Your thinking of the Ocean Grove Pavilion, but you got a couple of things wrong.
1. The pavilion was owned not by the Methodist Church, but the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. The OGCMA is not a church it is a civic nonprofit organization incorporated not under the Church provisions of the tax code, but under the non-religious, non-profit portion.
2. Since the Church didn't own the pavilion, the Church didn't loose it's tax exemption. Hell the OGCMA didn't loose it's tax exemption.
The OGCMA had applied for and received a special program in NJ called the Green Acres program. Under this program individuals and organizations which would have normally paid property tax (and since the pavilion was owned by the OGCMA and not the Church the property was subject to property tax) would be exempt from the property tax under the agreed upon conditions of the exemptions. One of which was that the property would be open and accessible to the public. The OGCMA even had to periodically renew the agreement to stay eligible.
The result of the case was that the OGCMA was found in violation of their agreement and the property tax exemption status of the pavilion only was revoked (but not the accompanying boardwalk area).
You should be very careful when discussing this case. Some use it to try to show that a Church was sued for not holding a gay wedding and lost their tax exempt status. That IS NOT the case.
that seems just like the story i was referring to and of course it almost has to be because what are the oods of the stories that i was reading and that were being discussed here different.
but i swore there was an articles talking about a pavilion and the church lost its tax status but just on the property. Ill have to see if i can find it now to make sure its the same.
do you have any articles on it?
also i thought this was years ago, equal rights for gays was only just recent in NJ or was the wedding a non legally sanction wedding or did NJ have laws about sexual orientation before it had gay rights?
anyway THANK YOU for providing that!
like i said it has to be the case just not sure
and yes any idiot using that as an example of a "church" being sued is severely wrong
NJ didn't have Same-sex Civil Marriage at the time, the couple was performing a non-civil wedding - also referred to as a commitment ceremony.
I dont think any business should be forced to do business with anyone they dont want to. That said, I am fine with these types of bills.
Op Ed: Tea with Neo-Nazis
The most worrisome and largely overseen factor of the ongoing Ukrainian tragedy, to me, is the mighty Neo-Nazi presence among the opposition hard-core militants from ultra-right nationalistic parties and movements. The threat posed by those forces should be not under-estimated, especially in the context of rapidly rising ultra-national forces all over Europe, the current. new ugly ‘fashion’.The Return of the Ukrainian Far Right
By recruiting Tiahnybok, who had run as an independent candidate, into the Nasha Ukraina faction of the VerkhovnaRada, Yushchenko provided Svoboda a certain legitimacy. A few month slater, Tiahnybok gave an inﬂammatory speech in which he celebrated the OUN-UPA for having “fought against the Muscovite [moskali], Germans, Jews [zhydy] and other scum, who wanted to take away our Ukrainian state!” and asserted that Ukraine was ruled by a “Muscovite-Jewish [moskal’s’ko-zhydivs’ka] maﬁa.”Yeah, those "totalitarian liberals" must surely be the source of the problem in the Ukraine, we all know that it was the Jews who originated that liberal **** anyway - amirite?Telling the Truth About Ukraine’s Rising Anti-Semitic ‘Svoboda’ Party: An Eye-Opening Experience – With Portents for Ukraine’s Future
Maria Zubareva, president of a group called All-Ukrainian Association “Journalists Solidarity.” She attributes the high level of anti-Semitic attacks in Ukraine to the virulent campaign that landed Svoboda with almost 10% of the votes at last year’s parliamentary election. Svoboda legitimized racial and national intolerance, which led to increasing violence on the ground, she argued and concluded, “Svoboda [is] a real threat to the Jewish community of Ukraine.”
Matthew Lina of the conservative-leaning Center for the Study of the Former Soviet Socialist Republics aptly called Svoboda “fascists (‘racist xenophobic national socialists’…)”
“And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822