Government to Ordained Ministers: Celebrate Same-Sex Wedding or Go to Jail

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: beezzer
So it was never about religious freedom.

It's all about tax-code status.

*sigh*

I don't see it that way, they took the easy route to exercising their religious beliefs.

I don't fault the ministers, I can't believe people here are says, "Oh, it's non-profit. Now it's okay".

It's as if tax status can convey religious freedom.

Religious freedom should be, "religious freedom" regardless of the tax status.

I mean, what if all churches and temples and mosques stopped being non-profit/tax-exempt?

Do they lose their 1st Amendment rights?

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

If you're going to be exclusive - you have to be truly exclusive. Once you invite the public in - in any way

Spira I think you are barking up the wrong tree with this one. So you are saying that MAC may discriminate against women(that's at least half the population of the world)..... but of course they would not be discriminating against gays so their little private thing is ok but it's because it's a private club which offers a product tailored only to men, but a wedding chapel must provide a service because............... it's not a private club? So private clubs which offer services may discriminate.... but not a wedding chapel. Interesting concept.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: beezzer
So it was never about religious freedom.

It's all about tax-code status.

*sigh*

I don't see it that way, they took the easy route to exercising their religious beliefs.

I don't fault the ministers, I can't believe people here are says, "Oh, it's non-profit. Now it's okay".

It's as if tax status can convey religious freedom.

Religious freedom should be, "religious freedom" regardless of the tax status.

I mean, what if all churches and temples and mosques stopped being non-profit/tax-exempt?

Do they lose their 1st Amendment rights?

Ahhhhhh I see your point. Eventually another business will bring a suit which hopefully will resolve with upholding the 1st amendment.

a reply to: beezzer

All churches have to comply with the whole tax exempt status thing. That is, if they want tax exempt status, they are not allowed political campaigning. This is why now the mayor of Houston has demanded that pastors give over their sermons to the government, so they can catch pastors in engaging in political dialogues.

The vast majority of churches refrain from political campaigning and should not be punished for the actions of the few that are political. The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) gives churches the freedom to either accept a tax benefit and refrain from political campaigning like all other nonprofit charities, or reject the exemption and speak freely about political candidates. [1] [23] There are 450,000 churches in the US, yet only 500 pastors made political statements as part of Pulpit Freedom Sunday on Oct. 2, 2011. [35] [58] The tax exemption should remain in place to benefit the vast majority of churches.

churchesandtaxes.procon.org...

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: beezzer
So it was never about religious freedom.

It's all about tax-code status.

*sigh*

I don't see it that way, they took the easy route to exercising their religious beliefs.

I don't fault the ministers, I can't believe people here are says, "Oh, it's non-profit. Now it's okay".

It's as if tax status can convey religious freedom.

Religious freedom should be, "religious freedom" regardless of the tax status.

I mean, what if all churches and temples and mosques stopped being non-profit/tax-exempt?

Do they lose their 1st Amendment rights?

Ahhhhhh I see your point. Eventually another business will bring a suit which hopefully will resolve with upholding the 1st amendment.

Bingo!

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: beezzer

All churches now have to comply with the whole tax exempt status thing. This is why now the mayor of Houston has demanded that pastors give over their sermons to the government, so they can catch pastors in engaging in political dialogues.

And she backed off rather quickly when that little tidbit became public!

a reply to: beezzer

With the applied progressive tax code, as pushed forth by Progressives...............yes.

Since they now have the "not for profit" tax scheduling, all is good in the world.

So, with that stated, I am forming a church. Self defense and the ability to defend yourself is the main point of the theology given.
One of the ordinances is that all able bodied followers should be armed at all times.

Now, since most here are of the idea that a business can't discriminate against religion, race, creed or sexuality, I am sure that this will be accepted by all.
Because, after all, it is what MY religion teaches. You can't deny someone service at a business open to the public if they are wearing a burka or yam-aka. Same goes with my firearm.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Hmmmm, I guess that means they weren't evil scumbags afterall, they simply wanted to exercise their religious beliefs. I think there are people on this thread that owe an apology to the knapps for the unkind things they have said about them.

Not at all - it's all been a part of a very interesting argument - useful and honest

The OP might have been a little bit...under-researched and incendiary

But, hey - this is ATS

:-)

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: TzarChasm
as pointed out earlier, the hitching post is NOT a religious establishment but a business.

Looks like the Hitching Post has taken steps to become a nonprofit religious corporation, so they'll be exempt from this law! It's a perfectly good solution!

The city of Coeur d’Alene has asked the Hitching Post to withdraw its religious freedom lawsuit in the wake of gay marriage becoming legal in Idaho. City attorney Michael Gridley wrote to the wedding chapel and pointed out that two weeks ago the business took steps to become a nonprofit religious corporation. Thus, the Hitching Post is exempt from the city’s ordinance that outlaws discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Gridley said the city will not prosecute legitimate nonprofit religious corporations, associations and other organizations exercising First Amendment rights. The Hitching Post sued the city in anticipation that the city would use its anti-discrimination policy to force the chapel to perform same-sex weddings over its religious objections

PROBLEM SOLVED!

Source

if that's the case, they better stop making profit or they are not true christians. which means they go to hell as surely as any gay couple they care to sneer at.

Profit is simple to not earn, just increase your salary.

if you are keeping money acquired in the process of running a business, it is a "for profit" business.

Profit is money left over after costs. Costs include labor. Raise your salary, no more profit. it's a very simple loophole. Big, non-profit, charities (united way, red cross, etc) all use this tactic.

But income taxes still have to be paid on the salary, and this same concept applies to any profit business as well. You don't pay taxes on non existing profit regardless if it for profit or not. The idea behind not for profit is the incentive to give because it is deductible.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: beezzer

All churches have to comply with the whole tax exempt status thing. That is, if they want tax exempt status, they are not allowed political campaigning. This is why now the mayor of Houston has demanded that pastors give over their sermons to the government, so they can catch pastors in engaging in political dialogues.

The vast majority of churches refrain from political campaigning and should not be punished for the actions of the few that are political. The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) gives churches the freedom to either accept a tax benefit and refrain from political campaigning like all other nonprofit charities, or reject the exemption and speak freely about political candidates. [1] [23] There are 450,000 churches in the US, yet only 500 pastors made political statements as part of Pulpit Freedom Sunday on Oct. 2, 2011. [35] [58] The tax exemption should remain in place to benefit the vast majority of churches.

churchesandtaxes.procon.org...

501c3 tax code requires that you cannot participate in the political process and use donated money politically. I did the paperwork for a horse rescue with the IRS and that was part of the requirements. 501c4 is different they are set up for political reasons. But I always found it interesting Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition got away with it and they were a 501c3. It's been a few years, but I think it's still the same.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I think you're not understanding what I was saying. You asked why a gentlemen only club could sell services to women - but still exclude them from membership. As you pointed out - that was then, this is now. There have been some changes

The article and Wiki page I linked go on to explain that there is a lot of grey area and none of it is easy to decide

But - if you want to say it's not relevant to this discussion I think it is

A church is like a private club (or non-profit - I guess). It can conduct itself however it wants. But, if the church has a bake sale that's open to the public, it can't then say it won't sell cookies to women, or men - or gay folk. It's selling cookies to the public - it can't discriminate. That doesn't mean they have to welcome them into their church

I wasn't actually trying to argue 3eyes - I was just thinking, your question was interesting...

:-)

a reply to: macman

Now, since most here are of the idea that a business can't discriminate against religion, race, creed or sexuality, I am sure that this will be accepted by all.

Sorry but the Hobby Lobby ruling let's business's discriminate against women by allowing them to pick and choose what kind of birth control their female employees can use.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: TzarChasm

Explain to me how it's equal.

By the way, this country was founded on liberty by people who came here seeking religious liberty.

It was not founded by people who came here seeking equality. You cannot have both equality and liberty. Liberty is always sacrificed to gain equality or vice versa.

If the choice I have is to have my life, thoughts and beliefs dictated to me or to be free but not exactly equal to everyone else ... I choose the second, and I'd rather die than be forced into the first.

Best quote of the day.

Freedom over Equality = Conservative
Equality over Freedom = Liberal

You cannot have both, one must sacrifice one aspect to become dominant in the other. Both are important. This core simple concept is how we are controlled by the 2 party system.

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: macman

Now, since most here are of the idea that a business can't discriminate against religion, race, creed or sexuality, I am sure that this will be accepted by all.

Sorry but the Hobby Lobby ruling let's business's discriminate against women by allowing them to pick and choose what kind of birth control their female employees can use.

Wait, so now "Choice" is discriminatory? Thats means the same could be said for Obama Care.

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: macman

Now, since most here are of the idea that a business can't discriminate against religion, race, creed or sexuality, I am sure that this will be accepted by all.

Sorry but the Hobby Lobby ruling let's business's discriminate against women by allowing them to pick and choose what kind of birth control their female employees can use.

Well, that's a distortion. Hobby Lobby doesn't determine what kind of birth control their employees can USE. They determine what kind of birth control they'll buy for their employees. The employees are free to use whatever they please.

a reply to: ketsuko

By the way, this country was founded on liberty by people who came here seeking religious liberty.

yes. people who wanted to enjoy their own brand of spirituality rather than the official brand enforced by the crown. and now we have people who want to enjoy their own brand of marriage rather than the official brand enforced by the church. should they move to another continent and start a revolution?

It was not founded by people who came here seeking equality. You cannot have both equality and liberty. Liberty is always sacrificed to gain equality or vice versa.

in some circumstances, yes. i feel a balance may be reached with a liberal (giggle) application of reason. as demonstrated over the years.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Yes, I did a little reading on Ms. McPherson ... she was quite the card! Also known for massive faith-healing shows at which she performed for hours on end (not an easy accomplishment), and getting people to pay $25 for a miniature chair that represented one of the seats in the Temple she was building for herself ... in the 1920s!

She apparently was also notorious for extramarital affairs, was accused of staging a fake kidnapping of herself, and owned several mansions including one called "Aimee's Castle," and died from an overdose of sleeping pills.

Sounds like my kinda lady, except, you know, for what I consider all the irrational god-stuff.

As far as whether the Knapps are ministers or not does not affect the legal requirements on the corporation called The Hitching Post Wedding Chapel which was a for-profit business and a public accommodation.

... but they're going to be a church now, which is not a place of public accommodation before the law, and they can discriminate as they wish.

Ironic that secular companies can't treat others as inferiors and religious institutions can, isn't it?

originally posted by: ElohimJD

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: TzarChasm

Explain to me how it's equal.

By the way, this country was founded on liberty by people who came here seeking religious liberty.

It was not founded by people who came here seeking equality. You cannot have both equality and liberty. Liberty is always sacrificed to gain equality or vice versa.

If the choice I have is to have my life, thoughts and beliefs dictated to me or to be free but not exactly equal to everyone else ... I choose the second, and I'd rather die than be forced into the first.

Best quote of the day.

Freedom over Equality = Conservative
Equality over Freedom = Liberal

You cannot have both, one must sacrifice one aspect to become dominant in the other. Both are important. This core simple concept is how we are controlled by the 2 party system.

work on equality for four years, work on freedom for four years.

how the hell are we still alive as a species.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: ElohimJD

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: TzarChasm

Explain to me how it's equal.

By the way, this country was founded on liberty by people who came here seeking religious liberty.

It was not founded by people who came here seeking equality. You cannot have both equality and liberty. Liberty is always sacrificed to gain equality or vice versa.

If the choice I have is to have my life, thoughts and beliefs dictated to me or to be free but not exactly equal to everyone else ... I choose the second, and I'd rather die than be forced into the first.

Best quote of the day.

Freedom over Equality = Conservative
Equality over Freedom = Liberal

You cannot have both, one must sacrifice one aspect to become dominant in the other. Both are important. This core simple concept is how we are controlled by the 2 party system.

work on equality for four years, work on freedom for four years.

how the hell are we still alive as a species.

It's a prime example of the kind of cutsy and simplistic false dichotomy that right wingnuts and Regressives so love, Tzar.

Liberty is not liberty if it is only available to a privileged few.

There is a balance possible in all things; only extremists demand one or the other of two extreme options.

a reply to: Gryphon66

im a fan of the greek philosophy of moderation. seeing how so many opposites are asked to work together in this world, moderation (meeting in the middle) seems a key virtue.