The State of New Jersey pays for the maintenance and repairs of the Boardwalk Pavillion, which is the specific structure in question, and the Camp Meeting Association agreed to open the property to public use when it was granted a $500,000 property tax exemption for it. If they don’t want to allow same-sex marriage or civil union ceremonies on the property then they’ll have to start paying their taxes, using their own money to pay for its upkeep, and close the property to the general public. Otherwise, they’ll have to abide by the same laws as everyone else who offers a public service and takes money from the State.Two lesbian women have won a court case in New Jersey … after a popular oceanside resort refused to allow them to perform a so-called same-sex marriage ceremony on their property.
Administrative Law Judge Solomon Metzger wrote in Thursday’s ruling that the pavilion was a public space that advertised itself as a wedding venue without any mention of religious preconditions.
app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012301120088He rejected the church’s contention that the pavilion was an extension of its wedding ministry, noting that weddings had been performed at the pavilion for at least 10 years before the dispute arose and that there was no proof that couples, “particularly those that chose secular vows, or that were of other faiths, were ever told that they were participating in a ministry.”
Well said!Did anyone expect the kangaroo court of the state civil rights division to come up with anything but discrimination? And it looks like it’s been about 4 years. They practice bullying people into submission by agony of court proceedings. After the appeal to the civil rights board, it can finally go to a real court and real law be applied. Of course, that’ll probably take years too. People who are willing to fight these oppressive cases should be regarded as heroes by the rest of us. By their suffering through the courts, we win our rights to freedom.
You’re saying that this church must not associate with the public if they don’t embrace the homosexual agenda. Religious freedom is part of the constitution.If they don’t want to allow same-sex marriage or civil union ceremonies on the property then they’ll have to … and close the property to the general public. .
The New Jersey shoreline is not a Church or a religious structure and the property has been acknowledged by the courts as a public highway for over 100 years. This organization cannot take public funds and tax exemptions and use them to violate State law. If they wish to place private restrictions on the use of the property then they have to pay for its upkeep and taxes without State funds.You’re saying that this church must not associate with the public if they don’t embrace the homosexual agenda.
The judge and his court are not in the Division of Civil Rights, which is part of Department of the Attorney General. The judge, and his court, belong to the Department of Administrative Law which is independent of the Attorney General’s office.Did anyone expect the kangaroo court of the state civil rights division to come up with anything but discrimination?
The judge and his court are not in the Division of Civil Rights, which is part of Department of the Attorney General. The judge, and his court, belong to the Department of Administrative Law which is independent of the Attorney General’s office.
wrote Solomon Metzger, an administrative law judge whose determination will become final if not overturned by the Division of Civil Rights.
They filed the discrimination complaint, and the state’s Division on Civil Rights joined their cause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_law_judgeUnlike federal ALJs, whose powers are guaranteed by federal statute, state ALJs have widely varying power and prestige. In some state law contexts,** ALJs have almost no power;** their decisions are accorded practically no deference and become, in effect, recommendations. In some cities, notably New York, ALJs are at-will employees of the agency, making their decisional independence potentially questionable.[4]
I’ve never heard of a building being a public highway before. Seems rather hard to drive on.The New Jersey shoreline is not a Church or a religious structure and the property has been acknowledged by the courts as a public highway for over 100 years.
It’s not a building; its boardwalk over a stretch of New Jersey shoreline.I’ve never heard of a building being a public highway before. Seems rather hard to drive on.
A photograph of the pavilion may help this discussion:It’s not a building; its boardwalk over a stretch of New Jersey shoreline.
I’m not sure what point you are making with your last Wikipedia quote since doesn’t make any claims regarding New Jersey.
How do you know he’s completely separate. The last quote shows that in the state courts, there is lots of room for intimidation of the judge.I’m not sure what point you are making with your last Wikipedia quote since doesn’t make any claims regarding New Jersey.
As for the first set of quotes, I am not sure of your point either. That the Office of Civil Rights joined in the prosecution shouldn’t be surprising, given the history of the case. That doesn’t change the matter of the Office of Administrative Law, to which Judge Metzger belongs, being completely separate from the Office of Civil Rights
according to a New Jersey judge who recommended today that the state Division on Civil Rights find the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association violated the state’s nondiscrimination law.
I went to the New Jersey state government’s website.How do you know he’s completely separate. The last quote shows that in the state courts, there is lots of room for intimidation of the judge.
state.nj.us/oal/general.htmlThe State of New Jersey, a leader in this development, established and empowered the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law (OAL) in 1979 to act as an independent arbiter of certain disputes arising from agency actions, as well as an independent arbiter of agency compliance with rulemaking procedures, P.L. 1978, c. 67. The OAL is an executive branch agency located technically in, but not of, the Department of Treasury. It is independent of supervision or control by the Department of Treasury. The Director, who is also the Chief Administrative Law Judge, presides over the office and reports directly to the Governor.
The case had been within the jurisdiction of the Office of Civil Rights, but the Office of Administrative Law acts as an independent appeals court. Now that the OAL has made its ruling the case will be kicked back to the OCR.The lawsuit appears to be within the state civil rights organization because the judge is recommending to the state Division on Civil Rights. The appeal is going to their board. This lawsuit has so far been within the jurisdiction of the civil rights board.
The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association is closely associated with the United Methodist Church, however it is an independent organization and its property is not owned by the UMC.So it’s owned by the Methodist Church or they wouldn’t have any say as to whats going on. Not would they be taking any money to keep the structure in repair anymore than any other organization. As far as paying taxes, church property is not normally taxed in any state.
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. Respondent accepted a particular form of tax exemption that required it to keep the Pavilion open to the public on an equal basis, N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.64; N.J.A.C. 7:35-1.4. Neptune Township was skeptical that this could be achieved, but respondent persuaded the DEP and renewed that promise every three years. Thus, it not only interacted with government, it acknowledged the very thing that the interaction test seeks to assess.
thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/New-Jersey-Pavilion-Court-Decision.pdfPetitioners have not sought to establish damages and appear fundamentally to be seeking the finding that they were wronged and that respondent was not free to exclude same-sex unions under the conditions that then existed. It does not appear that respondent acted with ill motive. Respondent opposes same-sex unions as a matter of religious belief, and in 2007 found itself on the wrong side of recent changes in the law. I have considered the possibility of a nominal penalty, but conclude that this would serve little. The finding of wrongdoing should be an adequate redress.
Just because they had their non-profit standing one way does not exclude being a religious group also.So this case isn’t about determining whether the pavilion should be allowed, in the future, for same-sex marriages. It simply about whether the OGCMA was wrong to deny a same-sex marriage under the conditions which existed a few years ago.
Since no damages are being sought, this whole thing seems pointless.
So how does the judge get picked for each case? does he specialize in civil rights cases? Does the civil rights group pick him? Wouldn’t that influence a judge? And note the judge gave a recommendation, which the civil rights gov org can ignore. A judge with authority will not take the case until it is finally away from the states civil rights group.