A Stitch in Haste

"The OGCMA welcomes everyone to enjoy this beautiful, seaside community without discrimination based on race, gender, income level, education, religion, or country of origin."
--Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association website

I would love nothing more than to demonstrate the consistency of my libertarian ideals by insisting that, yes indeed, a Methodist church body in New Jersey is entitled to deny a lesbian couple the use of its private beachfront pavilion for a civil union ceremony. I would even refrain from asking why a Christian church would want to own a beachfront pavilion in the first place -- "camel-eye-needle" and all that.

Unfortunately, it's a little more complicated.

--First off, the pre-emptive lawsuit by the theocrat-bigots at the Alliance Defense Fund is ridiculously premature. You don't sue the government for investigating a complaint of illegality. You sue them for an improper finding of illegality. This is simply a pathetic fundraising gimmick on their part.

--More importantly, a beachfront pavilion is not a church, so it's not at all clear why such a pavilion, even one owned by a church, should enjoy whatever exemptions bona fide churches enjoy regarding anti-discrimination laws and such.

--Most importantly:

[Harriet Bernstein, one of the women who wanted to use the pavilion] said it also had been used for concerts and impromptu gatherings.
...
The association says it uses the pavilion for a variety of programs such as a Sunday morning worship service and a Bible school class, and has rented the pavilion for wedding ceremonies.

Here's the problem -- if the pavilion is being rented out, then its owner -- church or not -- is a business. Businesses are generally required to pay taxes. Churches generally are tax-exempt; pavilions generally are not. Clerics generally are tax-exempt; entrepreneurs generally are not.

So the question becomes: Is the pavilion's owner, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association (does that sound like a church to you?) enjoying an inappropriate tax break by renting the facility and not paying business tax on the income? If so, then one could argue that requiring them to offer their services -- their business -- in a non-discriminatory manner is a small price to pay in exchange for not having to pay taxes on the income they generate. Stated differently: the pavilion should enjoy (at most) one religiously-derived perk: either the ability to be bigots or the ability to rake in tax-free revenue.

But two bites at the "churches are exempt" apple is definitely too many.