Does that make sense? It's been pointed out to me that my comment responses are usually not the best in terms of clarity.