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

[jeager106]

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?

 

[Mindmaster]

I think there are enough churches that aren't completely insane to join if you need one. All that can happen here is that hatemonger churches lose members -- this is good for everyone.

 

[columbus]

Why should private clubs which discriminate at will get taxpayer funded benefits?
Like tax exempt status?
Tom

 

[Quintessence]

Should church's be punished for refusing to marry gays by loosing tax exempt status?

Absolutely not, considering that is a flagrant violation of the separation of church and state.

Also, the source of this article is hardly reputable.

 

[columbus]

Absolutely not, considering that is a flagrant violation of the separation of church and state.

Isn't giving churches special tax privileges a violation of church and state?
Tom

 

[LuisDantas]

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

Should they have tax exemptions in the first place? If so, why?

Also, what would the relation be? Do those specific weddings have legal effects as well, perhaps? Are those priests authorized to perform such legal marriages as well as religious ones?

If so, then it is conceivable that refusal to abide by the law as it now stands would be reason enough to revoke that authorization.

I don't know how that would connect to tax exemptions, if at all.

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.

True enough. There will be a need for reconsidering and adjusting traditional arrangements. There will be a need to clearly establish how arbitrarily such agencies may decide who to grant adoptions.

Not a problem, but rather a solution, IMO.

“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.”

It should be of no legal consequence whether an institution is recognized as a church, so it seems to me that this is simply an existing distortion being brought to light by recent legal adjustments.

The Catholic Church, or any other, should not be forced to perform marriages at all. Nor should any Church rely on political recognition of their claims of being Churches, let alone on tax exemptions based on that recognition.

BTW, I thought the Watchtower had clear directives against involvement with politics?

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

Thoughts?

That specific statement is very biased indeed. It implies that it is somehow the State's duty to acknowledge and give privileges to the Church. Such is not the case, nor morally, nor logically, nor legally.

 

[Quintessence]

Isn't giving churches special tax privileges a violation of church and state?
Tom

No, because they're non-profits. Do I think that tax-exempt status for non-profits should be streamlined to be blind to whether or not an organization is religious? Yes. But when and if that is done, they'd still be tax-exempt anyway.

Also, no, because all religious organizations can get this status, rather than merely some of them. There's no favoritism going on.

 

[Jainarayan]

Should church's be punished for refusing to marry gays by loosing tax exempt status?

No they shouldn't and no they won't.

 

[Nakosis]

Isn't giving churches special tax privileges a violation of church and state?
Tom

Not really unless what is provided for one religion isn't equally provided to all religions. Of course they could change the tax laws too. Lawmakers control taxing. They use taxing and funding to control behavior. It's a democracy thing. You support folks that tax and fund the way you want them to. Ideally it's what the majority chooses.

 

[Nietzsche]

Should church's be punished for refusing to marry gays by loosing tax exempt status?

If it happens, I'm gonna be incredibly mad when I inevitably wake up from what is clearly a dream, as such a thing happening would simply make me too happy for the universe to actually allow it.

 

[jojom]

Absolutely not, considering that is a flagrant violation of the separation of church and state.

My first thought as well.

Also, the source of this article is hardly reputable.

Questionable source or not, we still have the quote from Chief Justice John Roberts/Solicitor General to consider:

“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


.​

 

[jeager106]

Isn't giving churches special tax privileges a violation of church and state?
Tom

No and here is one Court statement:
178 “If religious institutions benefit, it is in spite of rather than because of their religious character. For religious institutions simply share benefits which government makes generally available to educational, charitable, and eleemosynary groups.” Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 301 (1963) (concurring opinion).

 

[columbus]

No, because they're non-profits. Do I think that tax-exempt status for non-profits should be streamlined to be blind to whether or not an organization is religious? Yes. But when and if that is done, they'd still be tax-exempt anyway.

Also, no, because all religious organizations can get this status, rather than merely some of them. There's no favoritism going on.

I suspect that this is not really true, it just hasn't been questioned. If I sent off for a ministers certificate and started marrying people to their pets I believe that me claiming my income as tax exempt would get a bit more scrutiny than the local RCC gets.
Tom

 

[columbus]

For religious institutions simply share benefits which government makes generally available to educational, charitable, and eleemosynary groups.” Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 301 (1963) (concurring opinion).

This is simply not true. I was on the board of a church and a few other tax exempt organizations.
If you are doing art or feeding the poor there are a lot more hoops to jump through to get tax exempt status than if you are doing business as a church.
Tom

 

[Brickjectivity]

As the state has control of marriage, it doesn't matter what churches do; because its out of their hands who gets married. The state cannot exert pressure on churches to accept gay marriage, either; except in cases where they accept funding from govt. For example if a Christian university accepts federal funding then it has to conform to many state norms; but if it remains privately funded it stays independent of govt. control.

 

[dgirl1986]

Tax exemption restrictions should not be tied onto the marriage equality issue. I think that tax exemption should only apply to churches who use a certain percentage of earnings to reinvest in communities or charities.

I personally would not expect churches to marry my partner and I. If I wanted to get married in a church, I would go to one that will do it. You wouldnt want to get married in a church that is anti gay. Talk about awkward.

 

[jojom]

As the state has control of marriage, it doesn't matter what churches do; because its out of their hands who gets married. The state cannot exert pressure on churches to accept gay marriage, either; except in cases where they accept funding from govt. For example if a Christian university accepts federal funding then it has to conform to many state norms; but if it remains privately funded it stays independent of govt. control.

Wouldn't a tax break based on religious affiliation amount to federal funding? Or is there no such animal?

 

[metis]

I think a church has the full right not to marry gays-- separation of church & state.

 

[Lyndon]

I suspect that this is not really true, it just hasn't been questioned. If I sent off for a ministers certificate and started marrying people to their pets I believe that me claiming my income as tax exempt would get a bit more scrutiny than the local RCC gets.
Tom

Not to mention the scrutiny you would get from the RSPCA or the ASPCA!!

 

[gsa]

How many Orthodox Jewish synagogues allow their rabbis to marry Jews and Gentiles? And of those who do not, how many have lost their tax exemption status?

They should not (and will not) lose their tax exemption status for refusing to allow religious ceremonies that violate their religious beliefs. Similarly, they will not be required to employ gays in ministerial positions. This stuff is all a red herring. The real question is can they continue as educational institutions, hospitals and adoption agencies while imposing these restrictions? I think the answer to that should be no. Those receive direct federal funding in the form of student loans, medicare, etc.