A New Jersey judge ruled Thursday that a church group violated the state's discrimination laws when it prevented a lesbian couple from holding a civil union ceremony on its property in 2007.The Hawaii act contains language shielding from liability "any person authorized to perform solemnizations of marriages or civil unions...who fails or refuses for any reason to join persons in a civil union." The Hawaii plaintiffs are concerned that this language doesn't protect churches who refuse to allow their facilities to be used for same sex ceremonies.
The dispute began when the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association stopped the couple from using its boardwalk pavilion, an area it rented out for weddings.
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.
...
The church had argued that its freedom of religious expression would be violated if it was forced to allow same-sex ceremonies to be performed on its property.
I imagine we could see some interesting Article 1, Section 5 equal protection cases brought against the immunity language of the civil unions law, and some interesting Article 1, Section 4 arguments brought to bear by churches opposed to same-sex unions.
2 comments:
Just catching up on all your recent posts--nice work, btw.
Interesting that the new Hawaii law protects the practioners but not their property. At first I was thinking that's fair, the property is tax free so the gov't can set the conditions. But could some Aryans then get married in a synagogue? I think the answer is that church properties contain sacred areas devoted to rites, and some contain commercial areas where the church make more tax free money--for example renting out a wedding pavilion that is scenic but not sacred. And the solution is that churches are free to discriminate in their habitual sacred areas and discrimination free in their habitual commercial areas. See, this lawyering thing is easy:-)
btw, nice topic for a Sunday post.
Thanks, Watchdog. I always appreciate your comments. (Even when you're criticizing. Don't let up on the intelligent criticisms).
As to the issue of the post: Similar to your rule, I could see a rule under which areas a church rents to the public are deemed public accommodations, and subject to the relevant inclusive laws, while those not rented to the public - or rented only to adherents - retain their protections under the religion clause.
Post a Comment