A New Jersey judge
has ruled that a Christian retreat house that refused to allow a same-sex civil
union 
ceremony to be conducted on its premises broke the law, because the US Constitution allows “some intrusion
into religious freedom to balance other important societal
goals.”
On Thursday,
administrative judge Solomon A. Metzger ruled that religious liberty did not
exempt the seaside retreat, which is associated with the United Methodist
Church, from renting its facilities out for purposes that violate its moral
beliefs.
In March 2007, Ocean
Grove Camp Meeting Association declined Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster’s
request to rent its Boardwalk Pavilion for the ceremony.
The couple sued,
claiming they had been discriminated against on the basis of their sexual
orientation. In December 2008, the state Division on Civil Rights found the
Christian campground had likely violated the state Law Against Discrimination
(LAD) and joined the case. The case then went to the administrative law
judge.
The United Methodist
Church teaches, “The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian
teaching,” and that “ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be
conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our
churches.”
But Judge Metzger
said Church doctrine was irrelevant. “As to
‘free exercise’ [of religion], the LAD is a neutral law of general application
designed to uncover and eradicate discrimination; it is not focused on or
hostile to religion,” he wrote.
The free exercise
clause did not factor into his ruling, he stated, but “a much lower standard
that tolerates some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important
societal goals.”
Jim Campbell, who
represented the resort, said following the ruling: “He [the judge] said this isn’t a case of religious
liberty, which is simply not true”.
He told
LifeSiteNews.com. “What this case involves at its core is the rights of a
religious group to use its property in a way that is consistent with its
religious beliefs.”
Campbell said most
people will find Metzger’s belief that the state can force a religious facility
to violate its ethos “a very scary concept.
If that is a principle of the law, then essentially the government can cast
aside religion if it deems something more important.” Campbell called Metzger’s
ruling “an error of Constitutional law.”
Metzger agreed in his
ruling that Ocean Grove “is fundamentally a religious organisation, free to form
its mission without government oversight or intrusion” and that its owners had
not “acted with ill-motive.” The facility “opposes same-sex unions as a matter
of religious belief, and in 2007 found itself on the wrong side of recent
changes in the law.”
In December 2006, New
Jersey became the third state to legalise same-sex civil unions. Legislators
have since tried and failed to pass legislation recognising same-sex
marriage.
Mark D. Tooley,
president of the Institute for Religion and Democracy, told LifeSiteNews.com,
“It’s commendable that the Ocean Grove campground tried to remain faithful to
the doctrines and practices of its own denomination by refusing to host a
same-sex ritual at their pavilion.” The IRD describes its mission as “working to
reaffirm the church’s biblical and historical teachings.”
“It is sad and
potentially dangerous that New Jersey law is attempting to compel a religious
organisation to hold a same-sex ritual on their property,” he
said.
Campbell believes the
ruling was wrong on numerous grounds. Ocean Grove originally held a local
property tax exemption, which required “equal access.” While the resort is open
to all, he said nothing in the statute allows the public to make any use it
wishes of Ocean Grove’s property. The facility has since received tax exempt
status as a religious institution.
Metzger ruled that,
since the facility allowed non-Christians to use its facility for marriage, it
had no doctrinal limitations. But Methodists do not limit their sacramental
ministry to Christians and historically do not recognise marriage as a
sacrament.
The local ruling
seems to place non-discrimination above concerns of religious liberty, the reverse of a Supreme Court ruling that took place
last week.
In the Hosanna-Tabor
case, involving the right of religious
organizations to hire and fire ministers, Chief Justice John Roberts
ruled: “The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination
statutes is undoubtedly important. But so, too, is the interest of religious
groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith and carry
out their mission.” He concluded, “the First Amendment has struck the balance
for us.”
While Metzger sided
with the lesbian couple, he did not impose the financial penalties they sought,
saying that the finding of wrongdoing “should serve as an adequate
redress.”
The campground’s
owners have not yet determined whether they will take further
action.