About nemski

A Dad, a husband and a data guru

See All Posts by nemski

There Are 13 Responses So Far. »

1. 

   Comment by Unstable Isotope on 22 April 2009 at 6:17 am:

   I thought Colbert’s was funnier. That NOM commercial has been mercilessly mocked.
2. 

   Comment by Tom S. on 22 April 2009 at 6:22 am:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_Grove,_New_Jersey#Civil_union_controversy
3. 

   Comment by jason330 on 22 April 2009 at 6:30 am:

   Thanks for that link Tom. It seems the Grovers want it both ways, taking development and tax money, saying that it is public, letting groups use it without regard to their religiosity – treating it like a public amenity when it suits them, but denying the use of it to gays.

   Substitute Polish for gays in the article. The truth is you don’t like gays Tom. You find them ickey. Admit it.
4. 

   Comment by cassandra_m on 22 April 2009 at 7:27 am:

   In other words, that Ocean Grove church could have had its own personal gay repellent umbrella by not taking public funds and not pretending that their facility was public.

   I just love how the original bigoted commercial has been the inspiration for relentless mocking.
5. 

   Comment by anon on 22 April 2009 at 7:39 am:

   The truth is you don’t like gays Tom. You find them ickey.

   … but he just can’t stop thinking about them.
6. 

   Comment by Unstable Isotope on 22 April 2009 at 8:19 am:

   If churches want to deny gay people (or Polish people) rites and sacraments I’m fine with it (1st amendment) as long as they aren’t taking my tax money to do it.
7. 

   Comment by Tom S. on 22 April 2009 at 8:29 am:

   “The truth is you don’t like gays Tom. You find them ickey.”

   Do you know me?

   St. Francis Hospital takes government money in the form of medicade and medicare. A lot of Government money.

   They also have a Catholic Church. What is homosexuals want to get married in it? Are the poor of Wilmington just fucked?
8. 

   Comment by Tom S. on 22 April 2009 at 11:46 am:

   OK, I guess they are then.
9. 

   Comment by cassandra_m on 22 April 2009 at 11:58 am:

   The questions there were just stupid, Tom S.

   But you knew that already.

   The hospital is not the same as the church. Which is true for most Catholic Hospitals.

   And the Church ≠ a piece of beach and an auditorium.
10. 

    Comment by Tom S. on 22 April 2009 at 12:17 pm:

    It is owned and operated by the same people who take the tax money. How do you sort that out?
11. 

    Comment by cassandra_m on 22 April 2009 at 12:19 pm:

    You sort it out by whether the tax money pays for the church. Which most hospitals are quite careful about if they care about having some control over that space.

    In the Ocean Grove case, it wasn’t even a church — it was an auditorium and a piece of beachfront that public monies were used for.
12. 

    Comment by Tom S. on 22 April 2009 at 12:51 pm:

    And in this case it isn’t….tax revenue is paying for the Church.
13. 

    Comment by cassandra_m on 22 April 2009 at 1:09 pm:

    I doubt that is true.

    Either the church is not consecrated Catholic (possible in a multidenomicational church), or the people running it have been really stupid about keeping the public and private separate.

    I suspect that the real story is that you assume — quite wrongly — that because the hospital gets Fed funds to pay for patients, that somehow makes the entire hospital a public space that people can get married, have picnics and conduct demonstrations in. It isn’t. Certainly unlike the Ocean Grove space where they were already in the habit of letting the general public use the space.