MOUNT LAUREL, N.J. (AP) – A federal appeals court has ruled that the lower district court should address whether a New Jersey religious organization can bar same-sex couples from holding civil union ceremonies on its properties, except for a popular pavilion.

The three-judge panel of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court that it should not consider use of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association’s boardwalk pavilion, which is at the heart of a dispute pending before a state administration law judge.

The appeals court said in its July 15 ruling that the federal judge should consider whether the association, which owns all the land in the seaside village, can bar civil union ceremonies from its property outside the pavilion.

The legal battle over the pavilion has become a symbol for social conservatives who say allowing gays and lesbians more rights can interfere with their religious beliefs. They have used the case in advertisements in campaigns nationwide against allowing same-sex marriage.

The case goes back to 2007 when two lesbian couples asked to hold civil union ceremonies at the oceanfront pavilion, which is owned by the church but is used by the public when worship is not being held there.

The Methodist group denied the applications because its leaders objected to civil unions, which offer the legal protections, but not the title, of marriage.

The state Division on Civil Rights then launched an investigation and found last year that the church group violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws. Although the case is pending before an administrative law judge, the state civil rights director will have final say.

When the state investigation began, the Camp Meeting Association filed the federal lawsuit, claiming the probe violated the group’s freedom of speech and religion. The federal judge in 2007 dismissed the suit on grounds that federal courts should not interfere with state judicial or administrative actions in most cases.

Brian Raum, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian group that is representing the association, said the pavilion dispute is the crux of the case.

“The government should not be able to force a private Christian organization to use its property in a way that would violate its own religious beliefs,’’ he said.