What are your thoughts on Chruch's refusing to wed gays?

[columbus]

I would think that for small churches, they would have little to fear from losing their tax exempt status

I don't think that is true.
The big corporate churches have the deep pockets to adjust.
Little churches are the ones that would find their funding slashed, when people couldn't get the taxpayers to cover their tithing, and won't have the resources to survive.
Tom

 

[Bunyip]

I don't think that is true.
The big corporate churches have the deep pockets to adjust.
Little churches are the ones that would find their funding slashed, when people couldn't get the taxpayers to cover their tithing, and won't have the resources to survive.
Tom

I think state funding and tax liability are two different issues.

By the way, the German Catholic church collects a tax - and raises some 10 billion euro a year.

 

[Norman]

Should church's be punished for refusing to marry gays by loosing tax exempt status?
I post a while back that this might happen in order to force Church's to perform
weddings for gay couples and if I recall I took a lot of flack for even suggesting
such a thing could happen.

Well read this.

Churches Who Refuse Same Sex Weddings Could Lose Tax Exempt Status – Downtrend


Churches Who Refuse Same Sex Weddings Could Lose Tax Exempt Status
Now that same-sex marriage is the law of the land, there’s a very good chance that churches who refuse to perform gay weddings could lose their tax-exempt status.

The Daily Caller is reporting that in his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts warned as much.

“Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage — when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples,” Roberts wrote.



“Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.”

It’s inconceivable that a Catholic Church – or any house of worship – could be forced to perform gay marriages, even if their religion prohibits it. And if they don’t, they could lose their status as a “church.”

Is this unintended consequences, or was it liberal, gay-rights advocates’ intention to destroy the institution of religion too?

Thoughts?

Norman: Hi jeager106, I think Robert's comments hold some credibility. The Bill of Rights begins with what many believe to be the most important guarantee in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The prohibition against “an establishment of religion” was intended to separate churches and government, to prevent a national church of the kind found in Europe. In the interest of time I will say no more about the establishment of religion, but only concentrate on the direction that the United States shall have no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. For nearly a century this guarantee of religious freedom has been understood as a limitation on state as well as federal power.

The guarantee of the free exercise of religion, which I will call religious freedom, is one of the supremely important founding principles in the United States Constitution, and it is reflected in the constitutions of all of our 50 states. It is the first expression in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. As noted by many, this “pre-eminent place” identifies freedom of religion as “a cornerstone of American democracy.”[5] I maintain that in our nation’s founding and in our constitutional order, religious freedom, and the freedoms of speech and press associated with it in the First Amendment, are the motivating and dominating civil liberties and civil rights.

The American colonies were originally settled by people who, for the most part, had come to this continent to be able to practice their religious faith without persecution, and their successors deliberately placed religious freedom first in the nation’s Bill of Rights. So it is that our national law formally declares: “The right to freedom of religion undergirds the very origin and existence of the United States.”[6]

The free “exercise” of religion obviously involves both the right to choose religious beliefs and affiliations and the right to “exercise” or practice those beliefs. But in a nation with citizens of many different religious beliefs the right of some to act upon their religious principles must be qualified by the government’s responsibility to protect the health and safety of all. Otherwise, for example, the government could not protect its citizens’ person or property from neighbors whose religious principles compelled or justified stealing or taking human life.

The inherent conflict between the precious religious freedom of the people and the legitimate regulatory responsibilities of the government is the central issue of religious freedom. The problems are not simple, and over the years the United States Supreme Court, which has the ultimate responsibility of interpreting the meaning of the lofty and general provisions of the Constitution, has struggled to identify principles that can guide its decisions when government action is claimed to violate someone’s free exercise of religion. As would be expected, many of the battles over the extent of religious freedom have involved government efforts to impose upon the practices of small groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons. Recent experiences suggest adding Muslims to the category of threatened religious minorities.

Unpopular minority religions are especially dependent upon a constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion. We are fortunate to have such a guarantee in the United States, but many nations do not. The importance of that guarantee should make us ever diligent to defend it. And it is in need of being defended. During my lifetime I have seen a significant deterioration in the respect accorded to religion in our public life, and I believe that the vitality of religious freedom is in danger of being weakened accordingly.

Source:
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/fundamentals-of-our-constitutions-elder-dallin-h-oaks

 

[Unification]

Should church's be punished for refusing to marry gays by loosing tax exempt status?
I post a while back that this might happen in order to force Church's to perform
weddings for gay couples and if I recall I took a lot of flack for even suggesting
such a thing could happen.

Well read this.

Churches Who Refuse Same Sex Weddings Could Lose Tax Exempt Status – Downtrend


Churches Who Refuse Same Sex Weddings Could Lose Tax Exempt Status
Now that same-sex marriage is the law of the land, there’s a very good chance that churches who refuse to perform gay weddings could lose their tax-exempt status.

The Daily Caller is reporting that in his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts warned as much.

“Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage — when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples,” Roberts wrote.



“Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.”

It’s inconceivable that a Catholic Church – or any house of worship – could be forced to perform gay marriages, even if their religion prohibits it. And if they don’t, they could lose their status as a “church.”

Is this unintended consequences, or was it liberal, gay-rights advocates’ intention to destroy the institution of religion too?

Thoughts?

A few things... church buildings were mankind's design. As was literal outward wedding ceremonials and definitions of marriage. The church is our physical human body, the body made of flesh, blood, and bones, etc. and the house of worship. If literal marriage in mankind's eyes is so honored by "God," why is there no such thing as marriage in "the kingdom of heaven?"

If "God's" will is being accomplished on earth, why are certain people so offended at equality and equal rights for all human beings gradually becoming more and more revealed.. isn't this "just?"

With that being said, it's truly sad to see all of these vain literal church building goers so deceived, and in it for money, status, inequality, and business.

It's doesn't matter the ramifications, attendance and self-destruction are inevitable.

 

[columbus]

I think state funding and tax liability are two different issues.

By the way, the German Catholic church collects a tax - and raises some 10 billion euro a year.

I understand that Europe operates very differently from the USA. Jeags and I are talking about the place we live in. Anybody can call themself "Man of God" and start a tax free business here.
Tom

 

[jeager106]

Wow, these are really great posts and show a lot of clear and
reasonable thinking.
Norman that was a dandy post and a good bit of information.
Why did I post this?
Simple curiosity to see what others might think.
Evidently it got the interest of many as there are at least 65
responses.
Should anyone be curious about my beliefs let me explain.
I don't even attend any church services and a member of no
denomination.
(Especially one that passes a box of pit vipers around)
Curious I am for sure.
I study different Christian denominations, study the Christian Bible
on my own, in my time, in my way.
I love to learn. Fact is I started college at age 49 and earned two
degrees; such is my thirst to learn.
I must say though, that I agree that many large church organizations
are very wealthy and I doubt taxing them fairly would cause them
any real heartburn.
Some religious leaders seem to have a nice neat racket going for them
Specifically the infamous " T-V evangelists."
"Send mo' money. I NEED a new jet airliner to serve "god"."

 

[JustWondering]

Should church's be punished for refusing to marry gays by loosing tax exempt status?
I post a while back that this might happen in order to force Church's to perform
weddings for gay couples and if I recall I took a lot of flack for even suggesting
such a thing could happen.

Well read this.

Churches Who Refuse Same Sex Weddings Could Lose Tax Exempt Status – Downtrend


Churches Who Refuse Same Sex Weddings Could Lose Tax Exempt Status
Now that same-sex marriage is the law of the land, there’s a very good chance that churches who refuse to perform gay weddings could lose their tax-exempt status.

The Daily Caller is reporting that in his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts warned as much.

“Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage — when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples,” Roberts wrote.



“Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.”

It’s inconceivable that a Catholic Church – or any house of worship – could be forced to perform gay marriages, even if their religion prohibits it. And if they don’t, they could lose their status as a “church.”

Is this unintended consequences, or was it liberal, gay-rights advocates’ intention to destroy the institution of religion too?

Thoughts?

I don't think churches should be exempt from paying taxes, period. Regardless of what they do or don't do.

 

[columbus]

As would be expected, many of the battles over the extent of religious freedom have involved government efforts to impose upon the practices of small groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons.

Could you be more specific about the imposition on the practices of the Mormons? I think that they should have lost their tax exempt status for their regular incursions into politics. But I don't know of any impositions at all.
Tom

 

[ChristineES]

Churches should lose their tax free status anyway - regardless of their response to equal rights.

All non-profit organizations are tax exempt, plus every Church I've been to gives a lot to charity. Why would you single out Churches from other non-profit organizations and charities? I'm not too worried about the big Churches, it's the small ones, which there are a lot more of that I worry about. Not even the preacher gets paid enough to live by in those small Churches- they have to have another job.

 

[Bunyip]

All non-profit organizations are tax exempt, plus every Church I've been to gives a lot to charity. Why would you single out Churches from other non-profit organizations and charities?

You must have missed my initial comment - I was referring to the large and clearly for profit Churches.

I'm not too worried about the big Churches, it's the small ones, which there are a lot more of that I worry about. Not even the preacher gets paid enough to live by in those small Churches- they have to have another job.

I don't think that those would have a large tax burden. Small churches with few assets would not have large tax liabilities.

I would also argue that the Catholic church, being the largest of all is hardly not for profit. It is one of the richest organisations on earth.

 

[JoStories]

It seems to me the gov't would be opening a huge can of worms
by revoking gov't funding to a church entity for refusing to marry
gays.
That would get pretty frugly, pretty quickly I'd think.

I have to wonder why a couple who happens to be gay would want to marry in a church that would refuse them. What's the point? Most gays don't want to 'rock the boat'. There are some, of course, but like me and my partner, we just wanted a JP to do the ceremony. Forcing a church out of spike is, IMO, just plain silly. Its being contentious for contentiousness sake.

 

[JoStories]

Makes sense. Where is the boundry lie, though? Jane and Billy can go through marriage training and worknout their issues to recieve the blessings to marry. Bob and John cant even get that far. Armed men at the doors.

It is the religious right to deny anyone the right to marry.

Where does the line drawn between keeping ones tradition to better the religion and others vs keeping the tradition and so denying the very members who want to be blessed by the teachings they are shuned of?

Terrible.

Also, what do the religious do about transexuals. In the Catholic Church they go by one, your birth cirtificate and two, how you identify yourself. If a transexual woman lies and says she is a woman (though is a man inside), and the church sees she is lying, what right do they have tondeny this technically straight person marriage based on identity.

The sexuality and religious laws of marriage in some religions bothers the mess out of me. If they went under the US law, they have so many descrimination charges.

I agree Carlita. It, for me, is similar to a nurse refusing to care for a patient for some reason. Maybe its because the patient is Black. Or Jewish. Or TG. The same thing should hold to a church but if that church is built on the ideal that marriage is a certain ideal, why would any couple that is gay want to marry in a place that would be charged with so much negative energy in the first place? For me, it would be wrong. Let them have their beliefs. They will have to answer for them at some point, IMO.

 

[Windwalker]

During my lifetime I have seen a significant deterioration in the respect accorded to religion in our public life, and I believe that the vitality of religious freedom is in danger of being weakened accordingly.

Such as?

 

[Windwalker]

It is the religious right to deny anyone the right to marry.

Where does the line drawn between keeping ones tradition to better the religion and others vs keeping the tradition and so denying the very members who want to be blessed by the teachings they are shuned of?

This is of course an internal question to the religion, any religion. It is not the law of the land to impose values, beliefs, and practices into religion, and absolutely not the other way around either, try as hard as some do to impose religious values on those outside the religion!

As society as a whole becomes more tolerant, more open-minded, more educated and knowledgeable, this will itself gradually bring about change from within the religious institutions they are part of. Change takes a very long time though. It takes key people at the top for it to begin to trickle down, and those key people arise from within the body itself. My favorite saying is that change happens one funeral at a time. I think that sums up a lot of what we see.

I can go into some length about this, but I think it's safe to say the government is not forcing religions to adopt its beliefs and values and practices. And it it my belief that those who are crying about their "rights" being stripped away, such as not being "allowed" to pray in school, taking "God out of the classroom", etc., are deflecting attention off their own personal religious agenda to proselytize others to their beliefs and values by having special status. If they government actually did legislate prayer in school, and that prayer happened to be Muslim prayer, once again they would feel they were being marginalized because it wasn't their religions prayer! It's pretty obvious the game there.

Also, what do the religious do about transexuals. In the Catholic Church they go by one, your birth cirtificate and two, how you identify yourself. If a transexual woman lies and says she is a woman (though is a man inside), and the church sees she is lying, what right do they have tondeny this technically straight person marriage based on identity.

The sexuality and religious laws of marriage in some religions bothers the mess out of me. If they went under the US law, they have so many descrimination charges.

I am all for people having the right to choose their own partners for marriage, and to enjoy the legal status of the land. But I also would agree that if a church structures itself to say only certain people qualify for certain internal privileges, that should be their right to practice their religion as they see fit. If someone doesn't like what they do, go elsewhere, or work from within to change the system.

All that has happened here in laws like these, is to protect those in society who do not share those same beliefs and values of certain religious groups. As well it should be. I would not want to have some freaky fundamentalist group deny me the right to meditate because they ignorantly believe it's "of the devil", or something. Or force me to wear black clothing made of wool and not drive a car. Or say I can't listen to certain types of music, or a long, endless list of things that religious does internally, and sadly feels the need to spread to the world beyond its own doors. That's all that happening, is that right to NOT practice that religion is being enforced.

 

[Thief]

to be fair...I haven't read the whole thread.....
pass me by if I repeat this item already mentioned....

You can be married in a courthouse.
It's binding.

No need to push your personal beliefs into a church.

 

[Marisa]

That's what I am speaking about: Churches.

Cool. It wasn't clear to me.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I agree Carlita. It, for me, is similar to a nurse refusing to care for a patient for some reason. Maybe its because the patient is Black. Or Jewish. Or TG. The same thing should hold to a church but if that church is built on the ideal that marriage is a certain ideal, why would any couple that is gay want to marry in a place that would be charged with so much negative energy in the first place? For me, it would be wrong. Let them have their beliefs. They will have to answer for them at some point, IMO.

True. Many gay Catholic couples (dont want to say there are none) may want their future marriage blessed by the Church. There was a post or threas someone said about one religion refusing a person communiom because she had an divorce and married outside the religion. Jehovah Witness, I believed.

I hate to say this, but if God wants to bless a marriage or grant that person blessing to be in communion with Him, No Church should play God and deny them that right given to them by God not any Church.

 

[jeager106]

Speaking of churches and taxes one wonders if the L.D.S.
church sponsored banks had to pay taxes on the profit made
from financing the building of Las Vegas years ago.
The L.D.S. banks were of course in league with the Mafia
of that era.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Las_Vegas

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,209863,209863

http://vegasjessie.com/2012/07/13/willard-romney-and-mormon-nepotism-a-las-vegas-connection/

Lots of documented history in the links if anyone is curious.
This has NOTHING to do with individual L.D.S. followers.

 

[jeager106]

to be fair...I haven't read the whole thread.....
pass me by if I repeat this item already mentioned....

You can be married in a courthouse.
It's binding.

No need to push your personal beliefs into a church.

Yes, this ^^^^^ makes total sense to me.
Why push the noodle?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Churches still reserve the right to not marry interracial marriage despite interracial marriage bans being overturned as unconstitutional nearly 50 years ago. Who they marry in their churches is their business. However if the church provides for-profit business such as rented venues for marriages or photographers, etc, then they're under the same non-descrimination regulation that all businesses under the BBB licensure are. They must provide equal service.