By Mary Walton and Charles Layton
A New Jersey judge has ruled that the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association violated the state’s discrimination laws by denying an Ocean Grove couple the use of the boardwalk pavilion for a civil union.
The Camp Meeting had allowed many wedding ceremonies at the pavilion, but when Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster asked to use that space for a same-sex civil ceremony in 2007, their request was denied on grounds, they were told, that civil unions conflicted with scriptural teaching regarding homosexuality.
The dispute made national news, with the ACLU backing the two women and the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal organization, taking the side of the Camp Meeting.
The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights ruled in favor of Bernstein and Paster in 2008. The Division then sent the matter to the state Office of Administrative Law for review, as is normal in contested cases such as this.
And on Thursday, Administrative Law Judge Solomon Metzger issued his decision that the Camp Meeting had violated the state’s law against discrimination.
“We’re very happy with the decision,” Bernstein said on Friday. “It’s what we wanted. We would hope they [the Camp Meeting] would change their policy, but I think that’s not going to happen.”
Camp Meeting President Dale C. Whilden declined to comment, referring all inquiries to Camp Meeting attorneys.
Jim Campbell, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, told Fox News that, according to the judge’s ruling, the Camp Meeting “engaged in wrongdoing under the law simply for refusing to use the property in a way that would violate their religious beliefs.” Campbell said the ruling could have troublesome implications for other religious groups. “That’s the danger of this ruling,” he said. “It could be applied to other religious entities and it could be applied to other places of worship.”
Metzger’s opinion was based in large measure on the Green Acres property tax exemption first awarded to the Camp Meeting in 1989 for a stretch of the boardwalk including the pavilion. The exemption requires that the property be “open for public use on an equal basis.”
He also noted that the Camp Meeting had advertised the pavilion on a web page as a venue for “An Ocean Grove Wedding,” without mention of preconditions.
The Camp Meeting is free to set conditions for pavilion marriages, the judge said, as it has in deciding to no longer allow couples to wed there. “It was not, however, free to promise equal access, to rent wedding space to heterosexual couples irrespective of their tradition and then except these petitioners.”
The judge said the Camp Meeting did not appear to have acted out of any ill motive. He said that although he considered assessing a penalty, he concluded that “the finding of wrongdoing should be an adequate redress.”
(To read the entire decision, go here.)
Metzger’s decision will now be sent to the Director of the Division on Civil Rights, who has 45 days to adopt, modify or reject it as part of the Director’s final decision; otherwise, it becomes a final decision. Once a final decision is issued, either party may appeal to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court.
The Camp Meeting has not indicated whether it might appeal.
(Many Ocean Grovers may have been puzzled by an account of Thursday’s ruling that appeared on page A5 of Friday’s Asbury Park Press. That story had a great many basic facts wrong, including the names of the plaintiffs. The story confused Bernstein and Paster with another Ocean Grove lesbian couple, Emily Sonnessa and Jan Moore, who were also denied permission to use the pavilion. Sonnessa and Moore were not part of the civil rights case. On Friday, the newspaper removed the story from its website and, as of late Friday evening, had not replaced it with a corrected version.)
Six months after they were denied use of the pavilion, Bernstein and Paster held their ceremony on the Ocean Grove fishing pier, which was well attended by Ocean Grovers and by many others from outside the town. By then, the couple had achieved a kind of celebrity status, especially in the gay community.
Asked how it had felt to live in a public spotlight for the past four years, Bernstein said, “Initially it was anxiety producing … but it was very encouraging to see the community rally around us. That was a very good feeling.”
Today, Bernstein and Paster are co-chairs of Ocean Grove United, a rights organization that was formed as a response to the pavilion controversy.
@OGDweller: I too am young and don’t really “party” too much, either. And if I do..it’s on the other side on Cookman Ave.
Oh, and I’m gay and moving into a new(er) place in the Grove very soon and don’t really think my new neighbors will care about my “lifestyle”. Just that I’m taking care of the place, making it look good, and keeping my dog quiet.
P.S. Speaking of dogs, there should be more worry about the weirdos that I see walking around at night walking dogs than if the 2 guys next door are gay or not. I carry pepper spray, yep!
I recently moved to another home in OG, but my old block on Broadway was a wonderful example of the diversity in Ocean Grove. On one block there was a Presbyterian minister and his wife; a male gay couple; a Jewish family; a German-born couple; a Vietnam Veteran; a true life-long OG resident; an American and his British wife; a female gay couple; and American and his Scottish wife. It was a wonderful block to live on, everyone watched out for one another and all were welcoming. No one gave a hoot if you were gay, straight, or what religious belief you followed. They were much more interested in you being a good, responsible neighbor.
@Frank – regarding your commment above: “PS: It would be nice if you used your real name”
BLogfinger allows us to use Anonymous in order to contribute
“While I think that most of my neighbors in OG are great people who I enjoy living near, there are some folks who clearly don’t fit in (and I’m not talking about race or sexual orientation). I wish that these people had been filtered out from the start. This is what I think Oldtimer and others who think fondly of the past are trying to communicate.”
Anonymous,
You should be more specific. Your parenthesis leave much to be explained. I live in Ocean Grove. I am young but I don’t party all night long, or really at all (I’m not that cool). Do people not want me here because I am younger, assuming whatever they will? I feel there is a secret, or at least unspoken resentment or discomfort with renters and/or non homeowners and presumed outsiders in this town from the ‘ole time homeowners, even though I know a few of them myself. How do you “filter” people out? I will admit that I didn’t move here for the charm of Ocean Grove, but I still appreciate it for what it is. In fact, if I had a home here or rented a house, I’d go all out on my property. I have a decorating sense and I like to make things look nice and interesting, even if it leaves me almost broke. I have no power as far as that goes, though, so I can’t put my skills to use where I live. I would hate to live in a place that “filtered” people, though. I like the uniqueness here. The economic diversity is something that I can appreciate, but I guess if you are an oldtimer or petty bourgeois all you care about is enhancing your limited view. Fortunately, the world doesn’t revolve around those with greater means. Oops, wait….
I know people who used to vacation in Bradley or Belmar who tell how they would walk through Ocean Grove on the boards to get to Asbury Park. None ever said that they were made to feel unwelcome as they walked through the Grove.
It is true that there was real estate discrimination back when the CMA ran the town and wanted the Grove to be an enclave for Methodists. Such restrictions were common and legal in the late 19th century into the 20th. There were towns that were restricted in a variety of ways. For example, Mountain Lakes, NJ did not welcome Jews. Others refused blacks.
But today, all that is illegal, and in Ocean Grove 2012, it doesn’t happen either. The pavilion matter has been resolved by applying the law, not by dredging up the past and muddying the waters of debate with old news.
Today, if you are Jewish, Catholic or black, you can purchase a home in the Grove without any problem. So let’s keep our eye on the ball as we wrestle with the issues of today.
OG the way it use to be did not include Blacks, Jews or Catholics owning property here. You were not even welcome to visit. As a child, I visited Bradley and Asbury and our parents clearly and calmly explained” the rules ” to us. I remember asking my father, a lawyer, how religious people could do this. I still remember, after so many years that he said, “They forgot that there is only one God, any many paths to God.”
Hooray for the decision! It’s a welcome step forward!
Anonymous: Maybe I need to explain in more detail. When I purchased my home in 1980, Ocean Grove was a quiet little town overflowing with pride in its history; and parking was pretty good even with the busy B&B’s.
The people that purchased their homes back then couldn’t wait to restore their homes if needed because everyone was proud of what they owned, regarless of size or age, and they wanted their homes to be a part of the community. There were no gays leading the way or setting examples for others to follow. I don’t know of one home owner that doesn’t want their home to be the best it can be. I have no idea of your comment that the gays led the way when the town was down?
Ocean Grove has always supported their own, regardless of sexual orientation, and the home owners who move into town don’t need any example to fix up their homes; it just is a part of living in the Grove.
PS: It would be nice if you used your real name.
Two comments:
First, regarding the suggestion for CMA screening “tenants” [aka future homeowners]. Is this suggestion for real or is this a “tongue in cheek” joke? Fortunately, Ocean Grove is not like a NYC co-op and there are fair housing laws designed to protect people from discrimination.
Second, credit for saving OG must also be given to the Ocean Grove Home Owners’ Association whose members in the 80’s and 90’s were diligent about getting the run-down single-room occupancy hotels and so-called boarding homes rehabbed or shut down.
@Devo, I own a motorcycle, and resent your comment to “move to Belmar.”
There is no question that there is a large gay community in the Grove, to include many of the business owners. Many of these folks bought in when our town was at the bottom and they led by example — fixing their homes up and inspiring others to do so too. Also, many of the guests who stay in the inns are gay. The aggregate contribution to OG by the gay community is quite large. I am therefore surprised by Frank’s comments.
What do you call those two income couples with no children to send to school, good taste, house proud, who came from NYC to Ocean Grove when it was on the balls of its arse, bought the deteriorating houses and fixed them up?
Hey Devo: The gay community saved O.G? What planet do you live on? Can you explain yourself? That was the dumbest statment I ever heard….
The gay community saved OG and are a key driving force behind this town. I think the OGCMA realizes this reality and is at peace with it.
To the co-op comments from Anonymous above I say that your thoughts do not fully describe the dynamics at work. Co-ops are exclusionary by design and definition. However, the types of people allowed to buy in a co-op evolve over time. I too have a 1 bedroom in a co-op and I can say that my building has evolved over the past 15 years from a generally older, lightly observant Jewish population to a younger family population that includes many non-Jews.
I would personally support the OGCMA playing a more active role in screening potential owners in a manner similar to a City co-op. After all, that is why we don’t own our land. However, I only support this notion to the extent that OGCMA would embrace the reality that this town’s citizenry has evolved far from the original vision of its founders. I would characterize the type of person who “fits in” here to be family (defined broadly) oriented people who have a strong sense of community and seek a peaceful/quiet lifestyle. If you own a motorcycle, like having loud parties, and are rude, please move on to Belmar!
Congrats to Harriet and Luisa, Jan and Emily, and Ocean Grove United!
Let’s hope the new regime taking over the leadership of the OGCMA this time is truly one of Methodist nature – “Open Hearts, Open Minds’. The last CMA executives were not Methodists, they were conservative evangelicals. Many townspeople were dismayed with the efforts to move away from traditional Methodism to evangelicalism.
And one more thing…. hopefully the new leadership will be friendly enough that gay OGCMA employees and board members do not have to live in fear of being found out.
Congratulations, Harriet and Luisa! I am a former neighbor of yours. Although we never met, I supported you by putting a flag poster in my window.
And thanks to Blogfinger for your timely reports.
Gosh, I miss my home town of O.G. But life moves on, and we cherish the memories, no matter how far away we go.
It is very interesting to read these comments. I have an apartment in a co-op in Manhattan and have, in years past, served on the membership committee. In this capacity, me and the others on this committee would interview folks who were trying to buy an apartment in the building. Completely unstated, unwritten, and never discussed explicitly, is the fact that we were looking to only allow people into the building that “fit in” with the building demographics (to include level of education and economic status). This is the way that most all co-ops in the City work now and have always worked. Under this system, people who are similar can seek out and live in buildings together. I think the many thousands of people in New York’s co-ops would say this system works very well. In our building, about half the folks who want to buy are declined for various reasons (never stated).
If the OGCMA cannot exercise similar control over the tenants who rent property in OG, then why own the land at all? Those who condem a system whereby like-minded people with similar attributes seek to live together, condemn a model that is widely practiced with success elsewhere. If you don’t fit in here, there are dozens of other shore towns in NJ that you can live in, just like there are hundreds of co-op buildings in Manhattan. Nastiness and lawsuits are not necessary.
While I think that most of my neighbors in OG are great people who I enjoy living near, there are some folks who clearly don’t fit in (and I’m not talking about race or sexual orientation). I wish that these people had been filtered out from the start. This is what I think Oldtimer and others who think fondly of the past are trying to communicate.
To above Blogfinger – Thank you for that explanation. I will read the policies you indicated.
Dear Anonymous,
Your experience with Doctor Stoll is similar to ours, though not nearly so explicitly prejudiced.
Anonymous: We publish about 98% of comments that are sent to us. Those comments that we reject are the ones that violate our stated policies. You can read those policies by clicking on the tab at the top of our home page. We also may edit a comment before posting in order to fix typos, spelling, etc, but sometimes in order to remove offensive parts while retaining the acceptable parts.
We try to be fair, so our editors usually discuss any comment that might be rejected.
Regarding the Camp Meeting’s “interviews,” this may enlighten you. During the interview, the older gentleman (the late Doctor Stoll) actually said to my husband, “There was a day we wouldn’t let your kind in the Grove.”
Need I say more?
And Blogfinger– Please don’t only publish complimentary comments about the Camp Meeting Association. That’s not fair.
Compassion. Two people wanting to start a new life in the Grove. Wanting to live here, with us. To be neighbor, improve, be friendly, to be a person we could say “hello” to, and know they would smile back.
We wanted a winner, or a maker, or a kinder, a sinner, if she be a shiner, or nicer, a higher, if we would count on a giver, or watcher, or a fiver. We looked upon, with grace, with hope, as long as it was not …. Ok., welcome to the town, my name is, let me know if you need anything….
Bullets: In the 1980’s we did have the Marlboro Inst. drop off hundreds of people here that really needed care and guidance, but the B&B’s had no idea of how to deal with these people and they ran wild. I know of people that moved out of town out of fear of what the Grove was becoming. I believe there were over 1300 people here from the Marlboro Institute and I also witnessed and participated in working with the O.G.H.O. to force Neptune to enforce their codes and ordinances on these Boarding homes that were being run down and nonconforming. The result was closing these homes and moving their residents to other homes that were capable of giving these people the attention they needed.
As Janice has said, the residents banded together back then, and I hope they band together today to keep Ocean Grove. It was a calmer community and had almost no condo’s, and we didn’t have all these issues, and people weren’t so aggressive and sensitive, and best of all we had parking.
On the subject of seeking CMA approval, my husband and I were encouraged by our realtor in 1993 to “have an interview” with a representative from the CMA before closing. Like Ken and his wife, we met with an older gent (probably the same one!). We learned more things about Ocean Grove and got a “pep talk” about CMA activities and the benefits of joining St. Paul’s church! I often wondered what would have transpired if one of us had said what we were really thinking at that time! Bottom line is: We’re glad there’s still an active religious community in Ocean Grove even if we don’t share those beliefs. Diversity and respect for all is a good thing.
Bullets: I have mislead you with my comment that the Boardwalk is back on the tax rolls because I misread the first response by Dan Garrow. It seems that only the pavillion has lost its tax exempt status.
JEC: I shared your attitude about the religion factor when I bought here. The couple I bought from owned the house for 50 years and expected I would seek CMA approval. My lawyer said that I had no legal obligation to do so, however, out of respect, Roman Catholic me obtained a “good character letter” from my pastor. Letter in hand my wife and I went for an interview with the old gent who was CMA head in 1985. He was friendly and welcoming which is how I remember Ocean Grove to be back then.
Bullets: We used to vacation in Cape May for many summers before we bought our home in OG. When we did buy and told this to some folks we knew in Cape May, they laughed, calling this “Ocean Grave”.
Grover: I appreciate and agree with your comments. While one of us is not Christian, we had no concerns regarding religion when we decided to buy our home and live here full time. We accepted CMA’s rulings, whether we agreed with them or not, and that was that. A Jewish friend who does not live in OG talked about many years ago when Jews were not only not allowed here but would be escorted out of OG.
Oldtimer: I can’t imagine anyone wanting it to go back to the way it was if that kind of discriminatory behavior was the norm. Outright discrimination is deplorable and should not be tolerated in any way, shape or form. We are a diverse family and absolutely love that OG is a diverse community.
The NJ Division on Civil Rights ruling in favor of Harriet and Luisa is a definite win for all of us. A terrible practice of clear cut discrimination has ended. Hooray!!! We are a much better, richer community as a result.
Lulu: That wasn’t me who said that if you divorce and remarry you are an adulterer — it was Christ:
Mark 10:10 and Luke 16:18.
I would hardly classify this as a win. Yes the CMA was found to be in the wrong, but what was the CMA’s response? “If that’s how its going to be, then no one can get married there, keep your public funding, they will pay taxes on it,” and because one couple got their feathers ruffled everyone suffers. Thats a big win….?
Now that the CMA has reverted the pavilion to a private tax paying location, they can deny anyone.
Oldtimer, you are engaging in a logical fallacy, appealing to tradition. Ocean Grove is not its own town. It is one area of a larger municipality. What is it losing? Pre 1980 when it was incredibly exclusionary, denying all but the most qualified? Called the Police when anyone “didn’t look right”? or the 1980s when it was Ocean Grave, filled with the cast-offs of Marlboro?
Cape May manages to retain its historical Victorian Charm while moving swiftly into the 21st century and embracing moderns businesses, hotels and ammenities side by side with classic Victorian architecture, the Physik Estate, etc.
Brian, I object to you categorizing divorcees along with murderers. That’s just ridiculous and you lose any credibility you may have had…
Charles, Picky, picky picky.
I do hope it goes to a higher court. I think this breaches the separation of Church and State. Funny, they open their doors to Asbury High and get in trouble for violating the Establishment Clause. Then they try to adhere to the Biblical values upon which they were built, and they get in trouble with the Establishment Clause. Seems the State is having a hard time staying out of this Church. Where’s the dang wall when you need it?
This is a reasonable decision that conforms to the law. Hopefully the CMA will be happy with the right to restrict use of their facilities going forward.
It would be unfortunate if they appeal using outside organizations looking to exploit the situation.
Ocean Grove benefits from its diversity and doesn’t need to be turned into a spectacle for rigid religious positions. And the Camp Meeting is also entitled to practice as they please as long as it does not illegally discriminate. You may not like their position on civil unions, but that is part of our diversity also.
I wish you’d stop calling it “God’s Square Mile.” It’s a square half-mile. 🙂
Grover, I remember so well! I am an OG lifer. God’s Square Mile was such a great place to grow up in if you were white, Methodist, and straight. Yes, as Janice pointed out, Ocean Grove has lost “all the flavor” it once had. That’s okay with me. I remember the flavor being very vanilla.
Dan, regarding your last paragraph: Even though the CMA now pays taxes on that property, if they once again allowed heterosexual weddings there, but then refused a gay couple, do you think that the Civil Rights Division would say OK? I think it would still be called discrimination.
So you can’t conclude that the CMA can now do anything they want simply because they pay taxes on the pavilion.
Please: Open the beach Sunday mornings!
Just another point lest it be overlooked. The Camp Meeting through its Christian legal group argued that their solicitations for weddings in the pavilion was part of their “Wedding Ministry.” But the court decision noted, according to the Asbury Park Press report, that couples who had been married in the pavilion previously had never been advised of the “Wedding Ministry.”
The decision was a perfect example of Christian cherry-picking. Any murderer, adulterer, divorcee could get married at the Pavilion before, and the CMA just looked the other way. Hitler and Eva Braun could have married there. But suddenly, when good Ocean Grove lesbians wanted to marry in their own town, the CMA must express their religion through discrimination and offending its own. But they wouldn’t have felt the need to express their religion if serial adulterer Newt Gingrich and Callista had applied to be married there. Jesus said remarriage was the equivalent of adultery. But if that had been the case, the good people if the CMA would have said, “That’s not for us to judge, that’s for God to judge.”
And the only principle here is that CMA and other Christians cannot commit fraud and theft of gay taxpayer dollars. One cannot take a gay person’s taxes, promise New Jersey that you will grant public access, then limit public access. Not the Christian thing to do.
A lot of commenters seem to be conflating two things. Had the CMA elected to pay its property taxes on the Pavilion space, it would have been allowed to enforce whatever rules it wanted to, and not been constrained by anti-discrimination laws. It decided to take that Green Acres property tax exemption and therefore was subjected to those laws. A way to look at it is, the government is perfectly willing to let the church function according to its own laws; but the church and its supporters then have to pay its property taxes.
Oh Anonymous — I kind of agree with Nancy. If you attend any religious service you are not even asked to give a donation, only if you wish to, but while attending service you are to comply with their standards, and if they don’t meet your criteria then go elsewhere, very simple.
The Catholic religion is very demanding on their standards, and if you don’t want to donate for adoption you’re not forced to, but if their way consists of male and female are a marriage, and not two of the same, that’s their right and don’t go there if you find it offensive.
Why is it that there are religions, towns, organizations, ect. have there set standards and there are people always trying to make them change. I remember Ocean Grove being a small single family community with certain Blue laws and if you didn’t want to abide by them you didn’t move into town, but now people feel let’s change their laws to suit us. I feel from being a single family small town (1/2 mile) to a condo community due to greedy people and raising revenue for Neptune we have lost all the flavor that we once had in Ocean Grove. We have certainly come into this new century but not in a good way, just look around. We do need prayers and people with interest in the town to come forward and help remove those in office, they have neglected this town for their own gain and change master plans and ordinances to suit them and not for the people of this town.
Oldtimer-
If you are a long-time Ocean Grove person, you probably also remember when Jews and Catholics couldn’t buy a house in Ocean Grove. Do you remember when it was so rare to see a black person in Ocean Grove that the school children had to be “advised” ahead that the new music teacher was “colored”? No one talked about gay marriages because no one thought they knew anyone gay. And the funny thing was, all of this was because we were a community of loving, religious people. Ocean Grove is a better place today because the government and the legal system stepped in. Remember, God created us all, and loved us all. I learned that as a kid at St. Paul’s.
Whether you view this decision positively or negatively, it certainly wasn’t swift. Four years to get to this point and it probably isn’t settled yet.
Let’s face it, one by one, the principles, standards, laws, traditions and ordinances that set this town apart and made it special are being destroyed by the government and legal system. The beach closing on Sunday mornings will be next. In 10 years time, OG will be like Bradley Beach or any number of other bland beach towns with our unique history and specialness completely obliterated.
If people have issues with the way OG is run and does things, they should mind their own business and just move on 1/2 mile in any direction and find what they are looking for. Why pick a fight with our little town?
Oh Anonymous, It isn’t a matter of liking or disliking anyone. The CMA and St. Paul’s Church both hold to the tenets of a certain faith, but their doors are open for everyone to come in. The term “Separation of Church and State” gets bantered around often, but this very ruling, I believe, is what the First Amendment intended to protect against – the State stepping into the affairs of the Church.
And, to be honest, I’m not sure I disagree with you about the tax exemption. But that’s a discussion for another time.
Nancy — No one is dictating how private organizations operate. Only those who accept tax exemptions and then want to discriminate against tax payers. Not unlike the Catholic Charities organizations in Ohio that accept taxpayers money to handle adoption services and then refuse service to same sex couples. You can’t have it both ways. If you accept tax money from me then you can’t discriminate against me. Don’t like me? Then don’t accept my tax dollars.
My understanding is that now that the Green Acres exemption was revoked, the CMA can restrict use in the pavilion legally, while paying tax on that property. The state allows religious institutions to play by their own rules on their own property, but not on property that they own, but hold out as for public use. Thus, the CMA (and every other church, synogogue and mosque) can refuse to marry couples who don’t meet their religious requirements in their own sanctuaries. This decision does not limit that ability of religious groups. Instead, it limits their ability to designate certain property as public and avoid paying property tax, and then discriminating against members of the public as to who can and cannot use that property.
Ken, The Green Acres Tax Exemption was revoked a couple of years ago, shortly after the suit was filed. I agree with Dan, the case should be closed. I also agree with the ADF that it could create trouble for other religious groups. Non-religious as well, I would presume. Seems the State can dictate to private groups. Everyone should be concerned.
Can I just mention here that it is great that Mr. Blogfinger provides this opportunity for us to discuss items? And the additional plus is that he allows us to do this anonymously. Thank you Mr. BLogfinger.
There will be a new administration at the Camp Meeting Association with the Hoffmans leaving. Will they be accepting ?— fair?—unbiased? Or will they not?
@Dan Garrow – “chooses to paint this decision as discrimination”
That’s exactly what the CMA was guilty of…… DISCRIMINATION!
Hopefully, we’ll be able to welcome the CMA into the 21st century! Terrific ruling.
Dan Garrow- When did Neptune Township revoke the boardwalk’s tax exempt status. I missed that meeting.
Halleluja! Justice has been served! The CMA is NOT immune and is NOT “The Almighty!” They cannnot pick and choose who they “approve” to use the facilities in this town! Let’s hope they learned a lesson from this! And by the way…. get with the times, CMA!
The crux of the case is that the boardwalk pavilion (along with the entire boardwalk and beach) had been placed in New Jersey’s Green Acres program by the OGCMA some years back in order to avoid paying property taxes on that land. So the ruling affirms that you cannot take what is essentially a gift from the taxpayers of the state of New Jersey in the form of tax exemption and then turn around and discriminate against a subset of those taxpayers. Green Acres regulations are also very clear as to public use of the property. In addition the OGCMA had a long and well documented history of renting the pavilion to anyone who was willing to pay to use it, including various types of non-Christian wedding ceremonies, fund raising walks and runs, etc. And remember: they are a registered 501c3 non-profit, not a church. Their only tax exempt properties would be those whose use is directly related to the non-profit’s mission.
The related press release from the Alliance Defense Fund neglects to mention the above information and instead chooses to paint this decision as discrimination against a Christian organization trying to fulfill it’s mission.
Now that Neptune Township has revoked the tax exempt status of the boardwalk pavilion the OGCMA is free to use the private, fully taxed property in any way that they see fit.