July 9th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
This doesn’t deserve a religion tag.
CNS News reports:
A lesbian couple in New Jersey has filed a complaint against a Methodist-owned campground, claiming illegal discrimination because their request for a civil union ceremony on the property was denied.(skipping)
In their complaint, the couple requested “whatever relief is provided by law” including “compensatory damages for economic loss, humiliation, [and] mental pain.” They also demanded that the pavilion be made available for their ceremony.
Come on. If you can’t decide what kinds of ceremonies occur on your own property (that don’t involve murder or rape), how big of a lie is your freedom?
If I were for “civil unions,” I would be seething at these people who undermine the cause, because this shows that the “civil unions” argument is not about equal rights but superior and special rights. The state court should throw these would-be trespassers on their keesters, but since they’re in New Jersey, is deliberation now necessary?
(0 votes, average: 0 out of 5)You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading ...
July 10th, 2007 at 10:29 am
I, being a lifelong Methodist, am pleased, surprised, and impressed that a Methodist campground took this stand! Way to go. It is about time those of us that take the Word at its full value stood up for the right way! See, Dan, there are some good Methodists out there!!! HA HA
July 10th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
“If you can’t decide what kinds of ceremonies occur on your own property (that don’t involve murder or rape), how big of a lie is your freedom?”
I agree with this as a reaction, given the way the article was written. Visiting the camp website, though, I think the couple has a stronger case.
From the camp website, it was clear that there were three areas set aside for weddings, “for usage consistent with our commitment to the United Methodist Church Book of Discipline.” I would be very upset if anyone won a case against the camp regarding that. But other facilities seemed to be much more open to wider use. The pavilion was not one of those facilities set apart for sacred use, but was listed as a “meeting facility” in a “space for youth and adult non-profit groups.” That doesn’t sound like a site set apart solely for sacred purposes to me.
If this couple was trying to force their way into using a church sanctuary that would be one thing. Or even if they were trying to use the pavilion, and the camp had stated in advance that the it had to be used according to the Methodist Book of Order, I would respect that. I would even respect the camp saying that EVERYTHING in the camp had to be done according to the Methodist Book of Order. Even a “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” might be okay. It would at least tell people in advance that acceptance was not automatic. I think the camp’s public communication, as it was done, did leave the door open to misunderstanding.
This was not a couple trying to force a church to let it use its sanctuary. It was a couple trying to use a space set aside for adult non-profit groups, among other things. Are most non-profit groups in line with Methodist philosophy? Perhaps the camp should still have the last word. But I think they should clean up their public communication and communicate their policies more clearly.