Jan 13, 2012
Print This Post
A New Jersey Judge has ruled that a Christian organization engaged in wrongdoing and violated the state’s discrimination laws when it prevented a gay couple from holding a civil union ceremony on its property.
FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK FOR CULTURE WAR NEWS!
Administrative Law Judge Solomon Metzger made the ruling Thursday in a case involving the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. In 2007 the group stopped a lesbian couple from using its boardwalk pavilion.
“Respondent opposes same-sex unions as a matter of religious belief, and in 2007 found itself on the wrong side of recent changes in the law,” Judge Metzger wrote in his ruling. “I have concluded that respondent violated the LAD (Law Against Discrimination) when it refused to conduct a civil union ceremony.”
Jim Campbell, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, said the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association has been operating on the Jersey shore for more than 125 years and has its history rooted in the Methodist Church.
“According to their Book of Discipline, they cannot host same sex unions on their property,” Campbell told Fox News & Commentary. “He is saying they engaged in wrongdoing under the law simply for refusing to use the property in a way that would violate their religious beliefs.”
But that’s only part of the judge’s concern. In 1989, Ocean Grove applied for a Green Acres real-estate tax exemption for a section of land that included the pavilion and the boardwalk. One condition of the exemption is that the property had to be “open for public use on an equal basis.
When they first applied for the tax exemption, civil unions were not yet legal in New Jersey. That changed in 2006 when the New Jersey Supreme Court granted same-sex couples equal rights under the state constitution.
The judge’s decision suggests that he doesn’t see a conflict with religious liberty in the case, Campbell said. Metzger rejected the church’s contention that the pavilion was an extension of its wedding ministry.
But Campbell said the ruling could have troublesome implications for religious groups across the state –including the possibility that churches may be forced to host same sex unions in their houses of worship.
“That’s the danger of this ruling,” Campbell said. “It could be applied to other religious entities and it could be applied to other places of worship.”
He said he hopes New Jersey’s director of civil rights will reconsider the ruling and find that religious groups have a right to use their private property in a way that’s consistent with their beliefs.
If not, he said that anyone could use the ruling to demand that churches host events and other ceremonies that would conflict with their faith.
“We’ve seen a clash over the past five to ten years that’s building and building where the homosexual legal agenda comes in conflict with religious liberty,” he said. “There’s always been the concern that courts would incorrectly interpret constitutional freedoms and that’s what we are seeing in this case.”
Related posts:
FOX News Talk
A New Jersey Judge has ruled that a Christian organization engaged in wrongdoing and violated the state’s discrimination laws when it prevented a gay couple from holding a civil union ceremony on its property. I GUESS IT IS TIME THAT CHRISTIANS BECOME MILITANT. THIS JUDGE IS A FOOL AND BETTER DEAD.
Your comments exemplify what I have long feared: religious believers in America will resort to extreme violence( and threats of such) when they see thier superstitions threatened. Ignorance and hatred go hand in hand with religion and you are Exhibit A,Dougie.
Richard Notizia That's a comment you probably wouldn't make if it were some other group.
Patrick O. Townsend – Why wouldnt I? I oppose all religious foolishness,Patty. Do you imagine I have some special love or fear of another group of believers? I dont.
Richard Notizia What you liberals don't get is the vast majority of America is getting sick and tired of having a minority view shoved up it ass. Votes used to count up to the point a Judge realized he can do what he wants without regard. I don't intend nor recommend violence, but I got your attention, as so assume I got others as well. I dare you to get a vote on gay marriage, a referendum. Oops….that has been done before! And a queer judge overturned it!?! Right? Liberals start conflict and cry like a baby when blood is shed. Go whine to your mommy.
Doug Fleming – Who's whining Dougie? You bring up a simple issue with same sex marriage. It should be legal and to oppose it is to deny a freedom to an American citizen that other citizens enjoy. This is blatant discrimination and totally against the American way of life. If you dont want to marry someone of the same sex- then dont! But dont try to prevent others from that right. What does it bother you what 2 men or 2 women do anyway??
And btw….I put a face to my post….where is yours?
Richard Notizia Yea yea yea…..and marry a man and his dog too. You are a mental midget. Another liveral….yes liveral crying anything that don't go your way is discrimination or racism. Put your head back in you ass and smother. You are a minority whip.
Doug Fleming 1. Sorry dude youre not getting my pic. I dont flirt with men. 2. You sadly are unable to differentiate between "getting ones way" and " justice for all". I would urge you to further your education but it seems your hate prevents you from broadening your worldview.
Richard Notizia You confuse hate and disagreement. And as far as my education goes. Well you might be surprised. I was not flirting. It is good to see the enemies face. But I guess gorilla warfare works for you. Children usually hide under the covers too.
Doug Fleming – Not to nitpick with you but the word you mean to write is' guerilla' not' gorilla'. Its a good think youre educated lol. I dont see you as an enemy. To me,your mind has been hijacked or infected or washed to the point that you actually will vehemently defend 1st century folklore and let it define your life views. You suffer from a massive delusion,Dougie.
Under the status quo, we all do indeed have the same right. That right is not, as was incorrectly stated, "to marry another consenting aldult", but "to marry another consenting adult of the opposite gender." That is the *definition* of the word "marriage" as it has existed, in both religious and secular contexts, for millennia. I cannot (nor would I want to) define and police (from a secular standpoint) what two people can and cannot do in the bedroom, but I will always challenge the cavalier redefinition of not just words, but one of the fundamental units of civilization — marriage and the family.
Richard Notizia How about that……a mispelled word gets your attention. But you are still and always will be the minority voice. Keep dreaming about holding the sausage in your mouth. Remember to hold your breath, that way it will last longer peter puffer. LMFAOATU
Vincent Smith AMEN.
Richard Notizia Religion is just a tool for those predisposed to violence. Just like government is to others. Your seemingly fanatical tirade against religion is ironic because it is rooted in the same baseless, illogical conclusions that the zealots use.
Riley Secrist I don't know if we see eye to eye…….but hats off to ya…..least you put a face behind your words…..unlike others….
Riley Secrist BTW….NICE PICTURES….REALLY.
Riley Secrist ARMY MAN….ME TOO…..HATS OFF TO YA AGAIN.
Vincent Smith VERY NICE POST. WELL SAID.
Doug Fleming — appreciate the comment, but I must object to the name-calling and negative invective you have been using in this thread. Such commentary serves only to give ammunition to the ones who say that we are hateful, spiteful, and uncaring. I oppose gay marriage, but I want to offer reasoned argument to persuade, not taunt. Richard Notizia — I am amused by your assertion that Christians believe in "1st-century folklore". There are more eyewitness documents surviving from the first century that give evidence for the existence of Jesus than of Julius Caesar, yet no one doubts that Caesar sad and did the things attributed to him.
Vincent Smith I accept your condemnation….and don't need take it with a grain of salt. Wise words. But ya lost me with the and I repost…."I am amused by your assertion that Christians believe in "1st-century folklore". I kinda didn't get that part?
Riley Secrist -What baseless illogical conclusions are you refering too?
Doug Fleming — that was addressed to Richard, not you — sorry for the confusion.
Doug Fleming — that was addressed to Richard, not you — sorry for the confusion.
Richard Notizia Richard, do you ever pause and think people don't like you. You do understand that no matter how hard you try to make a mentally retarded person, or an analzheimer's patient, or one suffering from dementia understand……….we can't help you. Just go back to bed.
Vincent Smith No prob from me….you seem a good guy….
Richard Notizia The conclusion that you are right and others must be wrong.
Riley Secrist STOMP A MUDHOLE IN HIS ASS RILEY…….I AM ON YOUR SIDE.
Riley Secrist – Do you always make such vague accusations?? I notice you have yet to be specific about what statements you think are incorrect.
Let's see him say that to an Imam…yeah, didn't think so…
You and your fellow believers have much more in common with the other Abrahamic religions that you admit,Rita. But to me they are all sowing the seeds of ignorance,hate and discrimination and I fail to see how this is anything to be proud of but i doubt you will agree.
Richard Notizia It's too bad you feel you can comment on Christianity when you don't undersatnd it.
Patrick O. Townsend – I think I have a decent understanding of christianity Patty. What do you think Im not understanding??
Richard Notizia It isn't your inability to understand, it is your selective understanding. You choose to highlight the worst parts of religion while ignoring the benefits and positives. Your scope is narrowed.
Riley Secrist, To hell with the benefits and the positives. We atheists are more concerned about the truthfulness and validity of its supernatural claims.
Riley Secrist So you selectively leave out all the calls for murder, genocide and smiting in the Bible? Tell me, when you read the Bible do you put on rose-colored glasses?
Steve Smith Your sad attempt at humor isn't necessary. I didn't deny the existence of bad things happening in the name of religion, any more than I would deny bad things happening in the name of atheism. My point is simple: to deny one side while decrying the other is disingenuous at best.
Tim Gale I hope that is true. But it seems like to me that most atheists aren't concerned with proving the validity as much as convincing the world of the invalidity. I don't deny there are some crackpot christians out there, but take the concept in its totality. We don't get angry at the practice of medicine because a few doctors are committing fraud or butchering patients.
Riley Secrist No your point is not clear. You said atheists selectively pick out the bad points of the Bible and ignore the good points. I said, you're doing the opposite. I didn't say atheists are all good people and Christians are not. I pointed out a flaw in your argument. That's all. You sound very moderate in your views which is a welcome change from the usual rabid fanatics that haunt these boards. In that case, would you not agree that the Bible contains some wonderfully good pieces and some utterly terrible pieces and, to use your words, "to deny one side while decrying the other is disingenuous at best"?
Steve Smith No, I never claimed all atheists do that. I was speaking about Richard. He seemed to have a fascination with the evil committed in the name of God. I am very moderate and tend to be agnostic – I was raised baptist but quickly expanded my thought processes after high school. I still have alot of respect for my roots even though I can clearly see the hypocriticism and lies propogated by that faith. I've been left somewhat … out in the dark.
Riley Secrist "I still have alot of respect for my roots even though I can clearly see the hypocriticism and lies propogated by that faith. " I respect you for that. Many on these boards cannot do that which is why Richard, I suspect, gives them both barrels in order to show the usual one-eyed zealots the inconsistencies of their faith. But I can't really answer for Richard. I'm all for clear understanding and whether you believe or not, is up to you—just as long as you realize the Bible is not infallible nor a historically accurate document. Religious fanatics, of any religion, leads to intolerance and most of the world's problems in my opinion. Thanks for sharing your views. I appreciate it.
Riley Secrist, There are no bad things happening in the name of atheism. There is no logical pathway between skepticism of the existence of a particular deity and an atrocity. Pol Pot didn't wake up and one day and commit terrible crimes because he didn't believe in a particular god. You would be implying that both you, as an agnostic, and I, as an atheist, have no moral compass if that were true.
Riley Secrist – I dont have a 'fascination' as you term it. I do feel a moral obligation to oppose religion and its believers because of the various crimes they commit in the cause of their beliefs. You, Riley, state that you are agnostic but you sound more like an apologist for religion. Are you agnostic to ALL gods conjured up over the centuries or just the Abrahamic one?? And why are you agnostic?? Are you afraid to put your reason and ability to critically analyze to work on this particular subject?
Tim Gale Atheism doesn't have a set of beliefs, I agree. It is, in fact, the absence of belief. However, if you examine Stalin or Pol Pot, you know their explicit belief in Communism necessitated the atheist doctrine. They even persecuted and executed clergy. It's a different side of the same coin and my point stands – ignoring the evil and good done by either belief or non-belief only creates a suppressed mindset.
Richard Notizia What you consider a moral obligation to oppose religion is, in my opinion, a fascination. It's your right to feel that way, of course. But I have a right to point out that your moral obligation to oppose religion because of the evils committed because of it, without acknowledging the positive, is a willful ignorance. Should we oppose anything, morally, because of the few that hijack it for their own misguided uses? Guns? Swords? Cars?
Riley Secrist – The crimes committed by religious believers range from con artistry to murder. I dont see how acts of charity can bring these crimes to balance. And i noticed you never answered why you are agnostic,etc.
Richard Notizia Now you are in the realm of opinion or philosophy. Regardless, don't miss point that anything can be taken and used for evil. It's the person(s) involved. Just like a gun can be used for numerous purposes.
As to my beliefs, they are mine and my reasons for them are my own. Me not answering your question isn't evasion, just privacy.
Richard Notizia Now you are in the realm of opinion or philosophy. Regardless, don't miss point that anything can be taken and used for evil. It's the person(s) involved. Just like a gun can be used for numerous purposes.
As to my beliefs, they are mine and my reasons for them are my own. Me not answering your question isn't evasion, just privacy.
Riley Secrist, Starlin was an ex-priest who was revered by the church. Pol Pot killed anyone wearing glasses. I'll say it again, no one has ever committed atrocities in the name of atheism.
Riley Secrist, Starlin was an ex-priest who was revered by the church. Pol Pot killed anyone wearing glasses. I'll say it again, no one has ever committed atrocities in the name of atheism.
Tim Gale And you didn't read what I wrote before repeating yourself.
Tim Gale And you didn't read what I wrote before repeating yourself.
Riley Secrist,Yes, i did. You need to demonstrate how Stalin and Pol Pot's explicit belief in Communism necessitated the atheist doctrine before asserting it. If Hitler had been at atheist too, wouldn't you be using him as an example here as well?
Tim Gale Hitler used religion to his means and was never considered religious except for how it helped him – he absorbed the church into the state. Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao – they all required there be no higher power greater than the government. A belief in God put their plans at risk because if the state decided to enact something anathema to the beliefs of the Orthodox, the people would have to decide who they held their loyalty – God or the State. Did they open up the flood gates of violence and proclaim that their non-belief told them to? No, of course not. It's the requirement of having atheism in place that facilitated it.
IF the American right was as violent as the lame stream media make it out to be, a lot of the judges making these kinds of decisions would be dead!
And too bad their not..
This will be overturned by a higher court.. Just like the case of the firing of the teacher for religious beliefs
Jim Jeffords Do you have the story headline or link to the story about the teacher fired for religious beliefs? I'd like to read it.
Joe Distefano The Supreme Court has sided unanimously with a church sued for firing an employee on religious grounds, issuing an opinion on Wednesday that religious employers can keep the government out of hiring and firing decisions.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/11/supreme-court-sides-with-church-on-decision-to-fire-employee-on-religious/#ixzz1jLyeosdt
Jim Jeffords This Todd Starnes is one of the most dishonest news reporters and you christian sheep eat it right up. First of all this headline is a lie. This judge is not saying christian opposition to same-sex unions is wrong; he's only saying this particular church organization violated the law.
And what Starnes conveniently didn't mention is this church chose to rent out this pavilion to the public for weddings, and opening your property to the public means you are subject to the Law Against Discrimination LIKE EVERYONE ELSE! It was advertised as a public space for wedding venues without any mention of religious preconditions.
This church is totally free to disallow same-sex weddings on its property. It just has to close its property to the public. And there is no way this court ruling will mean this church (or any church) or its ministers will themselves be forced to conduct a same-sex wedding.
Also note the judge rejected the church's contention that the pavilion was an extension of its wedding ministry, noting that weddings had been performed at the pavilion for at least 10 years before the dispute arose and that there was no proof that couples, "particularly those that chose secular vows, or that were of other faiths, were ever told that they were participating in a ministry."
Now about your teacher being fired story. I need to go read that first then maybe I'll get back to you.
Joe Distefano You are arguing a point I never denied once… The point i was making is that it wont hold up in a higher court.
Jim Jeffords Ah this story about the church that fired an employee classified as a "minister." I'm not sure how the heck you think that story is related to this one. I also don't know how you think that decision will be overturned by a higher court since the ruling came from the United States Supreme Court. Have you had your morning coffee?
Jim Jeffords You're right. You never denied that this church violated the law. You said this ruling will be overturned which I thought implied you think the church was within its legal rights to deny this same-sex couple from renting its pavilion.
But after what I just explained to you, how in the world do you think a higher court will overturn this judge's ruling? On what grounds?
Joe Distefano, the church reserves the right to call ANYONE a minister of ANYTHING… Our church has an Office Minister(Office Administrator),Sports Minister(Athletic Director) Youth Minister, Every teacher is called a Minister, every coach of every sports is called a minister… Just like in this case… The Lady was nothing more than a run of the mill teacher however the church considers that to be a minister..
Jim Jeffords I can't say I have a strong opinion one way or the other in that story about the church firing that employee. I'm just saying the U.S. Supreme Court ruled so there's no higher court to overturn it. And in this story about the same-sex union, I'm interested to hear on what grounds you think a higher court will overturn this judge's ruling.
The only thing that I agree with Michelle Bauchman about is, Why should they have more rights than us, We can'nt marry the same sex either, not that I want to, so why should they get speicial treetment.
Now I'm not saying whether or not I agree with this court ruling because I need to do more research on it, but in regards to gay marriage in general, your thinking is twisted. Gays are not asking for special treatment. When gay marriage is legal, THEN, and only then, does everyone have the same right to marry the consenting adult they love. Everyone would have the same right to marry either a man or woman. No special treatment.
If your point about special treatment made any sense, then you could also use it to justify keeping interracial marriage illegal (it used to be, ya know). You could say, "we can't marry another race either, so why should interracial couples get special treatment?"
Ridiculous. Get your head on straight.
Joe Distefano — we all do indeed have the same right. As I replied to another poster here, that right is not, as was incorrectly stated, "to marry another consenting adult", but "to marry another consenting adult of the opposite gender." That is the *definition* of the word "marriage" as it has existed, in both religious and secular contexts, for millennia.
The "special treatment" being afforded to the homosexual community is in giving them the ability to change the definition of a word, and more than that, an institution, that has been the cornerstone of society for all of known history. *That* is what I call ridiculous.
Vincent Smith No we do not all have the same right. We do not all have the right to marry the one we love. My wife and I have that right. Our gay neighbors do not. It's that simple.
Agreed, the definition of marriage for millennia has been "one man, one woman." For millennia the definition was also "one man, one woman of the same race." Perhaps you forgot that interracial marriage was unheard of for the longest time, and illegal until 1967 in parts of the U.S. Just because that's how marriage was defined didn't make it right. The definition changed in 1967, and it needs to change again.
Similarly, just because slavery was acceptable for millenia didn't make it right. That had to change. So get with the times and stop discriminating. Gay marriage will not change marriage for heterosexuals. If you can't understand these simple concepts, THAT is what I call ridiculous.
Isn't it interesting that marriage is unimportant, "just a piece of paper", when people want to justify sex outside of marriage or easy divorce, but it is an inviolable right of every soul when it comes to gay couples. Marry the one you love? I have children that I love. I have cats that I love. I do not have (nor should I have) the right to marry them.
What the LGBT community wants, in reality, is not the right to "marry the one you love", because everything that married couples can do can also be done by gay couples right now — live together, have sex, enter into contracts, and enjoy life. Rather, their aim to have the public recognize as normal and acceptable a practice that is contradictory to the sensibilities and beliefs of people in all societies, at nearly all times in history; to use the laws of this country to marginalize people who believe a certain way; and to pressure groups like this church to compromise their beliefs if they don't want to face legal action. In short, they want to force tolerance of a practice that most people find intolerable.
Vincent Smith This is what you anti-gay rights people so often do. You give one objection to gay marriage, we refute it, then instead of acknowledging that, you sidestep to another objection. You said we all have the same right. I refuted that. You basically said because the definition has been "one man, one woman" for millenia, it should not be changed. I refuted that.
Now you start talking about freaking animals and children. We're talking about rights of adult humans here. Animals and children have nothing to do with it.
That's a total lie that everything married couples can do gay couples can do. Marriage brings with it countless rights and benefits that without marriage require expensive lawyer fees. Some of them you can't get at all if you're not married, such as survival social security or pension benefits. The one I think is most heinous is how a gay couple can actually be torn apart. My wife is from Austria and we had no problems getting her a fiance visa, getting married, and the U.S. allowing her to live here. Gay couples where one is from another country cannot do this. I saw a heartbreaking video of a lesbian couple sobbing because the Federal government, due to DOMA, won't recognize their marriage, so the one lesbian from another country cannot legally stay in the U.S. This is despicable discrimination to tear families apart. All in the name of "compassion" from christians.
So you're demonstrably dead wrong that the LGBT community and supporters don't really care about gay marriage and are only using marriage to get the public to recognize them as normal.
You are right that when it comes to the public's attitude and opinion of gays, we want the public to accept gay people just as it does straight people, BUT we want you to come to that position of your own free will. We don't want to force you to be nice to gays or force you to say their lifestyle is normal. I'd say the exact same thing if you were a racist.
And like I said, just because people have historically been intolerant of gays doesn't make it right. People's attitude and opinions are improving. Many people have finally come to their senses. Latest Gallup poll showed the tide has finally turned in America – a majority now support gay marriage. So it is FALSE that most people find gay marriage intolerable.
You're not being marginalized. NONE of your rights are being taken away. Name just one of your rights that is being taken away.
Joe Distefano Next thing u know people will be claiming pedifiles are discrimenated against. Being gay is a choice, they're for they should'nt be allowed any speacial treetment.
Vincent Smith Vincent Smith And you certainly are not doing your research. All you had to do was read some of the other comments on here to see that this church is NOT being forced to compromise its beliefs.
This church CHOSE to rent out this pavilion to the public for weddings, and opening your property to the public means you are subject to the Law Against Discrimination LIKE EVERYONE ELSE! It was advertised as a public space for wedding venues without any mention of religious preconditions.
This church is totally free to disallow same-sex weddings on its property. It just has to close its property to the public.
Todd Starnes puts a dishonest spin on his stories. Even his headline is a lie. This judge is not saying christian opposition to same-sex unions is wrong; he's only saying this particular church organization violated the law.
Also note the judge rejected the church's contention that the pavilion was an extension of its wedding ministry, noting that weddings had been performed at the pavilion for at least 10 years before the dispute arose and that there was no proof that couples, "particularly those that chose secular vows, or that were of other faiths, were ever told that they were participating in a ministry."
Johnny Seely Relating pedophilia to homosexuality is the most idiotic and irrational thing we hear. Gay marriage is between two consenting adults. Pedophilia involves sexually molesting a child. That is harmful to children. That is wrong. Why in the world would we say pedophiles should be allowed to do that? What is wrong with you? Seriously.
No, sexual orientation (who we're attracted to), whether gay or straight, is NOT a choice. Every major psychological and sociological association will tell you this. All the studies will tell you this. Heck, try actually talking to a human being who is gay if you have any heart, and THEY will tell you this. They cannot choose who they're attracted to anymore than you can. Even christian centers that "treat" gays openly admit gays don't choose who they're attracted to and no treatment will change that. They just teach gays to suppress their sexuality while ignoring the psychological harm that often follows.
What special treatment are gays getting? Are you not reading any other posts? We've been through this already.
If you read some of my replies to the estimable Mr. Keating, you will see my comments that, the devil being in the details, the judge may have rendered a correct decision in that case, and also my doubts that the case could or should be used as precedent on one side, or as a rallying point on the other. In your case, I was arguing not the merits of this case, but the more general idea of a supposed "right" to gay marriage.
OK, I'll concede that majority public opinion does not always promote what is right. But then you are opening up the whole can of worms about what defines "right" and "wrong".
If it is not to be determined by opinion, then you must either rely upon pure pragmatism, or appeal to a higher authority. Pure pragmatism tells us that heterosexual marriage "works" — it insures that procreation happens; that the progeny have the advantage of being raised by both sexes and exposed to the influence of both genders; and it has been proved over time to provide a stable civilization and society. The same cannot be said of homosexuallity
It goes without saying that if you appeal to a higher power, then you are establishing a de facto religious opinion as a standard, and heaven (er…Allah…mmm…nature?) forbid that that should happen in our totally secular society.
If personal preference is the standard of right and wrong, i.e. you should be allowed to marry anyone as long as it's the "one you love", then is is NOT sidestepping the issue to say that it could be applied to bigamy, pedophilia, and bestiality. I'm sure that they would claim, as the gays do, that it's the way they were born, that it's as natural to them as homosexuality is to the gays. By assuming that "love" (as you define it) is the only determinant, you are establishing a moral equivalence. If you assert that one is acceptable and the other is wrong, then what is the basis for that assertion?
Joe Distefano yes it is a choice. we all are faced with choices in life. Gays choose to give in to there disires. No different that someone cheating on thier spouse, and saying they could'nt help themselves.
Johnny Seely Now you're changing hands. Typical. First you say "being gay is a choice." Being gay is defined as having same-sex attraction. That sexual attraction is NOT a choice.
Now you say gays choose to give in to their desires. I agree! That is a different thing. Heteros also choose to give in to their desires. It's no different. When two consenting adults who like each other CHOOSE to partake in a relationship that harms no one, there's nothing wrong with that. Cheating on your spouse, on the other hand, DOES harm someone (your spouse in particular), and that's why it's wrong.
So again you have no argument.
Johnny Seely Now you're changing hands. Typical. First you say "being gay is a choice." Being gay is defined as having same-sex attraction. That sexual attraction is NOT a choice.
Now you say gays choose to give in to their desires. I agree! That is a different thing. Heteros also choose to give in to their desires. It's no different. When two consenting adults who like each other CHOOSE to partake in a relationship that harms no one, there's nothing wrong with that. Cheating on your spouse, on the other hand, DOES harm someone (your spouse in particular), and that's why it's wrong.
So again you have no argument.
Marriage licenses are issued by the state, not the church. No religion is necessary for a marriage to be legal or recognized. When you talk about special rights, the 1st Amendment does not and never will include the words GOD nor Christianity.
Marriage licenses are issued by the state, not the church. No religion is necessary for a marriage to be legal or recognized. When you talk about special rights, the 1st Amendment does not and never will include the words GOD nor Christianity.
Joe Distefano The reason for a legal definition of marriage is because traditionally the woman stays home, sacrifices her career opportunities, and raises the kids. If the man leaves, it puts them in a heck of a spot. That's why there are alimony and child support laws in place, to protect vulnerable women and children from irresponsible men. There is no reason for alimony and child support laws to be applied to gay couples – if they adopt, conditions for child support are included in the adoption agreement. If one member decides to sacrifice their career to keep the house and raise the kids, it's a conscious agreement, not one dictated by a biological imperative millions of years old.
Maybe we just need to get the state out of the marriage business altogether. Make a civil marriage like any other legal contract between two individuals and have it be completely independent of any religious ceremony that may or may not take place.
Charles Asbornsen, there are over a thousand rights/benefits you get with a civil marriage contract, not just alimony and child support.
But even on the issue of child support and alimony you're wrong. A hetero couple also makes a conscious agreement when they decide to have children and one parent stays home and sacrifices their career. Same with gay couples when they decide to have children via adoption or other means like artificial insemination.
Why can't you people just let this go? Why volutarily stand in the way of gays having equal rights? Don't you have anything better to do? How the hell is it going to hurt anyone else if they can have civil marriages? This discrimination is getting really old.
Doug, your comments don't help. The judges ruling is wrong and this shouldn't be forced on churches to accept. It is against our faith and not healthy for people but I pray for wisdom in the courts.
LIES! This Todd Starnes is one of the most dishonest news reporters and you christian sheep eat it right up. First of all this headline is a lie. This judge is not saying christian opposition to same-sex unions is wrong; he's only saying this particular church organization violated the law.
And what Starnes conveniently didn't mention is this church chose to rent out this pavilion to the public for weddings, and opening your property to the public means you are subject to the Law Against Discrimination LIKE EVERYONE ELSE! It was advertised as a public space for wedding venues without any mention of religious preconditions.
This church is totally free to disallow same-sex weddings on its property. It just has to close its property to the public. And there is no way this court ruling will mean this church (or any church) or its ministers will themselves be forced to conduct a same-sex wedding.
Also note the judge rejected the church's contention that the pavilion was an extension of its wedding ministry, noting that weddings had been performed at the pavilion for at least 10 years before the dispute arose and that there was no proof that couples, "particularly those that chose secular vows, or that were of other faiths, were ever told that they were participating in a ministry."
They're taking tax breaks for being public, so they have to BE public. If they want to disallow gay marriages, they just have to pay a bit more and make themselves "private".
Mason Cudlitz They agreed to allow weddings there before gay marriage was legal. Was there a grandfather clause in the agreement? If you ask them what the definition of marriage was when the agreement was signed, they'd say it's between a man and a woman. Perhaps the agreement should be renegotiated to catch up to the new law instead of forcing them to accept what they consider to be unacceptable.
I'm calling bullsh*t on this clown from the Alliance Defense Fund. The property in this case was a pavilion for which the Camp Meeting Association applied for public tax dollars in exchange for holding out as open to the public. If the organization would like the pavilion to be part of its church, it can certainly do that. The organization made the decision to designate the property as public and, therefore, subject to the Law Against Discrimination. There is ZERO CHANCE IN HELL that this decision can or will be used to force churches to marry same-sex couples, and this "lawyer" knows it or he shouldn't be a lawyer.
everytime i click on one of these things and read the comments im disgusted and appalled by the closedmindedness that i thankfully dont encounter on a daily basis with the much more evolved people in my own life. its shameful how hateful people can be.
wow i was really emphatic about that! you can delete those repeats….i cant do it on the app
John Keating, could you please post the source of the info on the public designation of the property in question? That certainly puts a different light on the issue, but not (in my opinion) a deciding one. Re: your comment that this will not be used to force churches to perform same-sex marriages — I am certainly no lawyer, but I observe that the homosexual community will grasp at *any* straw and twist it as necessary, judge-shopping and playing it up in the media until it looks like a precedent for such to the untrained legal eye. The question is not whether it *should* be used as a justification, but whether the gay lobby thinks it will gain them sympathy and traction in publib opinion.
Vincent Smith Third page of the judge's opinion (and I've seen it referenced all over the articles I've been reading about this case since the incident first happened in 2007. The link is at the bottom of the article above. And I am a lawyer (although I make these comments as a general opinion and not legal advice). I don't, however, think it takes a lawyer to know that the First Amendment prevents anyone from forcing a church to marry people against their will and faith (for instance, the Catholic church will not marry people who have been married before and divorced). But, when a church CHOOSES to agree to make some of its property "open for public use on an equal basis" in exchange for a special tax exemption, the church can't then turn around and break that agreement. If it violated their faith, they shouldn't have applied for the exemption in the first place. Regarding public opinion, this case has garnered mostly bad press and public opinion and is almost always cited by those wishing to deny the LGBT community marriage rights in their legislative campaigns and referenda. This case doesn't help our image, but it's simply the correct outcome. The bottom line is, we live in a pluralistic society that makes many, many accommodations for the religious community. However, party of living in a pluralistic society is compromising sometimes. Churches can have their church buildings and be free from government coercion. However, if they want public benefits, they must abide by nondiscrimination laws.
Vincent Smith Third page of the judge's opinion (and I've seen it referenced all over the articles I've been reading about this case since the incident first happened in 2007. The link is at the bottom of the article above. And I am a lawyer (although I make these comments as a general opinion and not legal advice). I don't, however, think it takes a lawyer to know that the First Amendment prevents anyone from forcing a church to marry people against their will and faith (for instance, the Catholic church will not marry people who have been married before and divorced). But, when a church CHOOSES to agree to make some of its property "open for public use on an equal basis" in exchange for a special tax exemption, the church can't then turn around and break that agreement. If it violated their faith, they shouldn't have applied for the exemption in the first place. Regarding public opinion, this case has garnered mostly bad press and public opinion and is almost always cited by those wishing to deny the LGBT community marriage rights in their legislative campaigns and referenda. This case doesn't help our image, but it's simply the correct outcome. The bottom line is, we live in a pluralistic society that makes many, many accommodations for the religious community. However, party of living in a pluralistic society is compromising sometimes. Churches can have their church buildings and be free from government coercion. However, if they want public benefits, they must abide by nondiscrimination laws.
John Keating — thanks for the info, I will check that out. If the church indeed brought itself under the open-to-all requirement as stated in the law, then then the law applies as written and the judge's finding is appropriate. I may wish to argue whether that law is a good idea, but that is a debate for another time, and probably out of my league.
Using a court case that on the surface appears to support a particular position when in reality it does not, is a tactic I decry, on both sides. I am passionate for my beliefs, and will defend them to the best of my ability, but the last thing I want to create is a cloud of confusion by whipping up passions to a frenzy when rational discussion should prevail. "Come now, and let us reason together…" Isaiah 1:18
Vincent Smith That's refreshing. That's my general philosophy as well, although it is sometimes very difficult when talking about these issues which can so deeply affect me personally on a day-to-day level and having discussions with people (yourself excluded) who will not hesitate to mischaracterize court cases or issues generally to whip up public opinion against those basic rights.
Vincent Smith And by the way, just reading the rest of the opinion, apparently the Association could have and has since applied for the same benefit for tax exemption as a religious organization (another debate about good ideas for another time, I suppose). So, for as much bad press as this case has generated for the LGBT community, in the end it really made no difference one way or the other (plaintiffs didn't seek money damages either).
For right now, you are right. But if gay marriages are allowed by law, then this ruling could be used to force churches to preform these marriages. I am not saying that the judge is wrong in this case. I am simply saying that it is an issue that needs to be watched. All too often the religious freedoms are being erroded. Eventually, there is going to have to be a line in the sand drawn.
Randall K. Hames There is no case history that supports the assertion that any church will be forced to perform any marriage which is contrary to their doctrines. Opposite sex couples have been able to marry in the U.S. for over two hundred years and no church has been forced to marry those who did not conform. It's another cry of victimhood where no damage or potential for damage exists.
Randall K. Hames No, your assertion is exactly what I've just refuted. You clearly didn't read the decision, so you shouldn't comment about it. This case had to do with tax exemptions in exchange for being open to the public on an equal basis. You make, in essence, a slippery slope argument and its completely invalid. The First Amendment protects churches that are truly acting as churches. The effect the spin by the snakes from the ADF and similar organizations on this case and others like is has had on probably millions of people like you who don't know better and don't take the time to actually read and understand the decision rather than eat up all the fear-mongering is the reason our country is still in the dark ages on many issues. I don't know whether to be angrier at you or them. I shouldn't have to fight their lies to keep people like you from voting against my rights. Be informed.
John Keating – exceptional analysis. Also the information about the "public use" exemption is in the sixth paragraph of this article. Like Mr. Smith I'm not an attorney either, but I can read.
Megan Kathleen
Why is it hateful to believe in marriage between a man and a woman? It is you who are sick.
Harley Bike It's not hateful to believe in marriage between a man and a woman. My wife and I are married. I'm all for marriage between a man and woman.
What IS hateful, or at least very uncompassionate, is actively fighting to deny that same right for gay couples. Just one example… the federal government can even tear a gay couple apart because they don't recognize their marriage. My wife is from Austria. The government issued her a fiance visa, we married, and she can legally live here so we can be together. NOT SO for gay couples. I just watched a heartbreaking video of a lesbian couple who were sobbing because one of them is from another country and the government won't recognize their marriage due to DOMA, so she has to leave the U.S. This is horrible!
Harley Bike It's not hateful to believe in marriage between a man and a woman. My wife and I are married. I'm all for marriage between a man and woman.
What IS hateful, or at least very uncompassionate, is actively fighting to deny that same right for gay couples. Just one example… the federal government can even tear a gay couple apart because they don't recognize their marriage. My wife is from Austria. The government issued her a fiance visa, we married, and she can legally live here so we can be together. NOT SO for gay couples. I just watched a heartbreaking video of a lesbian couple who were sobbing because one of them is from another country and the government won't recognize their marriage due to DOMA, so she has to leave the U.S. This is horrible!
Randall K. Hames Marriage licenses are issued by the state, NOT the church. No religion is necessary for a marriage to be legal or recognized. The words GOD nor Christianity do not and never will be included in the 1st Amendment.
Randall K. Hames Marriage licenses are issued by the state, NOT the church. No religion is necessary for a marriage to be legal or recognized. The words GOD nor Christianity do not and never will be included in the 1st Amendment.
absolutely….
Does that mean that if a Satanic cult wanted to hold a black mass on the site on Easter Sunday, that would be just fine? What if a fraternity wanted to host a wet T-shirt contest? Such behaviors are perfectly legal. But if the property owner reasonably considers such behaviors to be unacceptable, will they be forced to host it under an equal access agreement?
The property is open for public use on an equal basis. Nobody is permitted to behave in such a way as is offensive and contrary to the teachings of the church on church property no matter what their race, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, or ability/disability. Christians are taught to hate the sin, but love the sinner, but that doesn't mean they need to tolerate in-your-face flaunting of what they consider to be sinful behavior, at least not on their property.
You can change the channel of your TV, filter the internet for content and so forth, but when your 4 year old asks why those two ladies are kissing in front of the church, that's a tough spot to be in. They could get married elsewhere for crying out loud. The intent here is to use the dubious sacrament of homosexual marriage to provoke the church and ultimately to establish a legal precedent. If they really loved each other, they could get married and show respect for other folks religious beliefs at the same time, not turn their wedding into a legal circus.
BTW I agree with you that there is zero chance in H-E-double hockey sticks that this could be used as a precedent to require churches to permit homosexual marriage within their congregations. I do however feel that the judge is interpreting "equal use" far too broadly.
Charles Asbornsen, you just don't get it do you? The law is the law. The church opened its pavillion to be rented to the public and is therefore bound to non-discrimination laws like every other business that chooses to open to the public, and the church knew this. They signed this agreement when they VOLUNTARILY applied for the real-estate tax exemption for the pavillion section of land. The church can't voluntarily act as a business open to the public and get special treatment to discriminate as they choose just because they're a church.
The church is not forced to allow same-sex weddings on their pavillion. They're perfectly free to close their pavillion to the public, stop getting the tax exemption, and then they can discriminate all they want. That's what churches are good at.
Charles Asbornsen, if the church volutarily chooses to keep the tax exemption for the pavillion and thus keep it open to the public, I'm not sure if they can rent the pavillion for certain types of events and not others (e.g. only weddings). That's where my knowledge of the law ends. I just know they have to follow the law like every other business. So if I as an atheist rent some land to the public just down the street from this church, and the law doesn't allow me deny renting to someone just because of the type of event they want to hold, then I would have to allow a satanic ritual on my land rental even though I personally am morally against satanism. It's only fair the church would have to obey the law like me, too.
Megan Kathleen and you are gay too? Yes, gay people are so evolved! In their own little mind-set. you are so gay and happy! waahoo! I that why so many commit suicide? You try to turn others to your mind-set and warped sense of arousal. yuck!
Joe Distefano All this happened before the gay ol' time law got passed. Wha a reach by this judge.
John Keating , I've read and re-read your comments following mine. I didn't find a clear answer. Was the application for public use made with the reasonable expectation that current law at the time of the application would govern the public use? Did those laws at the time of the application for public use call out LGBT as a class covered by non-discrimination law? If so, I agree with you. If not, and the LGBT anti-discrimination was added some time after the granting of public use, then is it the law of New Jersey that anyone with a public use facility is at the mercy of the whims of activists who successfully lobby to have their constituency brought under the umbrella of anti-discriminatory law? If that is the case, I suspect many public use facilities will move to change their status to protect themselves from future changes that could clash with their principles, morals or faith.
John Pitcher Yeah, that's generally how democracy works. We must convince the legislature to pass bills. Legislators take into consideration the opinions of their constituents. If legislation is not popular, it is very difficult to get it through. And yes, when the legislature passes laws, people must follow them. If New Jersey changes the anti-discrimination laws, people must follow the new law. Unfortunately for us activists, our "whims" do not control. We've been trying to get marriage equality passed for years. It is actually the more popular position in NJ right now, yet we still cannot get it passed. So, to characterize this as being at the "whims" of activists seems simplistic.
To answer your main question, I don't remember (if I ever knew) when this land was granted the particular public use exemption, but I think the LAD was amended in the early 90s to include sexual orientation discrimination. The civil union law came into affect in 2007.
If public use facilities want to change their status, I suppose that's what they will do. I disagree that this alternate exemption that allows them to skirt anti-discrimination laws should be available at all. I don't think any public funds or tax exemptions should go to anyone who doesn't follow anti-discrimination laws, period, including the Boy Scouts of America, which is a disgrace of an organization. But, alas, the law is not subject to the whims of activists like me.
Setting aside the legality argument for a moment- it seems that the Ocean Grove Association was merely following the passages of the OT like these two: Leviticus 18:22 – "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." (NIV).
Leviticus 20:13 – "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
This simple minded thinking was what passed for moral behavior to some ( probably most) in the 1st century and before. In the 21st century however, this discrimination is deplorable and born of pure ignorance.
Scary thing, some still believe this. And almost all are religious nutz.
Scary thing, some still believe this. And almost all of them that do, are religious nutz.
The old covenant was broken and the new covenant established with the blood of Jesus. That's one reason that churches are generally opposed to capital punishment. Jesus spoke of a faith of life, redemption and forgiveness, and looking to your own sins before condemning someone. But he wasn't anyone's pushover; just look at what happened to the prostitutes and moneylenders in the Temple. Not tolerating someone's bad behavior (always a subjective judgement) is not the same as hating them or wanting them dead. It seems like the only thing that is standard any more is a lack of standards and the only thing that isn't tolerated is not tolerating someone's bad behavior.
Charles Asbornsen Are you saying homosexuality is bad behavior? Being gay is wrong? <—– Mostly the religious believe this. religion dilutes the human mind with primitive ideology.
Charles Asbornsen If you are born a cat, Your a cat. No matter how much you want to be a Dog, your still a cat.
James Kormanec People of all sorts claim to be born one way or another. That does not give them the OK to act on how they were born.
Just think how many celibate homosexuals did not contract aids during the past 30 years.
James D Morris So being born Straight does not give them the OK to act on how they were born also. correct?
James D Morris Try reading the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That's what really matters, not some religious book.
James D Morris Just think how many ugly people that couldn't find a partner to fuck them, didn't give birth to ugly children the last 30 years.
James Kormanec Being born heterosexual does not give you the right to have sex outside of marriage.
James D Morris What law are you referring to?
To fall into the 'discriminated against' doesn't one first have to be designated a protected group?
Concur with John here – it is highly unlikely this ruling could ever be cited to force a church to allow gay marriages on their property. This is almost a non-story. The church decided to make their property into public use and enjoy the benefits of that status. They must also suffer the downside of that benefit or rescind the offering and accompanying benefits.
Yeah, if they kept it private it'd be another matter, but once you open it up you can't complain
LIES! This Todd Starnes is one of the most dishonest news reporters and you christian sheep eat it right up. First of all this headline is a lie. This judge is not saying christian opposition to same-sex unions is wrong; he's only saying this particular church organization violated the law.
And what Starnes conveniently didn't mention is this church chose to rent out this pavilion to the public for weddings, and opening your property to the public means you are subject to the Law Against Discrimination LIKE EVERYONE ELSE! It was advertised as a public space for wedding venues without any mention of religious preconditions.
This church is totally free to disallow same-sex weddings on its property. It just has to close its property to the public. And there is no way this court ruling will mean this church (or any church) or its ministers will themselves be forced to conduct a same-sex wedding.
Also note the judge rejected the church's contention that the pavilion was an extension of its wedding ministry, noting that weddings had been performed at the pavilion for at least 10 years before the dispute arose and that there was no proof that couples, "particularly those that chose secular vows, or that were of other faiths, were ever told that they were participating in a ministry."
Joe, I'm hardly a Christian sheep any more than you are an Iowa State snob. I do appreciate your insight into Mr. Starnes credibility and the court finding.
Bearing False Witness is the 9th commandment. I am unsure how so many religious people can blatantly break their faith tenants teachings while attempting to force others to live by other rules and laws. You clearly ignore most that apply to your daily lives and the choices you make while trying to hold a few that apply to others as forever unchanging and still on some stone tablet. Religious people who have to twist facts, distort truth or be intentionally dishonest about cases such as this one is why you will lose the battle you have waged against the ideals of America's promise of the Equality of all her citizenry.
If the teachings of your faith are eternal and unchanging all the rules you ignore and find too restrictive are just as binding. You are called to first get your own house in order and obviously that is far from the case. Please remember what your faith teaches about Hypocrites before it is too late because the place you claim the homosexual is bound will be filled with most of the people you know. You may be in good company but the weather there is supposed to be most uncomfortable.
Bearing False Witness is the 9th commandment. I am unsure how so many religious people can blatantly break their faith tenants teachings while attempting to force others to live by other rules and laws. Most clearly ignore those that apply to your daily lives and the choices you make while trying to hold a few that apply to others as forever unchanging and still on some stone tablet. Religious people who have to twist facts, distort truth or be intentionally dishonest about cases such as this one is why you will lose the battle you have waged against the ideals of America's promise of the Equality of all her citizenry.
Vincent Smith · Houston, Texas wrote:"Doug Fleming — appreciate the comment, but I must object to the name-calling and negative invective you have been using in this thread. Such commentary serves only to give ammunition to the ones who say that we are hateful, spiteful, and uncaring. I oppose gay marriage, but I want to offer reasoned argument to persuade, not taunt. Richard Notizia — I am amused by your assertion that Christians believe in "1st-century folklore". There are more eyewitness documents surviving from the first century that give evidence for the existence of Jesus than of Julius Caesar, yet no one doubts that Caesar sad and did the things attributed to him.
**************************************************************
Incorrect, Vinny. There aren't ANY eyewitness accounts of your jesus or mary or the disciples. You believe love to trot out Caesar for a comparison but you shouldn't because his existence IS well documented. Your dying and rising savior god ( one of many btw) on the other hand has NO contemporary accounts of his existence despite the numerous Jewish and Roman historians who did in fact write of that region AT that time. Still amused?
Look up "Antiquities" by Flavius Josephus, Jewish historian and Roman apologist, who writes in some detail about Jesus, John the Baptist, and others. Born 37AD, died 100AD, a contemporary of the apostles and the 1st century Christians whose "folklore" you ridicule.
Look up "Antiquities" by Flavius Josephus, Jewish historian and Roman apologist, who writes in some detail about Jesus, John the Baptist, and others. Born 37AD, died 100AD, a contemporary of the apostles and the 1st century Christians whose "folklore" you ridicule.
Vincent Smith Josephus is a very dodgey character who would not be a credible witness in a court of law today. He was a traitor, a womanizer, a coward and hagiographer for a start. Besides, his account is first mentioned by Eusebius who is well known as an "editor" (read forger) of early manuscripts to suit the contemporary political views and goals. And I would not say he wrote in detail re Jesus etc. Indeed, his work has rarely been taken seriously—especially by Jewish historians.
As the historian E. Mary Smallwood wrote:
(Josephus) was conceited, not only about his own learning but also about the opinions held of him as commander both by the Galileans and by the Romans; he was guilty of shocking duplicity at Jotapata, saving himself by sacrifice of his companions; he was too naive to see how he stood condemned out of his own mouth for his conduct, and yet no words were too harsh when he was blackening his opponents; and after landing, however involuntarily, in the Roman camp, he turned his captivity to his own advantage, and benefitted for the rest of his days from his change of side.
Vincent Smith – Vinny you should first look up the word 'contemporary' before you trot out Josephus.Regarding Josephus here is a link to a detailed refutation of this historian as evidence for your jesus. http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html
http://y-jesus.com/
http://y-jesus.com/
Clay Branz – You are using an obvious christian apologist site which among other things takes the disputed passage from Antiquities by Titus Flavius Josephus . The historians this site mentions telling lived AFTER the supposed death of jesus which never seems to bother christians. They ignore the fact that historians contemporary to the beginning of the 1st century who DID document that region NEVER mention jesus. This is because his mythology had yet to be written.
I don't understand, this certainly wouldn't be a problem in other parts of the world, in, say North Korea or Iran.
Ya, in North Korea they open up the pavilions to all groups. Including Gays to marry. North Korea is such ahead of the USA.
James Kormanec Actually, they consider anyone out of a narrow range to be dissident, and these are sent to camps.
I'm happy to see commenters can express themselves without profanity and personal attack. <sarcasm off> I don't know the law in NJ, so I won't pretend to add to the lively discussion on that. If, as John Keating says, the group opened itself up to public use of the pavillion, it must have been with some set of rules for use in place. The only set of rules in place at the time seems to have been the law in force at that time and the organization's Book of Discipline. And there was no conflict. So, what is the State's responsibility when a change in law (like the addition of same sex marriage) impacts a compact and agreement in force? I don't know. Mr. Keating, if the granting of the tax exemption amounts to a contract, are you saying the State can unilaterally change the terms of that contract and then hold the other party to that contract in violation of the terms? It seems to me this case will be appealed, if it can be.
interesting comments on the article – albeit inane and unlearned/unread (and probably unwashed)…no wonder Obama got elected…
Bob Skinner Care to expand Bob and give examples or are your rash generalizations enough?
Bob Skinner Care to expand Bob and give examples or are your rash generalizations enough?
Bob Skinner Fox News viewers are less informed than people that watch no news at all. http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-11-22/news/30431182_1_fox-news-results-show-viewers
Bob Skinner Fox News viewers are less informed than people that watch no news at all. http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-11-22/news/30431182_1_fox-news-results-show-viewers
I appreciate your extra clarification about the property issue.
WHEN, did it become any judge's right to pass judgment on our opinions. It was always.
my belief was our right, s given to us by GOD, not by judges.
The 1st Amendment does not include the words GOD nor Christianity, never has and never will. The USA is not a Christian ONLY country no matter how much you want to believe it is.
The 1st Amendment does not include the words GOD nor Christianity, never has and never will. The USA is not a Christian ONLY country no matter how much you want to believe it is.
Scott Mcgowan showing a little respect to this lady would be appropriate.
Scott Mcgowan – That's just silly. The 1st Amendment to the Constitution does not have to say "God" for Mytrle's statement to be accurate. The founding document of our country, the Declaration of Independence, starts with:
"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…"
The 1st Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" We can declare and enforce this amendment because our citizens are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" as stated in the Declaration of Independence.
Joseph Brehm The God of Israel is not my Creator.
Scott Mcgowan – YOU are the one who mentioned the God of Israel. Myrtle did not, nor did my examples.
Joseph Brehm "WHEN, did it become any judge's right to pass judgment on our opinions. It was always.
my belief was our right, s given to us by GOD, not by judges." Is see she used the word God. So who are you trying to convince?
Was this judge elected? And hope this ruling is appealed.
This is why Newt Gingrich said there is something wrong with judges and they should be called forth and examined for their rulings. Not so far from the truth, was he?
So all law should be written by what the BIBLE says? So much for the 1st Amendment then.
So all law should be written by what the BIBLE says? So much for the 1st Amendment then.
This is a blatant LIE. “There’s always been the concern that courts would incorrectly interpret constitutional freedoms and that’s what we are seeing in this case.” They lost a case involving a PUBLIC facility that THEY chose to contract with for tax money from the state which had prior rules against discrimination. The FOX news spin on the Fox Nation site was titled, "Judge finds following in the Christianity faith is wrong." You know if you have the Supreme Court of FL tell you it is perfectly LEGAL for you to lie and misinform as a "news" outlet, why wouldn't you twist, manipulate, and dumb down the people you want to control? Fox News viewers are less informed than people who don't watch the news at all. If all the FOX News viewers ever saw the movie OUTFOXED, how many would just simple continue to believe that they are being told the whole truth without question?
Pretty soon the "homosexuals" will have the state telling the church what they can and can't do. Oh, wait, that's already happened. Nothing new. The "gaystapo" will stop at nothing to have their perversion normalized.