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

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

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.