A New Jersey judge has ruled against a Methodist organization that refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a same-sex couple for a civil union ceremony, saying that it violated the Law Against Defamation (LAD) and it was appropriate for the state to revoke its tax-exempt status. Because religious conservatives so regularly refer to this incident as an example of LGBT rights “infringing” on “religious freedom,” it’s important to understand that this ruling has nothing to do with the organization’s religious freedoms.

The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association is a religious organization, and it does own the pavilion in question. But at the core of Judge Solomon Metzer’s decision is the fact that the pavilion’s tax-exempt status was not protected under a religious provision. In 1989, Ocean Grove applied for a Green Acres real-estate tax exemption, a New Jersey property subsidy for conservation or recreational purposes. One of the requirements to qualify for the exemption is that the property be “open for public use on an equal basis.” Thus, when Ocean Grove refused to allow a same-sex couple to utilize its pavilion, it was violating its agreement with the state of New Jersey:

As to “free exercise,” the LAD is a neutral law of general application designed to uncover and eradicate discrimination; it is not focused on or hostile to religion. To  the contrary, it carves away exceptions on behalf of religious organizations… Respondent can rearrange Pavilion operations, as it has done, to avoid this clash with the LAD.  It was not, however, free to promise equal access, to rent wedding space to heterosexual couples irrespective of their tradition, and then except these petitioners.

Ocean Grove now protects its pavilion with a religious exemption and should be free to discriminate against same-sex couples according to its beliefs. The couples who sued did not even pursue damages — they merely wanted to establish that Ocean Grove had illegally discriminated against them. The most important takeaway from this case is that any time opponents of marriage equality claim this New Jersey pavilion as an example of “religious freedom” being infringed upon or Christians as “victims,” they are blatantly wrong and distorting what happened to suit their narrative.

Mitt Romney is responding to the attacks on his inconsistant opposition to abortion with a new radio ad touting his support among “Christian Conservatives.” The radio spot, slated to run in South Carolina, describes the former Massachusetts governor — who supported a woman’s right to choose until 2005 — as a candidate who believes in “the sanctity of life, the sacredness of marriage, and the importance of the family” and touts the endorsements of a rather radical cast of characters:

VOICEOVER: “Today Christian Conservatives are supporting Mitt Romney because he shares their values: the sanctity of life, the sacredness of marriage, and the importance of the family. In 2007 Senator Jim DeMint said of Romney, ‘He feels passionately that the value of human life begins at conception….’”

Sen. Jim DeMint: “He feels passionately that the value of human life begins at conception.” (Byron York, “DeMint On Romney,” National Review, 1/9/07)

VOICEOVER: “Founder of Women Affirming Life Mary Ann Glendon says:”

MARY ANN GLENDON: “The pro-life movement has worked so hard for so many years in the effort to change people’s hearts and minds on the life issues. That like Ronald Reagan, like Henry Hyde, Mitt Romney should be welcomed as a great success story for the pro-life movement.”

VOICEOVER: “And Pro-Life Attorney James Bopp Jr. says: ‘Both conviction and courage are necessary for the effective pro-life leadership, and Romney, in office, displayed both.’”

Listen:

DeMint, the state’s senator, is a superstar among conservatives who has done everything from block the confirmation of El Salvador’s ambassador because she condemned homophobia to support an amendment banning women and their doctors from discussing abortion over the Internet. He endorsed Romney in 2008, but has not officially backed the candidate this year.

Glendon is another supporter from Romney’s first presidential campaign. The Harvard Law Professor is a staunch anti-abortion Catholic who refused to receive an award from Notre Dame after the school invited President Obama to speak at its commencement ceremony. She has also contested the use of condoms for the prevention of HIV and AIDS, claiming in 1995, “The Holy See in no way endorses contraception or the use of condoms, either as a family planning measure or in HIV/AIDS prevention programs.”

Finally, Bopp is the ironic voice in the ad. The right-wing lawyer has waged a successful war on campaign finance regulation, which culminated in the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision and has opened the flood gates to the kind of Political Action Committee (PAC) commercials that are dominating the campaign and keeping many of Romney’s Republican rivals on T.V. attacking his anti-abortion credentials in the first place. Bopp has also worked with groups like the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), Focus on the Family, and Traditional Values Coalition, arguing, in part, that anti-gay groups must be able to keep their donors secret to prevent harassment from gay people.

Tennessee state Rep. Richard Floyd (R)

Much has unfolded in the day since the “Bathroom Harassment Act” was first introduced in the Tennessee legislature, a bill that would fine transgender people $50 for using bathrooms and dressing rooms.

First, state Sen. Bo Watson (R) has withdrawn his version of the bill. He had introduced it as a courtesy to state Rep. Richard Floyd (R), who represents the same region of Tennessee. In a statement to ThinkProgress, Watson’s communications director explained that “Sen. Watson concluded that there are far more pressing issues facing the state of Tennessee at this time.”

Floyd now stands alone as the sponsor of the bill (HB 2279), which he defended yesterday using incredibly transphobic rhetoric. In no uncertain terms, he explained that he would resort to violence if he ever encountered someone transgender in a dressing room:

FLOYD: I believe if I was standing at a dressing room and my wife or one of my daughters was in the dressing room and a man tried to go in there — I don’t care if he thinks he’s a woman and tries on clothes with them in there — I’d just try to stomp a mudhole in him and then stomp him dry.

Don’t ask me to adjust to their perverted way of thinking and put my family at risk. We cannot continue to let these people dominate how society acts and reacts. Now if somebody thinks he’s a woman and he’s a man and wants to try on women’s clothes, let him take them into the men’s bathroom or dressing room.

In an extended interview with WTVF News Chanel 5, Floyd doubled down on his comments, claiming that his bill doesn’t “penalize anybody,” it “protects everybody,” and he could “care less” what transgender advocacy groups think. Watch it:

This bill is nothing short of an outright attack on transgender people, and Floyd’s comments make it clear he lacks any understanding or compassion for the trans community. Enforcement of this bill could lead to ID checks in public restrooms and would be devastatingly stigmatizing, especially considering Tennessee offers no option for individuals to change their birth certificate gender markers. Even individuals passing through one of Tennessee’s airports or bus stops could be targeted for these fines, just for being transgender.

White House spokesperson Shin Inouye told the Washington Blade yesterday that President Obama opposes the effort by New Hampshire Republicans to repeal marriage equality, saying he “believes strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away”:

INOUYE: While the president does not weigh in on every single action taken by legislative bodies in our country, the record is clear that the president has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples. The president believes strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away.

It has been well over a year since Obama said that he was “evolving” on the issue of marriage equality and he has faced scrutiny for stalling on that evolution. In this week’s Metro Weekly, Chris Geidner has outlined some ways the Proposition 8 court case could create opportunities for the president to complete his evolution.