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

a reply to: Annee

True they haven't been operating under the conditions of a "Religious Organization" but they are allowed to change their status and procedures to be that if they choose. In fact they will have to if they want to be allowed to be exempt from Discrimination Laws. Then they will officially be considered a "Religious Organization" and get all the perks that come with that including the Right to Discriminate against Gay Marriage and so forth.

If in fact they choose Not to change their current status however, they will then be required to abide by the laws just like any other business.

Obviously, they've been enjoying the best of both worlds and think they should be allowed to pick and choose which laws they follow as a business, but it don't work like that. There are different qualifications with different requirements and obligations depending upon how someone chooses to operate their business. I'm interested to see what exactly is going on here and who is telling the truth and who isn't.

This commenter here seems to have the same perspective as I do about this whole thing.

Mahiun posted at 9:08 am on Tue, Oct 21, 2014. Mahiun Posts: 4426

So, as several of us suspected all along, this really does have "publicity stunt" written all over it. The only remaining question is whose stunt. The Knapps claim to not even know the attorney who filed a case on their behalf??! But they have also conveniently filed papers to reincorporate as an exempt religious organization, at the same time they deny operating as a not-for-profit religious organization. Meanwhile, Cortman claims that his clients have been threatened with arrest -- a claim the city denies -- and the story very conveniently (but strictly coincidentally, I'm sure...) gets picked up by every blonde bimbo Fox News can put on it, as well as every hysterical blogger in the conservosphere. A veritable treasure trove of cheap (in every sense of that word) publicity! I've seen 5-day-old fish that didn't smell this bad....

If you think about it, these two people are supposed to be about love and spreading love and look at what they are actually, really doing.

It's as though they and their supporters are blind to it.

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?

It's not about tax status it's simply about a business open to the public not wanting to serve the entire public... it's fine not want to serve the entire public but actually doing so violates the law, and holding people to the law doesn't violate the 1st and actually violating the law, violates the 14th. You're such a good little drone to pretend otherwise ans with such righteous indignation.

If you want to discriminate through your place of business, you need a different business model not the open to the public model. I've worked for a non-profit before, a religious one at that... it is a very different ball-game. For one thing under this model the business has to serve their religion in some way and the can no longer charge for their services but only accept donations and whatever they can't make in donations in order to cover the cost of operations, they will have to hold fundraisers for. I wouldn't worry too much about them though, with The American Heritage Foundation already involved and the Kochs loving a good game of segregate and discriminate, they will probably come up much better than they were before.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yeah. They're so PC (in their interpretation of the term) that a non-Christian or Climate Change acknowledger or pro-choice, Republican cannot exist... and they even take it a step further, if you aren't vehemently in opposition of the latter two and a devout Christian you can't exist as a Republican.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Careful, the terms "progress" and "progressive" take on whole new meanings around here

Tends to be particular agendas the Democrat Party is pushing such as but not limited to: Climate Change(ooops I mean Climate Disruption), Same-sex marriage, transgender(like the mayor of Houston wanting people who are even thinking of being transgendered to have access to bathrooms), indoctrination of children and youth in the public schools through such means as the Common Core standards especially but not limited to the National Sexuality Education Standards and just plain bizarre math which must be for the purpose of confusing kids to the max, Socialized medicine whatever way they can get it, unlimited resources and amnesty with a path of citizenship for illegals, general redistribution of wealth for whatever purpose they deem(right out of the Communist Manifesto), social and economic justice(see Communist Manifesto as well), anything Cultural Marxism, alternative anything which corrupts morality and absolute values, anything which can undermine established culture(see gay marriage), Agenda 21(can also be RINOS or moderate Repubs), Statist and government control of just about every aspect of our lives, increased regulations on business, gun-control, UN treaties which undermine US National sovereignty, food police forcing our kids to eat horrible lunches because one person thinks that all children must undergo obesity control, use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortions, global financial transaction tax, fines on American citizens for NOT PURCHASING health insurance.

Well the list goes on but I'm sure you understand the point.

The Statist government loves to control everything and so do the people who support that form of government.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

You were almost making sense and then had to throw in that little quip about gay marriage. Sorry that your established culture is being undermined, but the established culture hasn't changed a damn bit because of gay marriage except in making a few more people happy and a few more religious nutters angry.

Boo hoo - cry me a river of tears for all that you've lost. Here's a hint - you've lost nothing.

originally posted by: beezzer
I can't believe people here are says, "Oh, it's non-profit. Now it's okay".

I understand that you "can't believe" it. If you are so wrapped up in "taking a side" and proving a point, that you let your emotions control you, and then the situation changes, it's going to be uncomfortable. But that's not what I'm doing.

It's not about taking sides for me. Yes, I support marriage equality, but when I'm involved in these discussions, it's about explaining the law and how it works, why it applies to this particular business and how they are breaking the law. That's it. It's fascinating to me. I'm not emotionally invested like so many are.

When the business changes its status, and the law no longer applies to them, then the whole situation changes. It's not about it being "okay". It's about whether or not the law still applies. And it doesn't.

It's "okay" that the ministers don't want to marry gay people.
It's "okay" that they have turned away gay people.
It's "okay" that they filed a lawsuit.

In fact, everything about this whole story is "okay" with me. Yes, I have an opinion (I support marriage equality) but I don't hate the ministers or think they're evil or the "enemy" like so many people here feel about gay people. I'm just an observer and I enjoy discussing law, especially the laws that involve the changes this country is undergoing in this new equality era.

Next?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic



That's my point.

Religious expression is secondary to whatever tax code is placed upon an establishment according to some.

So if churches became "profit" organisations, would you still agree that they had protection under the 1st Amendment?

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
Religious expression is secondary to whatever tax code is placed upon an establishment according to some.

You're equating discrimination with "religious expression". I don't think they're the same.

So if churches became "profit" organisations, would you still agree that they had protection under the 1st Amendment?

They have the freedom to practice and express their religion, the same as we all do. If they're a business, they have to follow business law.

Religious "freedom" to discriminate against others is something I do not support and I don't think "freedom to discriminate" is covered in the first amendment. Or in the bible, for that matter. I do believe the bible says it's God's job to do the discriminating. But how people interpret and "practice" their religious beliefs is none of my business.

a reply to: ketsuko

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.

I don't even know where to begin with such rubbish! So, I'll let the The Declaration of Independence speak for me.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

So why not say Democrat then, if that's what you think progressive means? Would that make it too obvious that you're simply taking a partisan side?

Have some guts.

But beyond that, you and most of the folks on the "right" here at ATS are so wrapped up in standard Internet wingnut-doublespeak derived mostly from Fox, Rush and Beck ... that you don't even think about the silliness or irrationality or inconsistency of what you're saying.

What government is not "statist"? We have the same government we've had for 223 years. I believe in the country I grew up in and her system of government. I believe in the Constitution and the Rule of Law. So when I say something that isn't a false, ludicrous short-sighted condemnation of all things government, I'm a statist and in favor of Totalitarian Communist Hellhole.

Bull.

You guys were wrapped in the Flag and carrying the Cross when Bush was in office, but now, with Obama in there, suddenly the American System is evil, tyrannical and Marxist. I remember you railing on about how un American it was to criticize the President (not to mention, lying about him to the point of incredulity) but now, if you don't crack some silly joke about stringing him up at least once a day, or mumble about destroying our country by succession or coup, why you're just progressive statists carrying water.

Bull.

The rest of your list is simply the current talking points for the right-wing media machine. I notice you include "same-sex marriage" in a couple places in your diatribe; so at least here you are finally honest that it's not about religious freedom but about keeping American citizens from enjoying the same rights as everyone else.

TL;DR: If you're a partisan hack, just say so, don't try to hide behind arcane terminology that doesn't mean what you think it does; doesn't work anyway.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Ok, I don't understand. Let me ask it this way. . . .

Currently, the catholic church does not perform same-sex marriages.

If the catholic church lost it's tax-exempt status, would you still support the churches decision to not perform same-sex marriages?

Oiginally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

You're equating discrimination with "religious expression". I don't think they're the same.

The problem is, many religious people do.

originally posted by: beezzer
If the catholic church lost it's tax-exempt status, would you still support the churches decision to not perform same-sex marriages?

If the catholic church lost it's tax-exempt status and nothing else changed, then yes, I would still support their decision to marry whomever they want.

So, tax-exempt status is not the deciding factor. Whether or not the organization is an actual church or not is the deciding factor for me.

What is very interesting to me, and what none of our righty-tighty friends have acknowledged for a second here, is that every one of us as soon as the suggestion was made that the Knapps are going actually become a church or church-like-organization ... all of us so-called lefties backed off and said good for them.

I.e. when it actually became a matter of religious freedom we acknowledged, almost to the last one of us posting in the thread, that now they have the legal right, if not the ethical or moral high-ground, to discriminate as they wish.

I just think that's funny.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Gryphon66

Careful, the terms "progress" and "progressive" take on whole new meanings around here

Tends to be particular agendas the Democrat Party is pushing such as but not limited to: Climate Change(ooops I mean Climate Disruption), Same-sex marriage, transgender(like the mayor of Houston wanting people who are even thinking of being transgendered to have access to bathrooms), indoctrination of children and youth in the public schools through such means as the Common Core standards especially but not limited to the National Sexuality Education Standards and just plain bizarre math which must be for the purpose of confusing kids to the max, Socialized medicine whatever way they can get it, unlimited resources and amnesty with a path of citizenship for illegals, general redistribution of wealth for whatever purpose they deem(right out of the Communist Manifesto), social and economic justice(see Communist Manifesto as well), anything Cultural Marxism, alternative anything which corrupts morality and absolute values, anything which can undermine established culture(see gay marriage), Agenda 21(can also be RINOS or moderate Repubs), Statist and government control of just about every aspect of our lives, increased regulations on business, gun-control, UN treaties which undermine US National sovereignty, food police forcing our kids to eat horrible lunches because one person thinks that all children must undergo obesity control, use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortions, global financial transaction tax, fines on American citizens for NOT PURCHASING health insurance.

Well the list goes on but I'm sure you understand the point.

The Statist government loves to control everything and so do the people who support that form of government.

Ah, the Communist Manifesto. I bet someone that you would mention that within three posts and you did. I suppose I should thank you for my windfall.

a reply to: Gryphon66

But I think they ought to be able to discriminate because of religious beliefs. Religion is hardly known to be accepting and loving and we all know it, so are able to expect it from them in general. The only thing is I think that these establishments probably should have a sign which openly declares who they will not perform services for and under what law/code.

To be honest, someone in this thread - I think it may have been Tadaman - that gays wouldn't we caught dead in such a tacky place, I mentioned that we love tacky. The thing is, this place isn't tacky - it's ugly. Why on earth one of us would kick up a stink for not being able to wed in such a filthy little hole of a box is beyond me and reeks of trouble-making for the sake of it.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: beezzer
If the catholic church lost it's tax-exempt status, would you still support the churches decision to not perform same-sex marriages?

If the catholic church lost it's tax-exempt status and nothing else changed, then yes, I would still support their decision to marry whomever they want.

So, tax-exempt status is not the deciding factor. Whether or not the organization is an actual church or not is the deciding factor for me.

Thank you.

a reply to: Tangerine

Perhaps if they read some Thomas Paine, i.e. Agrarian Justice, they'd have a bit more enlightened view about what some of the Founders were trying to do here...

Nah ... they'd still be posting this silly partisan hackish nonsense.