This stuff really bothers me

[FordSVTFan]

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.

Besides your horrific spelling and grammar, you dont understand the workings of the U.S. Constitution. The government is NOT establishing a religion or telling the Camp committee that their religion is wrong. They are saying if apply for green acres funds and tax exemptions based on being open to the public, then you can't exclude under the 14th amendment. Marriage is purely left to the states and is not a federal issue. These people arent asking the church to marry them or even recognize such, they are asking to use the same pavillion that their tax dollars have gone to support. More to the point, the Camp Committee submitted a non-discrimination affidavit with their application for those same funds and are therefore in violation of the same.

 

[Traveler]

So...is the pavilon public property or is it church property?? Establishing that would seem to help in determining who is right and wrong and if this is leased property, what does the lease agreement say?

 

[FordSVTFan]

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.

The land is public access land, they are receiving state funds and they are taking on the normal functions of a local government (in a Logan analysis) they are not longer private and MUST come in line with the 14th Amendment and thus can NOT discriminate.

That is why they are losing their status and the green acres funding. If they want to remain private and not subject to anti-discrimination laws and the equal protection offered by the U.S. constitution, they can not take public funds or ask for public support.

 

[FordSVTFan]

I remember the story about Sodom and Gamore so whats your point.

You must be referencing Sodom and Gomorrah. :shrug:

 

[tistan]

I am asking why they were not already tax exempt as a non profit organization? Why did they have to apply for the green acres funds in the first place?

 

[tistan]

You must be referencing Sodom and Gomorrah. :shrug:

Yeah, its been a while since christian school.

 

[Traveler]

wrong topic.

 

[FordSVTFan]

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.

The Methodist Camp Committee is NOT a church. They are a religious based organization. They are a town within a town. They exist within the town of Neptune, New Jersey. It was originally a retreat for methodists during the summer. They set up tents and lived in tents and had methodist values. All the land is operated under a land grant. So each individual home is owned by the person, but the land under the home is leased for 99 years upon every resale of the property.

Under the law if you act like a municipality and hold yourself out as such, you are subject to the Constitution and no longer private in nature. This is the Logan analysis. Thus you may not discriminate. The town has benefitted and had a transformation because of the gay residents and business owners. The Camp meeting members are in the minority and are acting in a discriminatory manner which is not allowable because of the Logan analysis and because they accept state and federal funding, plus services like EMS and Police.

 

[RDJ]

The land is public access land, they are receiving state funds and they are taking on the normal functions of a local government (in a Logan analysis) they are not longer private and MUST come in line with the 14th Amendment and thus can NOT discriminate.

That is why they are losing their status and the green acres funding. If they want to remain private and not subject to anti-discrimination laws and the equal protection offered by the U.S. constitution, they can not take public funds or ask for public support.

Thanks, it is more clear now and I agree ... they should lose the green acres funding ... I am still not convinced that they should lose their entire tax exempt status however.

 

[FordSVTFan]

I am asking why they were not already tax exempt as a non profit organization? Why did they have to apply for the green acres funds in the first place?

Because they want free money to improve their assets.

 

[tistan]

Well then I take back what I said. I looked up and read several of the news stories and they portrayed it as a church.

 

[FordSVTFan]

Thanks, it is more clear now and I agree ... they should lose the green acres funding ... I am still not convinced that they should lose their entire tax exempt status however.

The tax exempt status goes directly to their acting as a municipality and falling under the Logan/Marsh analysis. They are holding themselves out in a manner resembling a local government and when they applied for their exempt status they had to submit affidavits of non-discrimination. They are discriminating. They are free to not agree with and to preach against homosexuals, they are not free to discriminate against them in regards to fundamental rights.

 

[Since 1964]

So I learned 2 things. I understand the Logan /Marsh analysis now, and I see Citzen Link conveniently ignoring the rules in that area. I will write them and offer a link to this thread. I hope to see their response to your comments, and of course I will post them.

What REALLY get's my goat though is how our elected officials have allowed a "BEHAVIOR" to be proteceted as a civil right.

You know, when it comes to minorities, you ARE Korean, or Arabic, or Asian etc., all day, every day, but you can not "BE" a homosexual, the word is a verb, and NOT a noun, and therefore has no business being used as such, but it goes along with all the other words abused by the Gay Lobbyists to promote their desire for recognition and authentication, and I am so sick of it I just can't stay silent.

"I" think sexuality should be a private matter, especially when some of it fly's in the face of making 95% of most people sick to think about. People who practice homosexuality should STFU and mind their own damn buisness instead of trying to convince the rest of us that it's a reasonable alternative which is why they need protection.

There may be a challenge as to just "what" word defines what "behaving" in a homosexual manner means, but I know one of them is not the word "RIGHT". There is NOTHING "right" about it, and I do not respect the fact that I am being forced by law to tolerate it, or respect it, much less be denied the right to protect myself from associating with those who enjoy it by having to consider them for employment etc.