The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) announced on Monday that it was stripping the Methodist Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of its tax-exempt status for part of its property. The Methodist camp made the news earlier this year after it refused, for religious reasons, to allow a lesbian couple to hold a "civil-union" ceremony at a pavilion on the camp's property.

The pavilion, said Scott Hoffman, the camp's chief administrative officer to LifeSiteNews, "is a facility we have used exclusively for our camp meeting mission and worship celebrations since 1869."

Until recently the camp held tax-exempt status on its entire boardwalk property under a New Jersey program that gives tax-breaks to organizations that open up their property to the general public.

In June, however, Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Pester, a lesbian, filed a complaint with the state attorney general's office on the basis of sexual orientation discrimination, after Ocean Grove refused to allow them to hold their "civil-union" ceremony at the camp's pavilion. A second lesbian couple has also sued Ocean Grove. New Jersey's anti-discrimination laws currently forbid those who "offer goods, services, and facilities to the general public" from "directly or indirectly denying or withholding any accommodation, service, benefit, or privilege to an individual" on the basis of sexual orientation.

"It is clear that the pavilion is not open to all persons on an equal basis," DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson, wrote to the camp on Monday, in announcing the DEP's decision to revoke the camp's tax-exempt status.

"When people hear the words 'open space,' we want them to think not just of open air and land, but that it is open to all people," Jackson continued. "And when the public subsidizes it with tax breaks, it goes with the expectation that it is not going to be parsed out, whether it be by activity or any particular beliefs."

Currently, however, there is some confusion over just how much of the camp's property no longer has tax-exempt status. As such, one homosexual advocacy group is threatening to appeal the DEP's decision, saying that it doesn't go far enough, reports the AP. "We're looking for a bigger victory here," said Steve Goldstein, the chairman of Garden State Equality. "We have the symbolic victory of the state telling Ocean Grove they're wrong, but there is a bigger victory to be had by having the entire tax-exemption removed. We're happy, but there's a lot more happiness to be had."

According to the Neptune Township tax assessor, the revocation of the tax-exempt status on the pavilion will only cost Ocean Grove about $175/year, although Scott Hoffman has reportedly issued a statement claiming that the DEP's decision in fact appears to revoke tax-exempt status for "over 99 percent of the land." Hoffman said that Ocean Grove's lawyers are currently reviewing the decision.

Read it all.

18 Comments • Print-friendly • Print-friendly w/comments • Share on Facebook

Comments:

Anyone got an address for the camp? We could each send them a dollar.

RSB

[1] Posted by R S Bunker on 09-19-2007 at 03:42 PM • top

This is only the beginning of where we are heading.
Anyone surprised??????

[2] Posted by Spiro on 09-19-2007 at 03:49 PM • top

They may have to go the way of the Nigerian dioceses and refuse the financial gifts that come with unacceptable strings. They might say, “Keep your financial perks and we’ll keep our religious convictions. The property is no longer ‘open to the public.’”

[3] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 09-19-2007 at 03:53 PM • top

RBS—No physical address on their website:

http://www.oceangrove.org/

there is phone # which I’m sure could assist you.

[4] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 09-19-2007 at 03:53 PM • top

And how come the of plaintiff couple only one is identified as a lesbian?

But, looking beyond this single issue; how many of us can be placed into jeopardy for the tax status of our properties if we resist the ‘pc’ accessions to the GLBTX folk? Of course, our mission has no 501(c)(3) status anyway, so we are free from concern over taxation.

[5] Posted by Chip Johnson, cj on 09-19-2007 at 03:53 PM • top

My point is that if you take Caesar’s nickle, you dance to Caesar’s tune. Frankly, I’m surprised churches still enjoy any relief from taxation, what with the PC, “inclusive” way things are going. Someday that relief may go away altogether. But then, so should the pressure to conform to the world. Not a completely bad thing.

‘Course, if you’re in Pasadena, CA and you spout liberal politics from the pulpit, somehow you manage to keep your 501(c)3 anyway. Something about “who you know.”

[6] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 09-19-2007 at 04:19 PM • top

And when the public subsidizes it with tax breaks

Ah, there’s the problem. The state of NJ (where else) thinks all money and assets belong to the state and if they don’t take it from you they are making you a grant. Straight out of Marx. The state is not to tax the Lord or His work. This just shows what a war the LGBT crowd is waging against God’s people. I guess they just want to bring more judgment on themselves. They will learn eventually. Let’s pray that the Lord’s people hold firm in standing for righteousness. Jimmy Carter through the atheistic humanist IRS chief Curts tried to stamp out Christian schools through denying tax exemption and really started the Christian right revolution and lost big time.

[7] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 09-19-2007 at 04:20 PM • top

So much for separation of church and state…

[8] Posted by st. anonymous on 09-19-2007 at 05:44 PM • top

We must be ready to support our churches without the perk of tax status; that goes for the church property and for the parishoner support. This is war.

[9] Posted by southernvirginia1 on 09-19-2007 at 06:45 PM • top

Although we should be willing to support our churches—tax free or not—but how does the Ocean Grove Association differ from any other religious organisation? As far as I know, no Roman Catholic church will engage in same-sex “marriages.” Does this mean that they too will be free from taxes, or will the government demand that their doctrine supersede that of the Church?

-j

[10] Posted by jjostm on 09-19-2007 at 07:16 PM • top

This is a clear case of First Amendment free exercise. The NJ tax folks have no legal right to tell the United Methodist Church what it can or cannot do.

Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC

[11] Posted by TomRightmyer on 09-19-2007 at 08:18 PM • top

Until recently the camp held tax-exempt status on its entire boardwalk property under a New Jersey program that gives tax-breaks to organizations that open up their property to the general public.

If I understand this correctly, they can have their tax exempt status restored by refusing to continue to hold the land as “open to the general public.” They can simply make it clear that this Church owned property is for church use, and people may come to it on that basis.

[12] Posted by Fr. Robert Hart on 09-19-2007 at 08:20 PM • top

Here’s the problem:

Until recently the camp held tax-exempt status on its entire boardwalk property under a New Jersey program that gives tax-breaks to organizations that open up their property to the general public.

This wasn’t about the property being “church owned.” This was about property that had been opened up to be used by the public. The church, in an effort probably to support its community, allowed the public to use its property, but was then subject to the same rules of non-discrimination to which other public properties are subject. And for their good will, they got spanked for having different values than the public. Perhaps they receive revenue from the public use of this property? The article doesn’t say. If so, they need to weigh the benefit of extra revenue against their religious integrity.

[13] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 09-19-2007 at 08:23 PM • top

What’s ironic about this story is that I am sure the United Methodist hierarchy in the Northeast Jurisdiction and Greater New Jersey Annual Conference are heartily in favor of LGBT weddings here. The Methodists have already allowed LGBT advocacy meetings that are in clear violation of the UMC Book of Discipline to be held at church facilities that are completely private; i.e., the 2005 Hearts on Fire convocations at Lake Junaluska Assembly Center near Ashville, NC.

[14] Posted by Daniel on 09-19-2007 at 08:41 PM • top

what would happen if someone tried to pass out tracts at New Jersey Turnpike rest areas? Would those “open spaces” somehow get “parsed out” because of “particular beliefs”?

[15] Posted by Johng on 09-19-2007 at 09:09 PM • top

New Jersey is borderline facist when it comes to “equality” - I had a case up there once and the Law Against Discrimination or LAD is like their 10 Comandments, Magna Carta and Declaration of Independence all rolled into one. It is a very scary place. Remember - the power to tax is the power to destroy.

[16] Posted by chips on 09-20-2007 at 03:54 AM • top

Well surely they could close the Pavillion to all non-Church sponsored wedddings/unions that should solve the problem.

[17] Posted by chips on 09-20-2007 at 03:58 AM • top

Much of this thread contains some of the strongest reasons articulable as to why Christians should oppose the income tax! The possibility of using tax-exempt status as an ideological weapon is one of the main reasons I have opposed it for several decades, favoring a consumption tax (i.e., a sales tax).

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

[18] Posted by H. Potter (aka Martial Artist) on 09-20-2007 at 02:37 PM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.