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

[cinyc]

Discuss.

[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.

[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.

[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.