The Methodists, as an act of charity, had permitted any one to hold a wedding on a church-owned beachfront pavilion. This ruling makes it clear that the Methodists will be permitted to withhold permission to use their property for same-sex couples IF and ONLY IF they do not permit the public to use the facility at all.
Does this make sense? Whose interests are served by punishing Methodists for permitting weddings, but not civil unions, on their property?