Question For Gay Men And Women.......

@AnimeMom (517)
United States
May 15, 2008 2:39pm CST
Now this is just out of curiosity. But I remember reading a while back about a town called Ocean Grove, which is a church owned community. The property is considered private and so they have the right to do with it as they please. A lesbian couple wanted to use the open air pavilion for their wedding ceremony. Well the land owner denied them the use of the pavilion and so the couple sued. Now after listening to talk radio and reading the story it seems this has become a much bigger issue than needed. The gay couple has a gay union behind them and it would appear that they are more or less using this couple as a media magnet. I'm not going to lie, this just seems wrong. It's private property, why would you want to sue them, unless you were just trying to get attention. Now no offense to those of homosexual orientation, i have no problem with gay marriage or gay families. Everyone deserves love and a happy life. But it seems to me that to many gay men and women are hard up on thinking everyone is homophobic and prejudice against them. They are actually hurting themselves in the process. You get more flies with honey than vinager. And if you ask me, if the couple had not sued, Ocean Grove would have come away looking like the "bad" guy. but now it's them. Well that's my 2 cents, whats do you think?
1 person likes this
2 responses
• United States
30 May 08
I had to go look this up, and it looks like it's not quite a "black and white" issue. Were they to demand to use a private church, I would be in agreement with you. However, it appears that they were asking to use a pavilion that had been used for other "public" uses for over a hundred years: http://www.oceangroveunited.org/pr_3.php What it looks like, to me, is that the pavilion had been used for public purposes, had received public monies from the early 1900's - and there are documented statements from the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting people that the auditorium, beach front, and pavilion were NOT affiliated with the United Methodist Church, but rather, was open to the public, for public events, non denominational events, available for public access and accomodation - and thus eligible for state funding. So, it seems that something has changed in their stance, or so claims Ocean Grove United http://www.oceangroveunited.org. This to me isn't about wanting to use "private property" but to use property that had previously been used for other public purposes, such as hosting band events, rented out for other non-denominational events. So, it seems to me that they were in the right to sue to use property that was, at least up until then, considered "public". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_Grove,_New_Jersey http://www.oceangroveunited.org
@AnimeMom (517)
• United States
30 May 08
Ah, well if the property was public to begin with and they were changing it due to the fact the couple wanting to use the pavilion are gay. I would say they are in the wrong as well.
2 people like this
@bcote212 (1113)
• United States
15 May 08
Basically the problem here is that the couple was discriminated against simply due to the fact that they were gay. And in the United States you cannot discriminate against customers anymore than you can discriminate against someones color. It is really sad that we live in a country that considers itself the best country in the world, yet does not offer equal rights to all of its citizens.
• United States
29 May 08
bcote212, yes. In the U.S. you cannot discriminate against anyone... HOWEVER, I'm sure you've been to places and seen "we reserve the right to refuse service..." signs or something as simple as "no shirt, no shoes, no service..." How do you explain this? You make it sound like the church refused to sell them a candy bar, the couple wanted to be MARRIED on the church's! The church retains the right to refuse the use of their land for that reason. Someone's color is entirely different than this.
1 person likes this