Editorial
© 2007 Philadelphia Gay News

Oceanside bigotry

This week, a New Jersey church filed a lawsuit against the state after the state’s Division on Civil Rights began investigating a discrimination complaint against the church.

Earlier this year, the Methodist Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association denied a lesbian couple’s request to use a church pavilion for their civil-union ceremony. Subsequently, the couple filed a discrimination complaint with the state.

Going on the offensive, the church responded with a lawsuit challenging New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination and alleging that by merely opening an investigation into the complaint, the state is threatening to prosecute the group to force it to allow civil-union ceremonies to take place on its property.

There are several issues here. First is the church’s denial of the couple’s request to use the pavilion.

If the land the association owns is, in fact, private property (and they pay value-based real-estate taxes), then, as close-minded and despicable as their actions are, it is still legal for the church to not rent the pavilion to same-sex couples for civil-union ceremonies.

However, if the state deems the pavilion a public accommodation, the discrimination would be illegal.

The second issue at hand is the question of freedom of religion. While the church embraces a nondiscrimination policy with regard to race, gender, income level, education, religion and country of origin, sexual orientation is not included.

While the association claims that it does not discriminate based on religion, it clearly did so in this case. The couple obviously does not subscribe to the Methodist tenets of the association: The association unequivocally discriminated against them based on this.

One might also argue that the church discriminated against the women based on gender. (At least one of the women, anyway.)

The final issue is the church’s lawsuit based on the opening of an investigation. In the suit, the church is arguing that the pending investigation has a chilling effect. Since the lesbian couple’s original request, the church has changed its policy regarding the pavilion, ceasing all previously permitted wedding ceremonies at the site.

Here, state agencies must be free to investigate claims of bias. (Note that charges have not been brought against the church, nor has it been found in violation of any statute.) True, it is possible for government to be overzealous in enforcing the law, but that is not the norm.

Since the filing of the suit, it is even more appropriate for the state to conduct an investigation. This is a gray area of the law and needs to be resolved soon: Two other couples requested to use the pavilion for civil-union ceremonies and were also refused.