Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I am willing to bet all the tea in China that the SC will tailor the decision to state that churches will not be forced to marry any gay couple against their wishes. States that have passed marriage equality have already put those protections in place for churches. Massachusetts has been allowing gays to marry for over decade and I am not aware of single church that has been sued to force them to marry a gay couple. Can you name one?
Then they'd also have to re-tailor the 14th Amendment to say that any church may deny any race they like marriage within their halls. Pretty sure that wouldn't be such a done-deal. Unless you're saying sexual behaviors aren't equivalent to race? In that case, I agree with you...
You're full of shit you homophobic bigot.No church has been forced to perform a gay marriage yet, because the LGBT subCULTure has not so far gained federal protection for "their rights to marry" [which don't exist outside the state they live in and its discreet community's permission]. If they ever do hornswaggle the US Supreme Court into getting that protection, the lawsuits against churches refusing to enable the spread of their culture via marriage will begin pretty much the same day before the ink is even dry on that potential and unfortunate blunder by SCOTUS...Hells bells I am still waiting for Sil to answer question and name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple in the US. Or name a SC case that states driving is a privilege. I suppose he'll never answer the questions. Doesn't fit his narrative so they'll be ignored. Oh well...
No church has been forced to perform a gay marriage yet, because the LGBT subCULTure has not so far gained federal protection for "their rights to marry" [which don't exist outside the state they live in and its discreet community's permission]. If they ever do hornswaggle the US Supreme Court into getting that protection, the lawsuits against churches refusing to enable the spread of their culture via marriage will begin pretty much the same day before the ink is even dry on that potential and unfortunate blunder by SCOTUS...Hells bells I am still waiting for Sil to answer question and name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple in the US. Or name a SC case that states driving is a privilege. I suppose he'll never answer the questions. Doesn't fit his narrative so they'll be ignored. Oh well...
I am willing to bet all the tea in China that the SC will tailor the decision to state that churches will not be forced to marry any gay couple against their wishes. States that have passed marriage equality have already put those protections in place for churches. Massachusetts has been allowing gays to marry for over decade and I am not aware of single church that has been sued to force them to marry a gay couple. Can you name one?
No church has been forced to perform a gay marriage yet, because the LGBT subCULTure has not so far gained federal protection for "their rights to marry" [which don't exist outside the state they live in and its discreet community's permission]. If they ever do hornswaggle the US Supreme Court into getting that protection, the lawsuits against churches refusing to enable the spread of their culture via marriage will begin pretty much the same day before the ink is even dry on that potential and unfortunate blunder by SCOTUS...Hells bells I am still waiting for Sil to answer question and name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple in the US. Or name a SC case that states driving is a privilege. I suppose he'll never answer the questions. Doesn't fit his narrative so they'll be ignored. Oh well...
I am willing to bet all the tea in China that the SC will tailor the decision to state that churches will not be forced to marry any gay couple against their wishes. States that have passed marriage equality have already put those protections in place for churches. Massachusetts has been allowing gays to marry for over decade and I am not aware of single church that has been sued to force them to marry a gay couple. Can you name one?
You'd be wrong
Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises News LifeSite
Here was that Judge (who should be recalled IMMEDIATELY) exact words
some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.
I am willing to bet all the tea in China that the SC will tailor the decision to state that churches will not be forced to marry any gay couple against their wishes. States that have passed marriage equality have already put those protections in place for churches. Massachusetts has been allowing gays to marry for over decade and I am not aware of single church that has been sued to force them to marry a gay couple. Can you name one?
You'd be wrong
Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises News LifeSite
Here was that Judge (who should be recalled IMMEDIATELY) exact words
some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.
No church has been forced to perform a gay marriage yet, because the LGBT subCULTure has not so far gained federal protection for "their rights to marry" [which don't exist outside the state they live in and its discreet community's permission]. If they ever do hornswaggle the US Supreme Court into getting that protection, the lawsuits against churches refusing to enable the spread of their culture via marriage will begin pretty much the same day before the ink is even dry on that potential and unfortunate blunder by SCOTUS...Hells bells I am still waiting for Sil to answer question and name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple in the US. Or name a SC case that states driving is a privilege. I suppose he'll never answer the questions. Doesn't fit his narrative so they'll be ignored. Oh well...
I am willing to bet all the tea in China that the SC will tailor the decision to state that churches will not be forced to marry any gay couple against their wishes. States that have passed marriage equality have already put those protections in place for churches. Massachusetts has been allowing gays to marry for over decade and I am not aware of single church that has been sued to force them to marry a gay couple. Can you name one?
You'd be wrong
Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises News LifeSite
Here was that Judge (who should be recalled IMMEDIATELY) exact words
some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.
You need to read it again. They are not being forced to marry anyone.
The church owned a public pavilion. The Church rents the public pavilion to the public. The gay couple wanted to rent the pavilion for their ceremony. No church members were required to be present at said ceremony or preside over said ceremony or bless the damn ceremony. We have laws in the USA that prohibit businesses from this sort of discrimination. If a person walks in to your public establishment you can't refuse him service because of the color of his skin, gender, sexual preference etc. That's what happened here and the Church was wrong to refuse access to the public pavilion that the church rented public-ally to the public.
No church has been forced to perform a gay marriage yet, because the LGBT subCULTure has not so far gained federal protection for "their rights to marry" [which don't exist outside the state they live in and its discreet community's permission]. If they ever do hornswaggle the US Supreme Court into getting that protection, the lawsuits against churches refusing to enable the spread of their culture via marriage will begin pretty much the same day before the ink is even dry on that potential and unfortunate blunder by SCOTUS...Hells bells I am still waiting for Sil to answer question and name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple in the US. Or name a SC case that states driving is a privilege. I suppose he'll never answer the questions. Doesn't fit his narrative so they'll be ignored. Oh well...
I am willing to bet all the tea in China that the SC will tailor the decision to state that churches will not be forced to marry any gay couple against their wishes. States that have passed marriage equality have already put those protections in place for churches. Massachusetts has been allowing gays to marry for over decade and I am not aware of single church that has been sued to force them to marry a gay couple. Can you name one?
You'd be wrong
Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises News LifeSite
Here was that Judge (who should be recalled IMMEDIATELY) exact words
some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.
You need to read it again. They are not being forced to marry anyone.
The church owned a public pavilion. The Church rents the public pavilion to the public. The gay couple wanted to rent the pavilion for their ceremony. No church members were required to be present at said ceremony or preside over said ceremony or bless the damn ceremony. We have laws in the USA that prohibit businesses from this sort of discrimination. If a person walks in to your public establishment you can't refuse him service because of the color of his skin, gender, sexual preference etc. That's what happened here and the Church was wrong to refuse access to the public pavilion that the church rented public-ally to the public.
That is a distinction without difference. The pavilion belongs to a church. That makes it CHURCH property.
No church has been forced to perform a gay marriage yet, because the LGBT subCULTure has not so far gained federal protection for "their rights to marry" [which don't exist outside the state they live in and its discreet community's permission]. If they ever do hornswaggle the US Supreme Court into getting that protection, the lawsuits against churches refusing to enable the spread of their culture via marriage will begin pretty much the same day before the ink is even dry on that potential and unfortunate blunder by SCOTUS...
I am willing to bet all the tea in China that the SC will tailor the decision to state that churches will not be forced to marry any gay couple against their wishes. States that have passed marriage equality have already put those protections in place for churches. Massachusetts has been allowing gays to marry for over decade and I am not aware of single church that has been sued to force them to marry a gay couple. Can you name one?
You'd be wrong
Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises News LifeSite
Here was that Judge (who should be recalled IMMEDIATELY) exact words
some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.
You need to read it again. They are not being forced to marry anyone.
The church owned a public pavilion. The Church rents the public pavilion to the public. The gay couple wanted to rent the pavilion for their ceremony. No church members were required to be present at said ceremony or preside over said ceremony or bless the damn ceremony. We have laws in the USA that prohibit businesses from this sort of discrimination. If a person walks in to your public establishment you can't refuse him service because of the color of his skin, gender, sexual preference etc. That's what happened here and the Church was wrong to refuse access to the public pavilion that the church rented public-ally to the public.
That is a distinction without difference. The pavilion belongs to a church. That makes it CHURCH property.
You're not listening.
That was property that the church was making money on by selling access to the public. Again, it does not matter if you are a church or a biker gang, if you are selling to the public you can't discriminate who you sell to. Do you understand the civil rights act, and other civil rights acts the states put in that augment the federal one?
I am willing to bet all the tea in China that the SC will tailor the decision to state that churches will not be forced to marry any gay couple against their wishes. States that have passed marriage equality have already put those protections in place for churches. Massachusetts has been allowing gays to marry for over decade and I am not aware of single church that has been sued to force them to marry a gay couple. Can you name one?
You'd be wrong
Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises News LifeSite
Here was that Judge (who should be recalled IMMEDIATELY) exact words
some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.
MDK said a Church, you link isn't about a Church.
1. It wasn't a Church, here is a list of Methodist Churches in the United States, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association is not on it -->> Methodist Church Directory.
2. The OGCMA was not required to perform any ceremony, the mayor is the one that voluntarily performed teh same-sex commitment ceremony (SSCM not being legal at the time in New Jersey).
3. If it were a Church, then Church property would have already been exempt from property taxes as are the grounds of other Churches. However they were not, the OGCMA facilities were not receiving the religious exemptions for property taxes, which is why the applied for a special exemption under the New Jersey Green Acres Program.
4. As part of that program they agreed to make the pavilion open to the public, they reneged on their word and so the Special Tax Exemption for public places was withdrawn.
***********************************
From the ruling in the case:
"The relevant facts for purposes of the cross-motions are substantially undisputed." In other words the OGCMA agreed and did not dispute the facts as presented regarding the denial of services to members of the public nor what they agreed to under the Green Acres Program.
"At the time of denial in March 2007, the Pavilion was used primarily as a venue for religious programming, but respondent also hosted community and charitable events and rented the space for weddings." The respondents acknowledged that the pavilion was used for events other than religious services.
"This was the first time in anyone’s memory that a denial was based on a reason other than availability." In the 18-years that the OGCMA had received the special exemption under the Green Acres Program, no one remembered an application for use ever being denied unless the pavilion was already booked.
"In July 1989 respondent applied for a Green Acres real-estate tax exemption for Lot 1, Block 1.01, which includes the Pavilion and the adjacent boardwalk and beach area. The application describes the area as public in nature. The Green Acres program is designed to preserve open space and the statutory scheme authorizes a tax exemption for non-profit corporations utilizing property for conservation or recreational purposes. One condition of the exemption is that the property be “open for public use on an equal basis,” N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.66; N.J.A.C. 7:35-1.4(a)(2)." Green Acres Program = Open for Public Use. Deny the public use of the facility when it would be otherwise available is a violation of the participation requirements of the program.
"Neptune Township, the municipality within which respondent is located, opposed the application on grounds that respondent is governed by religious restrictions that make equal-access doubtful. At a public hearing conducted by the Department of Environmental Protection in September 1989, respondent represented that the Pavilion was available for public use without reservation." The township pointed out that future use by the public might conflict with religious poilicies, the OGCMA said (to paraphrase), nope - the public will have access without reservation. They then reapplied for the same special exemption every 3-years for the next 15-years. New Jersey implemented legal recognition for Same-sex Civil Unions in 2003. Let's see, renewal of the program applications would have occured in 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004 - so AFTER Civil Unions were made legal in 2003, they still applied for the exemption in 2004 instead of letting it lapse so they could be more selective on public utilization.
"Respondent argues that it didn’t need a Green Acres tax exemption for the Pavilion; it could at any time have obtained the same benefit by applying for a tax exemption as a religious organization. Indeed, after these events that is exactly what it did. We are, however, bound by the facts that were, not those that might have been, or that came to pass in the aftermath of petitioners’ application."
http://www.adfmedia.org/files/OGCMA-BernsteinRuling.pdf?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
As the Judge points out. What matters in the case are the conditions applicable to 2007. It's not the Judges fault the OGCMA applied for the wrong exemption. The fact remains that as long as they applied for the Green Acres Program exemption, they were bound by it's rules. Don't want to play by those rules, apply for a different exemption (which is what they did after the fact).
>>>>
You'd be wrong
Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises News LifeSite
Here was that Judge (who should be recalled IMMEDIATELY) exact words
some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.
I am willing to bet all the tea in China that the SC will tailor the decision to state that churches will not be forced to marry any gay couple against their wishes. States that have passed marriage equality have already put those protections in place for churches. Massachusetts has been allowing gays to marry for over decade and I am not aware of single church that has been sued to force them to marry a gay couple. Can you name one?
Then they'd also have to re-tailor the 14th Amendment to say that any church may deny any race they like marriage within their halls. Pretty sure that wouldn't be such a done-deal. Unless you're saying sexual behaviors aren't equivalent to race? In that case, I agree with you...
I am willing to bet all the tea in China that the SC will tailor the decision to state that churches will not be forced to marry any gay couple against their wishes. States that have passed marriage equality have already put those protections in place for churches. Massachusetts has been allowing gays to marry for over decade and I am not aware of single church that has been sued to force them to marry a gay couple. Can you name one?
You'd be wrong
Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises News LifeSite
Here was that Judge (who should be recalled IMMEDIATELY) exact words
some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.
MDK said a Church, you link isn't about a Church.
1. It wasn't a Church, here is a list of Methodist Churches in the United States, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association is not on it -->> Methodist Church Directory.
2. The OGCMA was not required to perform any ceremony, the mayor is the one that voluntarily performed teh same-sex commitment ceremony (SSCM not being legal at the time in New Jersey).
3. If it were a Church, then Church property would have already been exempt from property taxes as are the grounds of other Churches. However they were not, the OGCMA facilities were not receiving the religious exemptions for property taxes, which is why the applied for a special exemption under the New Jersey Green Acres Program.
4. As part of that program they agreed to make the pavilion open to the public, they reneged on their word and so the Special Tax Exemption for public places was withdrawn.
***********************************
From the ruling in the case:
"The relevant facts for purposes of the cross-motions are substantially undisputed." In other words the OGCMA agreed and did not dispute the facts as presented regarding the denial of services to members of the public nor what they agreed to under the Green Acres Program.
"At the time of denial in March 2007, the Pavilion was used primarily as a venue for religious programming, but respondent also hosted community and charitable events and rented the space for weddings." The respondents acknowledged that the pavilion was used for events other than religious services.
"This was the first time in anyone’s memory that a denial was based on a reason other than availability." In the 18-years that the OGCMA had received the special exemption under the Green Acres Program, no one remembered an application for use ever being denied unless the pavilion was already booked.
"In July 1989 respondent applied for a Green Acres real-estate tax exemption for Lot 1, Block 1.01, which includes the Pavilion and the adjacent boardwalk and beach area. The application describes the area as public in nature. The Green Acres program is designed to preserve open space and the statutory scheme authorizes a tax exemption for non-profit corporations utilizing property for conservation or recreational purposes. One condition of the exemption is that the property be “open for public use on an equal basis,” N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.66; N.J.A.C. 7:35-1.4(a)(2)." Green Acres Program = Open for Public Use. Deny the public use of the facility when it would be otherwise available is a violation of the participation requirements of the program.
"Neptune Township, the municipality within which respondent is located, opposed the application on grounds that respondent is governed by religious restrictions that make equal-access doubtful. At a public hearing conducted by the Department of Environmental Protection in September 1989, respondent represented that the Pavilion was available for public use without reservation." The township pointed out that future use by the public might conflict with religious poilicies, the OGCMA said (to paraphrase), nope - the public will have access without reservation. They then reapplied for the same special exemption every 3-years for the next 15-years. New Jersey implemented legal recognition for Same-sex Civil Unions in 2003. Let's see, renewal of the program applications would have occured in 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004 - so AFTER Civil Unions were made legal in 2003, they still applied for the exemption in 2004 instead of letting it lapse so they could be more selective on public utilization.
"Respondent argues that it didn’t need a Green Acres tax exemption for the Pavilion; it could at any time have obtained the same benefit by applying for a tax exemption as a religious organization. Indeed, after these events that is exactly what it did. We are, however, bound by the facts that were, not those that might have been, or that came to pass in the aftermath of petitioners’ application."
http://www.adfmedia.org/files/OGCMA-BernsteinRuling.pdf?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
As the Judge points out. What matters in the case are the conditions applicable to 2007. It's not the Judges fault the OGCMA applied for the wrong exemption. The fact remains that as long as they applied for the Green Acres Program exemption, they were bound by it's rules. Don't want to play by those rules, apply for a different exemption (which is what they did after the fact).
>>>>
I knew it was only a matter of time before someone brought up this single case. I was going to post pretty much the same thing. They'll spilt hairs and claim it was a church despite all the evidence that says otherwise. Not single church has ever been forced to marry a gay couple against their wishes. A right I fully support.
That is a distinction without difference. The pavilion belongs to a church. That makes it CHURCH property.
I am willing to bet all the tea in China that the SC will tailor the decision to state that churches will not be forced to marry any gay couple against their wishes. States that have passed marriage equality have already put those protections in place for churches. Massachusetts has been allowing gays to marry for over decade and I am not aware of single church that has been sued to force them to marry a gay couple. Can you name one?
You'd be wrong
Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises News LifeSite
Here was that Judge (who should be recalled IMMEDIATELY) exact words
some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.
MDK said a Church, you link isn't about a Church.
1. It wasn't a Church, here is a list of Methodist Churches in the United States, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association is not on it -->> Methodist Church Directory.
2. The OGCMA was not required to perform any ceremony, the mayor is the one that voluntarily performed teh same-sex commitment ceremony (SSCM not being legal at the time in New Jersey).
3. If it were a Church, then Church property would have already been exempt from property taxes as are the grounds of other Churches. However they were not, the OGCMA facilities were not receiving the religious exemptions for property taxes, which is why the applied for a special exemption under the New Jersey Green Acres Program.
4. As part of that program they agreed to make the pavilion open to the public, they reneged on their word and so the Special Tax Exemption for public places was withdrawn.
***********************************
From the ruling in the case:
"The relevant facts for purposes of the cross-motions are substantially undisputed." In other words the OGCMA agreed and did not dispute the facts as presented regarding the denial of services to members of the public nor what they agreed to under the Green Acres Program.
"At the time of denial in March 2007, the Pavilion was used primarily as a venue for religious programming, but respondent also hosted community and charitable events and rented the space for weddings." The respondents acknowledged that the pavilion was used for events other than religious services.
"This was the first time in anyone’s memory that a denial was based on a reason other than availability." In the 18-years that the OGCMA had received the special exemption under the Green Acres Program, no one remembered an application for use ever being denied unless the pavilion was already booked.
"In July 1989 respondent applied for a Green Acres real-estate tax exemption for Lot 1, Block 1.01, which includes the Pavilion and the adjacent boardwalk and beach area. The application describes the area as public in nature. The Green Acres program is designed to preserve open space and the statutory scheme authorizes a tax exemption for non-profit corporations utilizing property for conservation or recreational purposes. One condition of the exemption is that the property be “open for public use on an equal basis,” N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.66; N.J.A.C. 7:35-1.4(a)(2)." Green Acres Program = Open for Public Use. Deny the public use of the facility when it would be otherwise available is a violation of the participation requirements of the program.
"Neptune Township, the municipality within which respondent is located, opposed the application on grounds that respondent is governed by religious restrictions that make equal-access doubtful. At a public hearing conducted by the Department of Environmental Protection in September 1989, respondent represented that the Pavilion was available for public use without reservation." The township pointed out that future use by the public might conflict with religious poilicies, the OGCMA said (to paraphrase), nope - the public will have access without reservation. They then reapplied for the same special exemption every 3-years for the next 15-years. New Jersey implemented legal recognition for Same-sex Civil Unions in 2003. Let's see, renewal of the program applications would have occured in 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004 - so AFTER Civil Unions were made legal in 2003, they still applied for the exemption in 2004 instead of letting it lapse so they could be more selective on public utilization.
"Respondent argues that it didn’t need a Green Acres tax exemption for the Pavilion; it could at any time have obtained the same benefit by applying for a tax exemption as a religious organization. Indeed, after these events that is exactly what it did. We are, however, bound by the facts that were, not those that might have been, or that came to pass in the aftermath of petitioners’ application."
http://www.adfmedia.org/files/OGCMA-BernsteinRuling.pdf?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
As the Judge points out. What matters in the case are the conditions applicable to 2007. It's not the Judges fault the OGCMA applied for the wrong exemption. The fact remains that as long as they applied for the Green Acres Program exemption, they were bound by it's rules. Don't want to play by those rules, apply for a different exemption (which is what they did after the fact).
>>>>
I knew it was only a matter of time before someone brought up this single case. I was going to post pretty much the same thing. They'll spilt hairs and claim it was a church despite all the evidence that says otherwise. Not single church has ever been forced to marry a gay couple against their wishes. A right I fully support.
How is that splitting hairs given that SCOTUS has recently ruled that a business can deny specific birth control coverage based on religious beliefs.
That is a distinction without difference. The pavilion belongs to a church. That makes it CHURCH property.
Read the ruling, the OGCMA is not a Church.
Read the ruling, the OGCMA is not a Church.
Neither is Hobby Lobby
I am willing to bet all the tea in China that the SC will tailor the decision to state that churches will not be forced to marry any gay couple against their wishes. States that have passed marriage equality have already put those protections in place for churches. Massachusetts has been allowing gays to marry for over decade and I am not aware of single church that has been sued to force them to marry a gay couple. Can you name one?
You'd be wrong
Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises News LifeSite
Here was that Judge (who should be recalled IMMEDIATELY) exact words
some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.
You need to read it again. They are not being forced to marry anyone.
The church owned a public pavilion. The Church rents the public pavilion to the public. The gay couple wanted to rent the pavilion for their ceremony. No church members were required to be present at said ceremony or preside over said ceremony or bless the damn ceremony. We have laws in the USA that prohibit businesses from this sort of discrimination. If a person walks in to your public establishment you can't refuse him service because of the color of his skin, gender, sexual preference etc. That's what happened here and the Church was wrong to refuse access to the public pavilion that the church rented public-ally to the public.
That is a distinction without difference. The pavilion belongs to a church. That makes it CHURCH property.
You're not listening.
That was property that the church was making money on by selling access to the public. Again, it does not matter if you are a church or a biker gang, if you are selling to the public you can't discriminate who you sell to. Do you understand the civil rights act, and other civil rights acts the states put in that augment the federal one?
Of course I understand them, they are unconstitutional.
You'd be wrong
Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises News LifeSite
Here was that Judge (who should be recalled IMMEDIATELY) exact words
some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.
You need to read it again. They are not being forced to marry anyone.
The church owned a public pavilion. The Church rents the public pavilion to the public. The gay couple wanted to rent the pavilion for their ceremony. No church members were required to be present at said ceremony or preside over said ceremony or bless the damn ceremony. We have laws in the USA that prohibit businesses from this sort of discrimination. If a person walks in to your public establishment you can't refuse him service because of the color of his skin, gender, sexual preference etc. That's what happened here and the Church was wrong to refuse access to the public pavilion that the church rented public-ally to the public.
That is a distinction without difference. The pavilion belongs to a church. That makes it CHURCH property.
You're not listening.
That was property that the church was making money on by selling access to the public. Again, it does not matter if you are a church or a biker gang, if you are selling to the public you can't discriminate who you sell to. Do you understand the civil rights act, and other civil rights acts the states put in that augment the federal one?
Of course I understand them, they are unconstitutional.
Not according to the SCOTUS. You can go private and discriminate all you want. Thus a church need only to limit sales to members and then they can discriminate to their ugly hearts content.
That is a distinction without difference. The pavilion belongs to a church. That makes it CHURCH property.
Read the ruling, the OGCMA is not a Church.
Neither is Hobby Lobby
And in fact, we've changed our entire restaurant to a private club. Not because we discriminate, but just to protest the idea of "public accommodating"
