Should churches that don't perform gay marriages lose their tax-exempt status?

[pbrower2a]

I know one pastor who will not marry a cohabitating couple until they have broken their cohabitation for at least one year.

Don't like it? Get married elsewhere.

[Brittain33]

Should churches that don't perform interfaith weddings lose their tax-exempt status?

[Del Tachi]

This is such a stupid question.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

This is such a stupid question.

It really is.

[cinyc]

This is such a stupid question.

It was raised during oral argument before the Supreme Court, with the Solicitor General, arguing in favor of same-sex marriage, admitting that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage if it were legalized by court fiat.  See Roberts' dissent.  So it is nowhere near a moot point or stupid question.  There is a precident involving a university that didn't recognize opposite race relationships, too.

I'm surpised more on this website aren't in favor of revoking tax-exempt status, though.

[Del Tachi]

This is such a stupid question.

It was raised during oral argument before the Supreme Court, with the Solicitor General, arguing in favor of same-sex marriage, admitting that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage if it were legalized by court fiat.  See Roberts' dissent.  So it is nowhere near a moot point or stupid question.  There is a precident involving a university that didn't recognize opposite race relationships, too.

I'm surpised more on this website aren't in favor of revoking tax-exempt status, though.

Its stupid because its a textbook example of a false dilemma.  LGBTs that try to get married in a Southern Baptist ceremony are just trolling.

Marriage exists simultaneously as religious and civil institution.  Any two people can participate in a ceremony and call themselves "married" as a function of their right to religious expression, but its a piece of paper signed in a courthouse that affords them all of the protections and benefits of state marriage.  To argue that their exists a "right" for gay couples to participate in a religious marriage ceremony is akin to saying that there exists a right to First Communion. 

[cinyc]

Its stupid because its a textbook example of a false dilemma.  LGBTs that try to get married in a Southern Baptist ceremony are just trolling.

Marriage exists simultaneously as religious and civil institution.  Any two people can participate in a ceremony and call themselves "married" as a function of their right to religious expression, but its a piece of paper signed in a courthouse that affords them all of the protections and benefits of state marriage.  To argue that their exists a "right" for gay couples to participate in a religious marriage ceremony is akin to saying that there exists a right to First Communion.

Because there have never been legal trolls before, trying to force Christian bakers to bake gay wedding cakes or Christian florists to provide flowers for gay weddings against their will.  Those people have prevailed there, so far.   Like I said, there also is a case where the tax exempt status of a Christian university was in jeopardy for failing to recognize interracial marriage or relationships.  The court ruled against the university.  And Hillary Clinton's spokeswoman refused to answer what you think is such an obvious, stupid question on Friday.

The piece of paper may be initially signed in a courthouse, but it is usually not binding until after the religious or civil ceremony, by the way.

[Del Tachi]

Its stupid because its a textbook example of a false dilemma.  LGBTs that try to get married in a Southern Baptist ceremony are just trolling.

Marriage exists simultaneously as religious and civil institution.  Any two people can participate in a ceremony and call themselves "married" as a function of their right to religious expression, but its a piece of paper signed in a courthouse that affords them all of the protections and benefits of state marriage.  To argue that their exists a "right" for gay couples to participate in a religious marriage ceremony is akin to saying that there exists a right to First Communion.

Because there have never been legal trolls before, trying to force Christian bakers to bake gay wedding cakes or Christian florists to provide flowers for gay weddings against their will.  Those people have prevailed there, so far.   Like I said, there also is a case where the tax exempt status of a Christian university was in jeopardy for failing to recognize interracial marriage or relationships.  The court ruled against the university.  And Hillary Clinton's spokeswoman refused to answer what you think is such an obvious, stupid question on Friday.

The piece of paper may be initially signed in a courthouse, but it is usually not binding until after the religious or civil ceremony, by the way.

You're seriously missing something if you think that the Supreme Court is going to rule that a gay couple has a right to walk into a church and be married by a pastor of their choosing.

Churches don't recognize civil marriages or bestow the secular benefits that accompany them, so I fail to see how a church's unwillingness to wed two people in a ceremony is a hindrance to their Constitutional right to getting married.   

And what was Hillary Clinton's spokesperson suppose to do?  Say "yes" in the face of a First Amendment that obviously protects the free exercise or religion? or say "no" in what could be construed as a negative statement about LGBT rights on what was suppose to be a momentous day for the cause?   

The concern trolling is real. 

[Edu]

Has there ever been a case in one of the multiple countries with gay marriage where some pastor/priest whatever was forced under law to officiate a gay wedding in a church?

I don't seem to find anything at all, why would it be different in the US? looks like another fearmongering argument to me.

[cinyc]

You're seriously missing something if you think that the Supreme Court is going to rule that a gay couple has a right to walk into a church and be married by a pastor of their choosing.

Churches don't recognize civil marriages or bestow the secular benefits that accompany them, so I fail to see how a church's unwillingness to wed two people in a ceremony is a hindrance to their Constitutional right to getting married.    

And what was Hillary Clinton's spokesperson suppose to do?  Say "yes" in the face of a First Amendment that obviously protects the free exercise or religion? or say "no" in what could be construed as a negative statement about LGBT rights on what was suppose to be a momentous day for the cause?  

The concern trolling is real.  

How is a baker's refusal to bake a cake for a gay marriage a hindrance to their Constitutional right to get married?  Yet bakers must shut up, bake and deliver gay wedding cakes under penalty of law in some states.

Hillary Clinton's spokesman is suppose to say what the candidate believes, not duck the question.  Believe it or not, a good portion of the population, including some Democrats, don't believe in "the cause".  Taking some time to allay their fears that their church will be compelled to participate in a ceremony they oppose is the least a fair candidate who wants to represent all people could do.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

You're seriously missing something if you think that the Supreme Court is going to rule that a gay couple has a right to walk into a church and be married by a pastor of their choosing.

Churches don't recognize civil marriages or bestow the secular benefits that accompany them, so I fail to see how a church's unwillingness to wed two people in a ceremony is a hindrance to their Constitutional right to getting married.    

And what was Hillary Clinton's spokesperson suppose to do?  Say "yes" in the face of a First Amendment that obviously protects the free exercise or religion? or say "no" in what could be construed as a negative statement about LGBT rights on what was suppose to be a momentous day for the cause?  

The concern trolling is real.  

How is a baker's refusal to bake a cake for a gay marriage a hindrance to their Constitutional right to get married?  Yet bakers must shut up, bake and deliver gay wedding cakes under penalty of law in some states.

This is an outrage and massive infringement on the personal freedom of these bakers! What's next, they'll be forced to bake cakes for blacks and Hispanics, because of a religiously justified opposition to their skin color!?

[afleitch]

They shouldn't have tax exempt status.

However I have a feeling that people (even young evangelicals) will eventually walk with their feet in the next ten years or so if an LGBT church member is refused marriage within their shared church.

[Brittain33]

This is such a stupid question.

It was raised during oral argument before the Supreme Court, with the Solicitor General, arguing in favor of same-sex marriage, admitting that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage if it were legalized by court fiat.  See Roberts' dissent.  So it is nowhere near a moot point or stupid question.  There is a precident involving a university that didn't recognize opposite race relationships, too.

I'm surpised more on this website aren't in favor of revoking tax-exempt status, though.

You're conflating two issues. What's at question is whether religiously affiliated businesses and institutions can discriminate against gay and lesbian employees at hospitals and schools by refusing to provide benefits to married partners.

You're making the leap to whether refusal to conduct same-sex weddings is at question. Since clergy have freely discriminated against interfaith couples in this area despite discrimination on the basis of religion being very illegal for decades, it's obvious what the precedent is.  

[Brittain33]

This is an outrage and massive infringement on the personal freedom of these bakers! What's next, they'll be forced to bake cakes for blacks and Hispanics, because of a religiously justified opposition to their skin color!?

I wonder if people believe a baker should be allowed to close their doors to Jews looking for a cake for a bar mitzvah because of the baker's religious views.

[Brittain33]

Yet bakers must shut up, bake and deliver gay wedding cakes under penalty of law in some states.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Interestingly, if you made churches pay property taxes it would be the Evangelical-type suburban megachurch model that would most easily acclimate, not the smaller, older churches (predominately Catholic or mainline) that were built 100+ years ago in the middle of cities that would survive. Pretty much every church would need to be a suburban (or rural) type of place if that happened.

Oh blimey, didn't think of that. Of course, I am on record as stating that there is no literally no point in religion in *ugh* modern buildings. Why people insist on building new churches I'll never understand.

Perhaps some sort of eyesore tax on the modernist dens?

[DC Al Fine]

Interestingly, if you made churches pay property taxes it would be the Evangelical-type suburban megachurch model that would most easily acclimate, not the smaller, older churches (predominately Catholic or mainline) that were built 100+ years ago in the middle of cities that would survive. Pretty much every church would need to be a suburban (or rural) type of place if that happened.

Indeed. Property tax in my area is roughly 1% of assessed value. This would hurt my church a bit but wouldn't affect our day to day operations. On the other hand, the local Anglican cathedral is across the street from my downtown office. I shudder to think what they would have to pay

Oh blimey, didn't think of that. Of course, I am on record as stating that there is no literally no point in religion in *ugh* modern buildings. Why people insist on building new churches I'll never understand.

Perhaps some sort of eyesore tax on the modernist dens?

You Brits have a peculiar relationship with Christianity that never ceases to fascinate me.

[Badger]

You're seriously missing something if you think that the Supreme Court is going to rule that a gay couple has a right to walk into a church and be married by a pastor of their choosing.

Churches don't recognize civil marriages or bestow the secular benefits that accompany them, so I fail to see how a church's unwillingness to wed two people in a ceremony is a hindrance to their Constitutional right to getting married.    

And what was Hillary Clinton's spokesperson suppose to do?  Say "yes" in the face of a First Amendment that obviously protects the free exercise or religion? or say "no" in what could be construed as a negative statement about LGBT rights on what was suppose to be a momentous day for the cause?  

The concern trolling is real.  

How is a baker's refusal to bake a cake for a gay marriage a hindrance to their Constitutional right to get married?  Yet bakers must shut up, bake and deliver gay wedding cakes under penalty of law in some states.

This is an outrage and massive infringement on the personal freedom of these bakers! What's next, they'll be forced to bake cakes for blacks and Hispanics, because of a religiously justified opposition to their skin color!?

I'm waiting for the case where a shop refuses to do flowers or a cake for an interracial marriage based on religious grounds. Or a Jewish or (more likely) Muslim marriage based on their bride and groom being unable to accept Jesus Christ as their savior--(the Bible arguably says a teensy bit more on this subject than homosexuality). Or a Catholic florist that refuses to deal with a divorced couple remarrying.

And yet we don't see those scenarios. At all. I wonder why......

[Simfan34]

Interestingly, if you made churches pay property taxes it would be the Evangelical-type suburban megachurch model that would most easily acclimate, not the smaller, older churches (predominately Catholic or mainline) that were built 100+ years ago in the middle of cities that would survive. Pretty much every church would need to be a suburban (or rural) type of place if that happened.

Oh blimey, didn't think of that. Of course, I am on record as stating that there is no literally no point in religion in *ugh* modern buildings. Why people insist on building new churches I'll never understand.

Perhaps some sort of eyesore tax on the modernist dens?

I would strongly support this... and not just for churches!

[DC Al Fine]

You're seriously missing something if you think that the Supreme Court is going to rule that a gay couple has a right to walk into a church and be married by a pastor of their choosing.

Churches don't recognize civil marriages or bestow the secular benefits that accompany them, so I fail to see how a church's unwillingness to wed two people in a ceremony is a hindrance to their Constitutional right to getting married.    

And what was Hillary Clinton's spokesperson suppose to do?  Say "yes" in the face of a First Amendment that obviously protects the free exercise or religion? or say "no" in what could be construed as a negative statement about LGBT rights on what was suppose to be a momentous day for the cause?  

The concern trolling is real.  

How is a baker's refusal to bake a cake for a gay marriage a hindrance to their Constitutional right to get married?  Yet bakers must shut up, bake and deliver gay wedding cakes under penalty of law in some states.

This is an outrage and massive infringement on the personal freedom of these bakers! What's next, they'll be forced to bake cakes for blacks and Hispanics, because of a religiously justified opposition to their skin color!?

I'm waiting for the case where a shop refuses to do flowers or a cake for an interracial marriage based on religious grounds. Or a Jewish or (more likely) Muslim marriage based on their bride and groom being unable to accept Jesus Christ as their savior--(the Bible arguably says a teensy bit more on this subject than homosexuality). Or a Catholic florist that refuses to deal with a divorced couple remarrying.

And yet we don't see those scenarios. At all. I wonder why......

Well for one how many sects are proclaiming their eternal opposition to two Jews getting married?

[Adam Griffin]

"Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; it is an abomination." -Leviticus 18:22.....Its a Abomination = ObamaNation... America is going to go through judgment soon just like Sodom and Gomorrah went through judgment and was destroyed.

Kinda hard to considering that men don't have hoo-has.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

This is an outrage and massive infringement on the personal freedom of these bakers! What's next, they'll be forced to bake cakes for blacks and Hispanics, because of a religiously justified opposition to their skin color!?

I wonder if people believe a baker should be allowed to close their doors to Jews looking for a cake for a bar mitzvah because of the baker's religious views.

I wonder if people believe a Muslim bookseller should have to sell an (Arabic) Quran to Pastor Terry Jones.  

(No, I don't really wonder, I already know they do. Same people who hate conservative Christians hate Orthodox Jews and Muslims, more often than not.)

[Brittain33]

This is an outrage and massive infringement on the personal freedom of these bakers! What's next, they'll be forced to bake cakes for blacks and Hispanics, because of a religiously justified opposition to their skin color!?

I wonder if people believe a baker should be allowed to close their doors to Jews looking for a cake for a bar mitzvah because of the baker's religious views.

I wonder if people believe a Muslim bookseller should have to sell an (Arabic) Quran to Pastor Terry Jones.  

(No, I don't really wonder, I already know they do. Same people who hate conservative Christians hate Orthodox Jews and Muslims, more often than not.)

Ok, so you are in the camp that believes that bakers should be able to discriminate against Jews if they want to use the cake in a bar mitzvah. Am I reading this correctly?

[Maxwell]

No. In 50 years many of them won't have enough money to survive whether they pay taxes or not. So whatevs.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

This is an outrage and massive infringement on the personal freedom of these bakers! What's next, they'll be forced to bake cakes for blacks and Hispanics, because of a religiously justified opposition to their skin color!?

I wonder if people believe a baker should be allowed to close their doors to Jews looking for a cake for a bar mitzvah because of the baker's religious views.

I wonder if people believe a Muslim bookseller should have to sell an (Arabic) Quran to Pastor Terry Jones.  

(No, I don't really wonder, I already know they do. Same people who hate conservative Christians hate Orthodox Jews and Muslims, more often than not.)

Ok, so you are in the camp that believes that bakers should be able to discriminate against Jews if they want to use the cake in a bar mitzvah. Am I reading this correctly?

O I don't know, I'm not sure that hypothetical is quite ridiculous enough to consider.  Maybe if there were a spaceship who had a religious objections to Martians, I think that's a better example.