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

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

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?

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

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.

Let me explain my position on the issue.  Small churches like my local one should have it, but these large mega churches who's pastors make hundreds of thousands a year, taking money from the poor, they don't need to be non-profit, they are making a profit, in false truths to the people.

Tax accountant here.

Would you care to suggest how the IRS would differentiate between the two kinds of churches without giving the government power to arbitrarily tax churches it doesn't like?

A 100% tax should be sufficient.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Absolutely not. No church should be forced to hold gay weddings. In 20 years, eh maybe. Are churches allowed to forbid interracial marriages today?

But they should lose tax-exempt status if they campaign on political issues.

That's status quo.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Absolutely not. No church should be forced to hold gay weddings. In 20 years, eh maybe. Are churches allowed to forbid interracial marriages today?

But they should lose tax-exempt status if they campaign on political issues.

That's status quo.

That's the legal status quo. Not the status quo in reality.

Fair point. The Mormon Church should've gotten their exemption revoked after the shenanigans they pulled in 2008.

[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!?