[quote name='dohdough']No shit, Sherlock. The point that you so typically ignored is that laws in NJ don't universally apply to other states. If LGBT's were a federally protected class, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.[/quote]
The obvious end game - as it should be - is to make them a protected class, no?
Most places would be smart enough to give excuses that fly under the radar for these things. There's more than one way to skin this cat.
So... you're encouraging places to use underhanded, secret discrimination?
[quote name='JJSP']"The pavilion was used for community and charitable events and the owners of the property, Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, received a tax exemption from the state Green Acres program, which provides exemptions to non-profit organizations who use their property for recreational or conservation purposes. An important condition of the exemption is that the property be “open for public use on an equal basis.”"
[...]
My understanding (and I'm no lawyer, but I think only Javery is here) is that because the church applied for a real-estate tax exemption describing the property as public, they screwed themselves over and fell into the gray area I spoke of. New Jersey has a Law Against Discrimination (the LAD) and it specifically includes boardwalks and beachfront as public property. Had the couple wanted to hold the wedding within the actual chapel of the church, my understanding is that the church could legally and easily refuse them service.[/QUOTE]
Interesting.
However, as virtually all churches also fall under protection from paying taxes (something I'd LOVE to see revoked), I can't help but wonder if that could be used against them in a similar fashion.
The Federal Tax Code requires that, for a religious organization to be exempt from taxes, they must:
That the practices and rituals associated with the organization's religious belief or creed are not illegal or contrary to clearly defined public policy.
In a world where same-sex marriage is legal (which it should be) and homosexuals are "protected" (which, as much as any other group, they should be), would such a religious belief that "You can't celebrate here because you're gay" not be discriminatory, thus illegal?
Let's look at this a different way - is there any existing precedence for, say, a mixed-race couple attempting to get married in a church, being denied, then bringing the case to court?
Would anyone here be okay with a law being written in such a way that proclaims that two individuals can enter into a marriage contract, regardless of their gender, but specifically exempts private businesses and/or churches from being forced to do business with them w/r/t their celebration of such a contract?
did you come to that conclusion?
Regardless, even it was scientifically linked, do you think it would really matter? People who believe that one verse in the Bible will just brush that aside and still say it's a sin, so I don't really think it matters regardless if it's proven or not.
It can't just be that I don't give a rats' ass about the 'issues' that people feel EVERYONE should give a crap about?
