This stuff really bothers me
- Thread starter Since 1964
- Start date
:read: :bored:
03CobraDude
New Member
Christians are only supposed to marry partners of the opposite sex. Since Methodists are Protestants, and Protestants are Christians, I believe they have the right to deny a same-sex couple use of their property. I personally believe the state is in the wrong for taxing them. I'll probably be flamed for that, but I wont lose any sleep over it.
That is pretty stupid. Why should they be forced to allow ANYONE to get married there? It's *their* property!
Stupid government.
Stupid government.
Sounds like the State of NJ overstepping their boundaries and worthy of media attention. I also think NJ's tourism should be boycotted by maybe not just the Methodists, but by Christians in general or anyone else that sees this as an injustice. This is nothing but governmental arm-twisting!
Kinda reminds me of all the mess that the Boy Scouts of America have gone through. I find this appalling that NJ can punish an organization for denying access to their property. It's ridiculous.
Kinda reminds me of all the mess that the Boy Scouts of America have gone through. I find this appalling that NJ can punish an organization for denying access to their property. It's ridiculous.
Last edited:
The article is deceiving because it isnt their property. Ocean Grove, NJ falls within the town of Neptune. In Ocean Grove the Methodist Camp Committee owns the property. When you puirchase a house there, you buy the home and get a 99 year lease to the land for $1. The boardwalk and pavillion area is the same. The majority of the population in Ocean Grove is homosexuals. They are the ones that revived the town from the dispair it fell into being next to Asbury Park.
They receive tax benefits and more importantly Green Acres money because they claim to be preserving the land (boardwalk, pavillion and associated beach) for public access. That includes all members of society, not just who they like or agree with their sexual orientation.
The article as posted is fraught with inaccuracies.
My mother lives in Ocean Grove.
They receive tax benefits and more importantly Green Acres money because they claim to be preserving the land (boardwalk, pavillion and associated beach) for public access. That includes all members of society, not just who they like or agree with their sexual orientation.
The article as posted is fraught with inaccuracies.
My mother lives in Ocean Grove.
SVT4ME said:
That pretty much sums it up.
tistan said:
It is equal protection under the law, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
If you dont want to be subject to such, dont ask for Government support of your discriminatory practices.
FordSVTFan said:
FordSVTFan said:
Is there something you're not telling us?
oke:They are garunteed equal protection under the law. The first amendemnt states that the government shall not establish a religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof. I will have to argue the state should stay out of marriages because it is ordained by the church. We should not have laws reguarding marriage, therefore it would not fall under equal protection under the law. Free exercise of religion would also mean that the church should be allowed to marry who they want.
tistan said:
The ordination of a marriage by a religious entity is exclusive of the state's recognition of a legal union. I have been married for 15 years, and haven't been in a church for over 20 years.
FordSVTFan said:
While I agree with you to a certain point, in the case of religion it is not quite so cut and dry.
If the property is as you say (and I have no reason do doubt that it is).. and they signed a lease stating they were going to hold it for the good of the public I am 100% in agreement with you on this.
In a case where the Church owns the property without the restrictions the I would be of the opinion that it is none of the government's business in how they practice their religion and the government can't force them to allow something on their property that is against their religious convictions.
EDITED TO ADD: altho after a second reading of the article this line would give me pause in your analysis of the status of the land: which the Methodist group has owned since 1870, according to The Associated Press. If they truely own the land and have since 1870 then I would say the city council is out of line on this.
Last edited:
I remember something about love and forgiveness.
FordSVTFan said:
Since your in law school maybe you can answere something I don't understand. Why did the methodist camp have to use the land for public use to get tax exempt status? I thougth churches were tax exempt because the were non profit organiztions who do a lot of charity work.
Users who are viewing this thread
