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

[DemPGH]

Churches actually decide to perform or not perform wedding ceremonies based on a lot of criteria, so no, not per se. I have a much bigger problem with religious "exemptions" to laws and so forth, which I don't think should be granted.

Religious institutions should lose their tax exempt status if they are actively being political or otherwise endorsing candidates, for one thing, or saying "you, dear congregation, should vote this way or that way." Beyond that it gets real gray, but religious institutions get way too many free passes as it is, so it would be worth taking a look at those areas to try to decide where that line should be.

Now, if I were a gay religious person (I am neither), and my church would not perform a wedding ceremony for me and my partner, then I think I would have to re-evaluate my support of that church.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The really amazing thing is that there are people who want to force unwilling people to play key roles in what is supposedly the biggest day of their lives.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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?

I'm not aware of anyone who has a religious objection to a bar mitzvah. Maybe an Orthodox Jewish baker would object to a bat mitzvah.

[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?

I'm not aware of anyone who has a religious objection to a bar mitzvah. Maybe an Orthodox Jewish baker would object to a bat mitzvah.

It's not part of the Christian faith to have a bar mitzvah, much as it's not part of some people's Christian faith to marry someone of the same sex.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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?

I'm not aware of anyone who has a religious objection to a bar mitzvah. Maybe an Orthodox Jewish baker would object to a bat mitzvah.

It's not part of the Christian faith to have a bar mitzvah, much as it's not part of some people's Christian faith to marry someone of the same sex.

You're being willfully obtuse now, almost trollishly so. There's a vast difference between something that is not part one's own faith and something one believes is an abomination that it would be a sin to be even marginally a participant in.

[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?

I'm not aware of anyone who has a religious objection to a bar mitzvah. Maybe an Orthodox Jewish baker would object to a bat mitzvah.

It's not part of the Christian faith to have a bar mitzvah, much as it's not part of some people's Christian faith to marry someone of the same sex.

You're being willfully obtuse now, almost trollishly so. There's a vast difference between something that is not part one's own faith and something one believes is an abomination that it would be a sin to be even marginally a participant in.

I'm not being obtuse, I'm highlighting the sloppy thinking and contradictions behind that assumption. Same-sex marriage is not mentioned in the bible, to my knowledge. Selling a cake that would be used in a celebration is not mentioned, either. (Slavery is, interestingly).

I'm not being obtuse. I just don't think that a Biblical injunction against an individual engaging in same-sex sex maps to the cake sale.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Religious institutions should lose their tax exempt status if they are actively being political or otherwise endorsing candidates, for one thing, or saying "you, dear congregation, should vote this way or that way."

Does that include Churches which bus congregants to the polls for mass early voting?

[pbrower2a]

"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.

This is the sort of judgment that I wish that the United States of America avoid.



Neither Churchill nor FDR claimed to be God.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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?

I'm not aware of anyone who has a religious objection to a bar mitzvah. Maybe an Orthodox Jewish baker would object to a bat mitzvah.

It's not part of the Christian faith to have a bar mitzvah, much as it's not part of some people's Christian faith to marry someone of the same sex.

You're being willfully obtuse now, almost trollishly so. There's a vast difference between something that is not part one's own faith and something one believes is an abomination that it would be a sin to be even marginally a participant in.

I'm not being obtuse, I'm highlighting the sloppy thinking and contradictions behind that assumption. Same-sex marriage is not mentioned in the bible, to my knowledge. Selling a cake that would be used in a celebration is not mentioned, either. (Slavery is, interestingly).

I'm not being obtuse. I just don't think that a Biblical injunction against an individual engaging in same-sex sex maps to the cake sale.

Mark 10:1-12 and Matthew 19:1-12 both define marriage as being both between one man and one wife and as being largely unto death they do part. I'll agree that it does seem arbitrary that many Biblical literalists don't get as agitated about no-fault divorce as they do SSM. In that respect the Roman Church is more consistent about applying these passages than many sola scriptura Protestant churches these days.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I guess Jews are not allowed to have any dietary restrictions beyond the most literal reading of Leviticus?  Or maybe they don't have even that, if they are getting a bar mitzvah cake from a non-Jewish baker.

[Brittain33]

I guess Jews are not allowed to have any dietary restrictions beyond the most literal reading of Leviticus?  Or maybe they don't have even that, if they are getting a bar mitzvah cake from a non-Jewish baker.

You're assuming the baker is one of the partners in the same-sex marriage again...

In any case, I know where your mind is on this. I think we can agree, it would be for the best for the Republican nominee to stand up for the right of people to deny services and products to gays and lesbians, and that this is the most important civil rights and discrimination issue in our society today. I would love to have this be a theme of the 2016 election.

[CountryClassSF]

The rights that were found in the Constitution after almost 150 years after the adoption of the 14th amendment should not infringe on the free exercise clause.

As for ENDA type state laws, the discrimination should have to be systemic, i.e. sole denial of ANY Business based on sexual preference.  Refusal to participate in a ceremony that violates faith should be different, and frankly, the federal courts should clarify that, because the blue state courts are firmly on board with the leftist agenda.

Arguing against tax exemptions for churches means that the left is now advocating breaching the wall of separation between church and state. 

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I try to be only as much of a culture warrior as is actually necessary, so of course not.

All churches should lose tax exempt status.

People who hold this position tend to have a poor understanding of why they have it in the first place.

I am curious, in your view, why do they have it in the first place?

Because they're nonprofits.

The Catholic Church has more money than most small European countries........some are profitable nonprofits, Nathan.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I guess Jews are not allowed to have any dietary restrictions beyond the most literal reading of Leviticus?  Or maybe they don't have even that, if they are getting a bar mitzvah cake from a non-Jewish baker.

You're assuming the baker is one of the partners in the same-sex marriage again...

In any case, I know where your mind is on this. I think we can agree, it would be for the best for the Republican nominee to stand up for the right of people to deny services and products to gays and lesbians, and that this is the most important civil rights and discrimination issue in our society today. I would love to have this be a theme of the 2016 election.

I am assuming again what?  I'm talking about your idea that a person is only allowed to disagree with something if they agree with your interpretation of the bible and its implication for morality.

But yeah, basic freedom of conscience protections are pretty damn important. More than satisfying the vindictiveness of those who find no better way to celebrate their marriage than by using it as an occasion to sue people who disagree (Nothing says "love" like punishing people with different beliefs than you, right?).

[SNJ1985]

I'll agree that it does seem arbitrary that many Biblical literalists don't get as agitated about no-fault divorce as they do SSM.

I am a Biblical literalist, and I am just as strongly opposed to divorce as I am to ''same-sex marriage''.

[Brittain33]

But yeah, basic freedom of conscience protections are pretty damn important.

True, but I'm not sure what that has to do with this subject? We're talking about public accommodations serving customers or declining to serve customers, not engaging in religious (or sacrilegious) activities. In any case, I agree with you! This is the most important issue of our time and all of our voters (especially the young ones) need to know where our leaders stand! Let's have the Republican candidate stake out this position and run on it in 2016.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

But yeah, basic freedom of conscience protections are pretty damn important.

True, but I'm not sure what that has to do with this subject? We're talking about public accommodations serving customers or declining to serve customers, not engaging in religious (or sacrilegious) activities. In any case, I agree with you! This is the most important issue of our time and all of our voters (especially the young ones) need to know where our leaders stand! Let's have the Republican candidate stake out this position and run on it in 2016.

For a religious person, there is not one morality for 'secular' situations and one for 'religious' situations.  All of life, including one's profession, are directed by one's moral duties.  Directing  someone to lend their expression and talents to something they disagree with is an infringement on their liberty.

[CountryClassSF]

I'll agree that it does seem arbitrary that many Biblical literalists don't get as agitated about no-fault divorce as they do SSM.

I am a Biblical literalist, and I am just as strongly opposed to divorce as I am to ''same-sex marriage''.

Divorce needs to be made harder. It's contributed overall to the decay of the family.

[DemPGH]

Religious institutions should lose their tax exempt status if they are actively being political or otherwise endorsing candidates, for one thing, or saying "you, dear congregation, should vote this way or that way."

Does that include Churches which bus congregants to the polls for mass early voting?

I very much frown on that, especially if it's an organized church activity. Local and state governments should ideally take care of that, but the thing is, in a lot of communities the church is the social center. So it's very gray.

[Torie]

But yeah, basic freedom of conscience protections are pretty damn important.

True, but I'm not sure what that has to do with this subject? We're talking about public accommodations serving customers or declining to serve customers, not engaging in religious (or sacrilegious) activities. In any case, I agree with you! This is the most important issue of our time and all of our voters (especially the young ones) need to know where our leaders stand! Let's have the Republican candidate stake out this position and run on it in 2016.

You're being a bit haughty here, now aren't you?  

But I must agree with you, that it is being blown all out of proportion, this endangerment to religious expression. It's there at the margins, but it's hardly some sort of crisis, shocking to the conscience of those who care about religious liberty. Why? I suspect because it's a proxy, a channel to vent frustration that those who wish in a more "perfect" world that gays have a more marginalized status, consigned to the shadows, have endured a total defeat, both at the ballot box, in public opinion, in the trends in public opinion (the young, even the Pub young, have been "brainwashed" into a near total tolerance and acceptance of gays), and in the Courts. It's been a bloodbath for them as it were, and seemingly something of a permanent plate tectonic shift.

Anyway, I hope that we can try to be gracious in victory. Give them all time to process it all, and work it out to the point where they can just move on, to other issues.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

But yeah, basic freedom of conscience protections are pretty damn important.

True, but I'm not sure what that has to do with this subject? We're talking about public accommodations serving customers or declining to serve customers, not engaging in religious (or sacrilegious) activities. In any case, I agree with you! This is the most important issue of our time and all of our voters (especially the young ones) need to know where our leaders stand! Let's have the Republican candidate stake out this position and run on it in 2016.

You're being a bit haughty here, now aren't you?  

But I must agree with you, that it is being blown all out of proportion, this endangerment to religious expression. It's there at the margins, but it's hardly some sort of crisis, shocking to the conscience of those who care about religious liberty. Why? I suspect because it's a proxy, a channel to vent frustration that those who wish in a more "perfect" world that gays have a more marginalized status, consigned to the shadows, have endured a total defeat, both at the ballot box, in public opinion, in the trends in public opinion (the young, even the Pub young, have been "brainwashed" into a near total tolerance and acceptance of gays), and in the Courts. It's been a bloodbath for them as it were, and seemingly something of a permanent plate tectonic shift.

Anyway, I hope that we can try to be gracious in victory. Give them all time to process it all, and work it out to the point where they can just move on, to other issues.

In what sense is the threat to religious liberty "on the margins"? 

You are right, it is a proxy. It is a proxy as to whether or not a person must shunt his or her moral and religious beliefs in the course of everyday activities in order to not to offend others, and be punished by the state otherwise.

[Mercenary]

No.
Nor should they lose it for refusing to perform a marriage between divorced couples.
Nor should they lose it for refusing to perform it between people of different faiths.
Nor should they lose it for refusing to perform it between people living together before marriage.

Or whatever other objections they may have. While freedom of religion doesn't extend to the extent that you can actively cause harm to someone and often times doesn't extent to certain instances involving public accommodation. What marriages a church performs falls into the very definition of religious freedom. To cancel the tax-exempt status in such a case is essentially saying freedom of religion doesn't exist.

I can understand people who think they shouldn't have tax-exempt status to begin with, although I disagree with such a view. I cannot understand anyone who would actively say they should lose it on this issue though.

[Simfan34]

This is a silly question, but even sillier is the fact we've spent three pages discussing it.