Wednesday, December 31, 2008

In N.J. Gay "Rights" Trump Property Rights

There are a lot of things wrong with the N.J. administrative court's decision. First, the gay couple asserts a right to be married on private property. No one has any right to use another's private property even if there is a general invitation to the public to rent the premises. Property owners have an absolute right to rent the property to whomever they wish. In our big-government age, however, property rights have nearly disappeared. Just look at Americans' acceptance of taking from Peter to give to Paul for nearly everything you can think of.

Second, the owner of the property is a religious organization and gay marriage is violative of that organization's beliefs, so the gay couple asserts a right to force a religion to act contrary to its beliefs. Sickening.

As a result the organization closed its doors to anyone so now even those the organization wants to rent its property for marriages and other events cannot do so.

Wake up America - the LGBT "community" cares nothing for real God-given natural rights. This case is representative of that. They are intent on destroying all natural rights and supplanting those with their own list of invented "rights."

MOUNT LAUREL, N.J. - A lesbian couple that was barred from holding a civil union ceremony at a beachfront pavilion owned by a church group has won a legal victory.

The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights said in a ruling Monday that its investigation found that the refusal of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a Methodist organization that owns a square-mile of beachfront property near Asbury Park, to rent the oceanfront spot to the couple for a civil union ceremony in March 2007 violated the public accommodation provisions of the state's Law Against Discrimination.

More here.

1 comment:

Secular Heretic said...

You bring up some excellent points. It is private property and you can rent or refuse to rent to who ever you want.

The fact that these two want to enter into a civil union indicates that they also wish to take part in homosexual acts. Homosexual acts are disordered and immoral according to Christian teaching. If this church group had supported this civil union by renting the property, they would also have been endorsing homosexual acts and gone against their own churches teaching. They could have been accused of hypocrisy and charged with aiding immorality and disorder in the community.

A few others have written about the same article and feel the same way you do.
http://secularheretic-st.blogspot.com/
http://pearl-diving.blogspot.com/