Continental promo
||  News  ||
 
01/03/09-01/05/09

N.J. Religious Group Found to Be Discriminating Against Lesbian Couple

The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights ruled Monday that a church group discriminated against a lesbian couple when it denied them the right to hold their civil union ceremony on beachfront property the group owns but has advanced as a public space.

The division found that Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster had probable cause to claim that the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association's rejection of their bid to rent the boardwalk violates the state's antidiscrimination law. According to a press release from the LGBT civil rights organization Garden State Equality, the opinion was based on the boardwalk pavilion's being "public" by nature of its historic use as open to everyone without restrictions. For years, the Camp Meeting Association had applied for and received state tax breaks under New Jersey’s “Green Acres” program, which requires facilities to be open and nondiscriminatory to all. In September 2007 the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection ended the association’s tax breaks for the boardwalk area based on the group's ban on civil unions.

Following the ruling in favor of the couple, an administrative law judge will now issue a ruling on how to remedy the situation.

"What this case has always been about from my clients' perspective has been equality," Larry Lustberg, the couple's lawyer, told the Associated Press. Lustberg said they are seeking an order that would require the boardwalk to be equally accessible to everyone.

Alliance Defense Fund attorney Brian Raum, who represents the Camp Meeting Association, said his client would attempt to continue blocking civil union ceremonies on the property.

"Our position is the same," he told the AP. "A Christian organization has a constitutional right to use their facilities in a way that is consistent with their beliefs." (Advocate.com)

Reader Comments

These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.

  • Name: Blanknewt
    Date posted: 2009-01-24 3:29 AM
    Hometown: Howard

    Comment:

    The power of government to tax is the power to destroy or control. It is why the founding fathers tried to separate church and state. Not just to save the state form the church, but also to save the church and by extension all faiths, form the government. Government should leave the faithful alone


  • Name: kit
    Date posted: 2009-01-06 7:40 PM
    Hometown: Bordentown NJ

    Comment:

    like Jeff said, the special favors ie tax breaks indicate the Methodists there wanted it both ways, probably still getting the tax breaks also. This town is one hour from where I live, it is my favorite NJ shore town, and it just so happens to be the place my gf kissed me in public for the first time anywhere. I have a special love for the town, it really is beautiful. The gazebo is in this town, right on the boardwalk which is on the beach. The town was historically religious since it became a town. Now it is just a regular town.


  • Name: Rob
    Date posted: 2009-01-05 1:25 PM
    Hometown: Phoenix

    Comment:

    I have a friend who works at a public school in NJ. He was telling me that their school is being sued by some church group for not posting a religious event on the school's newsletter. Apparently this group has sued other schools for the same reason as a way to raise money. I have been looking for more information about the story but haven't come across anything.


  • Name: Dave
    Date posted: 2009-01-04 8:56 PM
    Hometown: Austin

    Comment:

    Apparently a number of Methodist ministers in the NJ area decided that they wanted to establish a permanent location where they could have retreats and seminars out by the beach, this was at some point in 1880s or 1870s. Anyway the Methodist Retreat Association owns virtually all of the land in Ocean Grove however they lease the land to the owners of any buildings on the site. Apparently the association had some very draconian policies - basically your typical blue code laws (laws based on religious values) for example they didn't permit shops to open on Sunday for a number of years. At one point some 20-30 years ago the town was mockingly called Ocean Grave instead of Ocean Grove. (no longer sure who or what I'm answering - time for a nap)


  • Name: Jeffrey
    Date posted: 2009-01-04 10:30 AM
    Hometown: Albany

    Comment:

    Can anyone tell me why churches need to own tax exempt beach front property???


  • Name: Carol
    Date posted: 2009-01-01 2:04 PM
    Hometown: MO

    Comment:

    I've read different explanations for this legal question about the Methodist Churches owning the Pavillion in this area over the last 2 yrs. Some in NJ paper and elsewhere. The beaches around this area not far from where the little religious town is, is owned by the state or else the county, and beaches are public domain. As I read before when they bought this area where the pavillion stands they knew that it had to be open to the public. It was used by everybody with no problem until two gay women wanted to have a civil marriiage there. They refused, and the couple appealed this. I just recently read that they have changed their requirements on their Pavillion use, and they are no longer using it for any marriages, even their own Methodist marriages. They can do this if noone is allowed to be married there, because they own the pavillion. They do not own the boardwalk or beaches.


  • Name: Laurent
    Date posted: 2008-12-31 9:58 PM
    Hometown: Ottawa, Canada

    Comment:

    It is about time we really sgtart looking at the tax exempt status of churches. Their tax free status in most countries is derived from the fact that churches will not interfere in government affairs. But churches today think it is their moral obligation to interfere with government policies. Maybe it is time we start forcing the government to look at all churches tax status as what they are doing is illegal under both the US and Canadian constitutions. How many billions in tax dollars am I supposed to pay to support these institutions whose only objective is take away my rights, They are not following any mandate from a higher power, but only their own bigotry. Biggest joke, recently the local presbyterian minister was revealed to be having affairs simultaneously with both a mother and her daughter, the daughter was only 17 when this affair started, she is 25 now. And this is the moral leadership we are supposed to take our guidance from.


  • Name: David
    Date posted: 2008-12-31 7:10 AM
    Hometown: Wichita

    Comment:

    As a minister you are all correct. It isn't about a church being forced to do something within its worship service or its practice of its faith, it is about a church declaring that a piece of property is for PUBLIC use and then treating it as if it is not. (i.e. denying a certain part of the public to use it) And it will be sad, as Richard notes, that the religious right is going to ignore this simple fact and paint it as the government stepping all over the church's rights.


  • Name: Richard
    Date posted: 2008-12-30 11:13 PM
    Hometown: Glendale, AZ

    Comment:

    The part of this that is going to be sad is the Church will state their civic rights are being voilated by stating religious group are being force to do Civic unions which is against their faith. But they really don't want anyone to look at the fact their were working the system for tax breaks and extra booking by calling it a public place. It's called HAVING YOUR CAKE AND EATING IT TOO! You can't have a building open for public use and then state which part of the public you want to use it. The worst part of all this is no ones sees the Church crying about their rights being stepped on, but they have done everything they could to step on our rights AND THEY KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH IT. Love to you all and Have a GAY DAY.


  • Name: Christopher
    Date posted: 2008-12-30 7:28 PM
    Hometown: Charlotte

    Comment:

    I am afraid the details of this story will be lost and the religious right will boil it down to "the government forced a church to allow gays to marry on their property even though the church was opposed to it. So we have to oppose gay marriage or you will have to open up your church to gay marriages."


  • Name: Art M.
    Date posted: 2008-12-30 6:06 PM
    Hometown: SF>CA>USA

    Comment:

    TAX CHURCHES!


  • Name: Jerome
    Date posted: 2008-12-30 5:25 PM
    Hometown: Whitehorse

    Comment:

    Interesting. I agree that a public space, even if it's owned by a church, should be available to the public, but the church has had their tax breaks stripped away in 2007 for their stand on civil unions. So, in a way, they aren't receiving any kickbacks for having a public space. However, they should declare it a non-public space if the public can't use it. Unless they can come up with other times they have said no to other non-GLBT groups. Because I'm sure there have been other instances, yes? If this is the only one, then they lose. Hey, with their stand on GLBT unions, they lose anyway.


  • Name: Jeff
    Date posted: 2008-12-30 3:15 PM
    Hometown: Lexington, KY

    Comment:

    Religious...in fact any private... group does and should have the right to define who uses its spaces when those spaces are reserved for their members. I have no problem with such. If a religious group, however, operates a public business or seeks special favors (tax breaks, etc.) in return for operating as a public business, then they have a choice: follow public civil rights laws or reserve their businesses/spaces for their members only. This Christian group wants their cake and to eat it too. They have to choose.


  • Name: Bob
    Date posted: 2008-12-30 1:01 PM
    Hometown: Bloomington, IL

    Comment:

    Let them use it the way they want...however, not one single tax break for them, and of course, all other laws apply as with any other 'private property'. However, if its location is deemed public, sorry....don't know about 'beach access' in NJ. Bob


Back to top

Submit a comment for this story:

*Type your comment here (Required, 1000 characters max. HTML formatting and hyperlinks are NOT permitted.):

*Name (Required): 

*Hometown (Required): 

*E-mail address: (Required, but will not be displayed)

Is this comment for publication? 
Yes   No

Daytime phone number: (Required for print publication only and will not be displayed)

Please enter the words you see in the box, in order and separated by a space. Doing so helps prevent automated programs from abusing this service.

  

If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above. 

All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.

See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.

Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.

More Exclusives
  • View From the Hill: The End of DADT?
    Defense Secretary Robert Gates revealed that lawyers are exploring ways to ease enforcement of the military's gay ban, but cautioned that the law doesn't leave much wiggle room. He need look no further than DOD history for a lesson in altering the policy.
  • Hot Sheet: Week of July 5
    When you get back from that big 4th of July barbecue, unwind with Sacha Baron Cohen's Bruno and your favorite B-movie-mocking, basic cable robots.
  • Hungry Like the Wolf
    A master of viola, ukulele, piano, and harp, Patrick Wolf is a music prodigy -- one who, the night before this interview, spit on a cop and got himself arrested.
  • Soapside: Advocate's Guide to Daytime
    Forbes March talks about playing gay, Otalia fans outraged, update on One Life to Live’s Patricia Maurceri’s firing over gay plot point, Phillip Chancellor III big reveal, and Erica Kane goes to Africa.
  • The Faces of Federal Prop. 8
    With the federal challenge to Prop. 8 moving full speed ahead, Advocate.com sits down with the two couples named as plaintiffs in the suit.
  • Mommy, the Gays Are Coming
    After a year of advancements and celebration for gay and lesbian Colombians, the community takes to the streets of Bogota for the country's biggest pride ever.
  • The Pride of Antwerp
    Advocate.com hits the gay-friendly streets of Antwerp with openly gay police commissioner Serge Muyters.
  • Excerpt: Mean Little Deaf Queer
    In an excerpt from her humorous and harrowing new memoir, Mean Little Deaf Queer, Terry Galloway recalls her early childhood, describing feelings of ugliness, confusion about gender, and being one of the boys.
  • Top Political Blogs
    From Joe.My.God to The Daily Beast, Advocate.com spotlights a few of the best blogs that cover politics, inside and way outside the Beltway.
  • The Diva of French Television
    A hot young screenwriter who has made gay OK for millions of French viewers, Nicolas Mercier sips champagne, dons a feathered hat, and says he wants to see Colin Farrell and Jude Law go at it.