CNS News (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200707/NAT20070709a.html)
By Matt Purple
CNSNews.com Correspondent
July 09, 2007
Garden State Equality, a political action organization that represents "the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community," asked supporters to write to the OGCMA, saying the civil unions ban was an affront to the Ocean Grove community.
"It's hard to believe this is happening in our progressive state of New Jersey," GSE says on its website.
___________
Actually it is not that hard to believe for anyone who has lived there for at least a year. The state may have enacted some legislation but that does not mean it is a very open and accepting place to live or work. Better than some, no doubt, but still people are people no matter where you go.
Aww fooey on it, no comment.
Sarah L.
It's a legal principal in this country that the only organizations that are allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation are religions. They argue that separation of church and state means that in order to have religious freedom they have to be allowed to hate whoever they wish.
Posted on: July 09, 2007, 09:04:47 AM
A perfect example from Australia:
Catholic school opens gates to Hell boy (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070709/ap_on_fe_st/odd_australia_hell_of_a_name;_ylt=Anvm9hHmKf.sdJ0anZ_HFp1I2ocA)
They should be allowed to hate whoever they wish. You do not have a right to other people's property, no matter what ridiculous prejudices they may have.
Actually they shouldn't be allowed to hate at all. Christians are supposed to Love God, Love Man, it doesn't say love some more than others.
As for the property thing that's a different issue. If they allow other groups, religions, and heterosexual couples who are not religiously affiliated to use the facility, then they should be required to allow the lesbian couple to use the facilities as well. If they limit the use to members of their own denomination then they should not be required to. The question is: Is their discrimination solely on the basis of the sexual preferences of the Lesbian couple? If so then they should lose.
Quote from: Susan on July 11, 2007, 07:47:18 AM
Actually they shouldn't be allowed to hate at all. Christians are supposed to Love God, Love Man, it doesn't say love some more than others.
As for the property thing that's a different issue. If they allow other groups, religions, and heterosexual couples who are not religiously affiliated to use the facility, then they should be required to allow the lesbian couple to use the facilities as well. If they limit the use to members of their own denomination then they should not be required to. The question is: Is their discrimination solely on the basis of the sexual preferences of the Lesbian couple? If so then they should lose.
They should have the right to allow or disallow anybody they want, for any reason at all, even if it's fantastically silly. It's
their property.
Another perspective: Have you ever heard of the site MANHUNT? It is basically a singles site for gay men. They don't make any accomodations at all for straight men or for women. Should this site be forced by the government to change their discriminatory policy?
By the way I found your reputation alteration pretty insulting. "Hate is never right" implies that I believe the opposite. The fact that I don't think the government should be able to force people into doing things they don't want to doesn't mean I think that hate is "right."
Quote from: lilith on July 11, 2007, 06:00:23 PMThey should have the right to allow or disallow anybody they want, for any reason at all, even if it's fantastically silly. It's their property.
Not once they make their property into a public accommodation. Your argument is that a property owners rights trumps the right of the indivdual to equal rights. Which basically means that segregation is perfectly fine so we can bring back whites only, men's only hospitals, schools, restaurants, whatever. That's BS...
Discrimination is discrimination and should never be tolerated.
Quote from: lilith on July 11, 2007, 06:00:23 PMAnother perspective: Have you ever heard of the site MANHUNT? It is basically a singles site for gay men. They don't make any accomodations at all for straight men or for women. Should this site be forced by the government to change their discriminatory policy?
The issue would be is that site a public accommodation, and does that site receive benefits from the government. In the case of the manhunt site, I seriously doubt it. That's not the case with a church which is granted a tax-free status and other breaks not generally afforded to private citizens.
According to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, entities that "offer goods, services, and facilities to the general public" are prohibited from "directly or indirectly denying or withholding any accommodation, service, benefit, or privilege to an individual" on the basis of sexual orientation.
From reading the article the church provides this pavilion to other groups and individuals so they can not discriminate against this couple solely based on their sexual orientation.
Quote from: lilith on July 11, 2007, 06:00:23 PMBy the way I found your reputation alteration pretty insulting. "Hate is never right" implies that I believe the opposite.
Then why did you argue that point?
Quote from: lilith on July 11, 2007, 01:44:33 AMThey should be allowed to hate whoever they wish. You do not have a right to other people's property, no matter what ridiculous prejudices they may have.
The original smite was valid, the second smite was for violation of rule 2.
Quote from: Susan on July 11, 2007, 07:07:04 PMNot once they make their property into a public accommodation. Your argument is that a property owners rights trumps the right of the indivdual to equal rights, that segregation is perfectly fine so we can bring back whites only, men's only hospitals, schools, restaurants, whatever. That's BS...
Discrimination is discrimination and should never be tolerated.
That isn't my argument at all and again I'm totally offended by the suggestion that it is.
"Equal rights" is a concept that applies only to the government. The government should not be allowed to discriminate in any way, good or bad, based on anything other than individual merits.
Private organizations, on the other hand, should be allowed to do anything with their property that they want, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others to do the same (murder, theft, fraud, etc.).
That doesn't mean that it's
right or that it's
perfectly fine or that it should be
tolerated at all. It means the government should stay out of it (unless, again, they infringe on the rights of others) and let the citizens decide for themselves whether or not they would like to patronize these establishments.
Quote from: Susan on July 11, 2007, 07:07:04 PMThe issue would be is that site a public accommodation, and does that site receive benefits from the government. In the case of the manhunt site, I seriously doubt it. That's not the case with a church which is granted a tax-free status and other breaks not generally afforded to private citizens.
There's no such thing as a "public accommodation" unless it's owned by the government. The fact that this oganization lets other people use their campground does not make it "public."
As far as receiving benefits from the government, the article doesn't say that this organization does. It says it's run by members of the church, not by the church itself. If the campground receives tax money then I will concede the point, but it doesn't look from the article like it does. And tax breaks are a separate issue altogether -- there are many organizations that are tax-free but still discriminate. Women's shelters, for example.
Quote from: Susan on July 11, 2007, 07:07:04 PMThen why did you argue that point?
I didn't argue that point. Saying that a person should be allowed to do something (whether that's wearing fur, listening to reggae, or hating gays) doesn't mean that I agree with it. This is a simple distinction, don't insult both of our intelligence by acting like you can't grasp it.
Quote from: Susan on July 11, 2007, 07:07:04 PMThe original smite was valid, the second smite was for violation of rule 2.
I was under the impression that anyone on the site could vote a person's reputation up or down, not just staff. Accordingly I believed your actions to be the result of your feelings as a general member of the forum, not site policy. I guess upon closer inspection that rule is worded in such a way that any disagreement with anything you do or say can be considered a violation. My mistake; didn't mean to give anyone the benefit of the doubt or anything.
A public accommodation is:
The following private entities are considered public accommodations for purposes of this subchapter, if the operations of such entities affect commerce—
- an inn, hotel, motel, or other place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a building that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as the residence of such proprietor;
- a restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink;
- a motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment;
- an auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other place of public gathering;
- a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment;
- a laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment;
- a terminal, depot, or other station used for specified public transportation;
- a museum, library, gallery, or other place of public display or collection;
- a park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation;
- a nursery, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private school, or other place of education;
- a day care center, senior citizen center, homeless shelter, food bank, adoption agency, or other social service center establishment; and
- a gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course
Under New Jersey law they are specifically prohibited from discrimination on the basis of Sexual Orientation.
Again if this church reserved the use of the pavillion to their members only they would be in the right, but since they rent it out to the general public they are in the wrong.
My smites were not done from a personal point of view, they were done as the site administrator. I don't tolerate anyone advocating hate on this web site which is how I read your first post.
Yes, you made that clear.
I have not been arguing from the perspective of New Jersey state law. I obviously disagree with New Jersey's law, and probably like 90% of all the other laws ever written. I'm arguing from my own beliefs which are based on a general (pseudo-)libertarian philosophy. Maybe it would have been more accurate to have said, "There should be no such thing..." but I felt my position was already apparent since I had said "should" like a half-dozen times previously.
Quote from: lilith on July 11, 2007, 07:41:03 PM
Quote from: Susan on July 11, 2007, 07:07:04 PMThe original smite was valid, the second smite was for violation of rule 2.
I was under the impression that anyone on the site could vote a person's reputation up or down, not just staff. Accordingly I believed your actions to be the result of your feelings as a general member of the forum, not site policy.
Yes, anyone can use the reputation system. However, the use of the reputation system is also a part of staff duties.
9 times out of 10, a smite by a staff member is for violating the TOS or spirit of this site.
Posted on: July 12, 2007, 04:23:55 PM
Quote from: lilith on July 11, 2007, 07:41:03 PM
Quote from: Susan on July 11, 2007, 07:07:04 PMNot once they make their property into a public accommodation. Your argument is that a property owners rights trumps the right of the indivdual to equal rights, that segregation is perfectly fine so we can bring back whites only, men's only hospitals, schools, restaurants, whatever. That's BS...
Discrimination is discrimination and should never be tolerated.
That isn't my argument at all and again I'm totally offended by the suggestion that it is.
"Equal rights" is a concept that applies only to the government. The government should not be allowed to discriminate in any way, good or bad, based on anything other than individual merits. Private organizations, on the other hand, should be allowed to do anything with their property that they want, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others to do the same (murder, theft, fraud, etc.).
That doesn't mean that it's right or that it's perfectly fine or that it should be tolerated at all. It means the government should stay out of it (unless, again, they infringe on the rights of others) and let the citizens decide for themselves whether or not they would like to patronize these establishments.
Quote from: Susan on July 11, 2007, 07:07:04 PMThe issue would be is that site a public accommodation, and does that site receive benefits from the government. In the case of the manhunt site, I seriously doubt it. That's not the case with a church which is granted a tax-free status and other breaks not generally afforded to private citizens.
There's no such thing as a "public accommodation" unless it's owned by the government. The fact that this oganization lets other people use their campground does not make it "public."
As far as receiving benefits from the government, the article doesn't say that this organization does. It says it's run by members of the church, not by the church itself. If the campground receives tax money then I will concede the point, but it doesn't look from the article like it does. And tax breaks are a separate issue altogether -- there are many organizations that are tax-free but still discriminate. Women's shelters, for example.
The thing is - if the church denied use of the pavillion to another minority, blacks for example, the government would step in and it would be seen as discrimination. They would not have the legal right to prevent blacks from using their facility. We're only having this discussion because people still don't see gays and lesbians as entitled to the same rights and treatment as other people.
You are right Nero.
I just wrote several paragraphs and deleted them all.
At first I wanted to say the church had the right to decide who used their facilities; but, I am not sure I believe that now. It is discrimination. I know they consider us sinners, but isn't God supposed to forgive sin?
(The problem is I don't consider it a sin)
I am not sure how to respond to this issue.
Sarah L.
p.s. I don't guarentee I won't come back in five minutes and erase this. I don't seem to be able to find the words to correctly express my thoughts.
As for the argument that permitting a lesbian couple to have a civil union ceremony on their property is in direct conflict with the beliefs of their religion/organization - the same would go for property owned by the KKK. I highly doubt that racists have the legal right to chase blacks from their public accomodations (not that any black would want to) because it goes against their beliefs.
There was a brouhaha a coupe years ago when ago in Key West in which a hetero couple were asked to leave a gay resort because of their conduct in the private spa areas --- clothing optional hot tubs, etc The couple claimed that their rights were violated. `The resort shot back with the fact that they were disturbing other guests, gawking etc.
I forget what the outcome was but mention it as it illustrates public accommodation works both ways.
No one has the right to discriminate anyone, it doesn't matter if it's a private business or not. If Wal Mart can legally denied services to LGBT people or denied them employments because they are LGBT , that would seriously marginalize many transsexual people at the expense of your "libertarian" belief.
If a group is highly unpopular, the business owners can continue to discrimiante this highly unpopular group without any negative effects, this is not right.
The only place where bigotry is allowed is in the church or any place of religious worship.