No church was sued for such an instance

So, in the previous posting concerning Arizona HB 2481, Representative Montenegro was said to have stated, that "the legislation grew out of instances in New Jersey and England, where churches were sued for refusing to perform same-sex ceremonies."   After a couple hours of digging, I found the  NJ case he was referring to. And as I stated previously, no church was sued for such an instance.  A religious oriented organizations was sued for was breaking the law

In June of 2007, Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster filed a complaint with the state attorney general’s office on the grounds of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation after the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association (OGCMA) declined the use of their Boardwalk Pavilion for their civil union ceremony, planned for September.  

The Boardwalk Pavilion is an open-air wood-framed seating area along the boardwalk facing the Atlantic Ocean. At the time of denial in March 2007, the Pavilion was used primarily as a venue for religious programming, but respondent also hosted community and charitable events and rented the space for weddings. The fee for a wedding was $250. The form used by respondent to rent the Pavilion did not inquire into religious affiliation and staff typically asked no questions along these lines. The form was used primarily to record bookings and determine availability. When not in use by some organization, the Pavilion is open to passers-by along the boardwalk to sit and take in the scene.  

Petitioners completed the appropriate form and paid the required deposit. Their application was denied soon thereafter and their deposit was returned. Petitioners sought an explanation and were informed that the notion of civil union conflicted with scriptural teaching regarding homosexuality and that respondent could not condone such a ceremony at the Pavilion. This was the first time in anyone’s memory that a denial was based on a reason other than availability. During this period respondent maintained a web page called “An Ocean Grove Wedding,” which advertised the Pavilion as a wedding venue. The page was silent regarding respondent’s views on marriage. After the incident that gave rise to this proceeding, respondent stopped renting the Pavilion and currently uses it exclusively for programming that it sponsors, or co-sponsors.

What is key in this complaint up to this point is this: The ownership of the pavilion is controlled by a religious organization BUT they advertised to the PUBLIC as a wedding venue. Second, 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.

Up to this point, reporting from both sides of the argument agree.  What gets left out by the anti-equality crowd (Montenegro for example) is this not so small detail:

In July 1989 respondent applied for a Green Acres real-estate tax exemption for Lot 1, Block 1.01, which includes the Pavilion and the adjacent boardwalk and beach area. The application describes the area as public in nature. The Green Acres program is designed to preserve open space and the statutory scheme authorizes a tax exemption for non-profit corporations utilizing property for conservation or recreational purposes. One condition of the exemption is that the property be “open for public use on an equal basis,”

Neptune Township, the municipality within which respondent is located, opposed the application on grounds that respondent is governed by religious restrictions that make equal-access doubtful. At a public hearing conducted by the Department of Environmental Protection in September 1989, respondent represented that the Pavilion was available for public use without reservation. Following the hearing the Department approved the tax exemption on certain conditions, one of which required the property to be open for public use on an equal basis. Respondent renewed this application every three years as required, and the tax exemption was continued through the period in question here with the same condition for equal access. Following the events that led to this proceeding, respondent applied once again to renew its real-estate tax exemption.  The Department denied that portion of the exemption relating to the Pavilion, concluding that the Pavilion was not available on an equal basis. This is the substance of the record.

So in other words, OGCMA applied for and was granted a tax exemption based on the property being "open for public use on a equal basis."  This exemption was applied for and renewed every three years. OGCMA denied the Bernstein/Paster application, claiming that civil unions violated the group's Methodist principles.  They took the money and ran ignoring applicable law at the time.

Normally, there would have been no recourse for the couple because religious groups are typically exempt from human rights legislation in the states and provinces of North America. They are allowed to discriminate on any basis that they wish. Faith groups have in the past discriminated against engaged couples on the basis of the latter's age, gender, race, religion, sincerity, maturity, physical disability, etc. Some still do. However, the case in Ocean Grove was a violation of the human rights legislation because the Association had previously entered into a contract that gave it tax benefits as long as it ran its pavilion as a "public accommodation" with equal access to all members of the public. This included persons of all three sexual orientations. The eventual result was a complaint by the lesbian couple that was resolved in favor of the couple in mid-2012-JAN.

This is a matter of law, plain and simple.  OGCMA problem "was not their religious beliefs but their decision to violate a government contract which required them to grant access to the entire public. This means, equal access to persons of all sexual orientations. If they had not broken the contract, they would have been exempt from any form of prosecution and would not have been 'punished.'" 

What our investigation revealed is that the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association actually intended the pavilion to be a public space insofar as they even submitted paperwork to state for funding for beach replenishment from the Department of Environment Protection. They indicated and certified that the area was open to the public. For them to suggest that it’s not flies counter to their certification to the state that it is open to the public.