It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: beezzer
But they already are. There is a federal law that protects the religious institutions and ministers. It is called the ministerial exception and bars the federal government from getting involved on what all goes on in a church. In short what goes on in a church is on the say of a minister or a priest, not the federal government, as long as it does not break criminal law.
The only way that the government could make a church, any church do any social actions would be to remove not only this law, in the federal laws, but also remove the tax exempt status of that church. And I do not believe that anyone would agree to such, cause then it would open up a door that would cause a lot of problems.
Based off of the various court decisions, as long as it is in a church or other religious institution, that being non accomidating, it stays there and the government can not interfere with such. The only way the government interfers with it is if a felony is being comitted, like rape or murder.
Although BJU had admitted Asians and other ethnic groups from its inception, it did not enroll Africans or African-American students until 1971. From 1971 to 1975, BJU admitted only married blacks, although the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had already determined in 1970 that "private schools with racially discriminatory admissions policies" were not entitled to federal tax exemption. In 1975, the University Board of Trustees authorized a change in policy to admit black students, a move that occurred shortly before the announcement of the Supreme Court decision in Runyon v. McCrary (427 U.S. 160 ), which prohibited racial exclusion in private schools. However, in May of that year, BJU expanded rules against interracial dating and marriage. In 1976, the Internal Revenue Service revoked the university's tax exemption retroactively to December 1, 1970 on grounds that it was practicing racial discrimination. The case eventually was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1982. After BJU lost the decision in Bob Jones University v. United States (461 U.S. 574), the university chose to maintain its interracial dating policy and pay a million dollars in back taxes. The year following the Court decision, contributions to the university declined by 13 percent. In 2000, following a media uproar prompted by the visit of presidential candidate George W. Bush to the university, Bob Jones III dropped the university's interracial dating rule, announcing the change on CNN's "Larry King Live". In the same year Bob Jones III drew criticism when he reposted a letter on the university's web page referring to Mormons and Catholics as "cults which call themselves Christian".
originally posted by: beezzer
Discrimination isn't criminal/federal law? (Apologies, not a lawyer)
originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Kali74
One could make the argument that churches are open to the public.
There are many things that could change once the Supreme Court ruling comes down.
It's surprising (to say the least) to see many skeptical to my hypothesis.
I'd sure like to be wrong.
originally posted by: chuck258
That Christian flower shop isn't the only place you can buy flowers from. When you cross over that line is when YOU (Libs, Christian Bashers, Militant gays, etc) CREATE the conflict. Christians are passive by nature, and in telling you they would rather not deliver flowers to your wedding or make a cake that goes against their personal beliefs, they are being passive. You are the direct cause of conflict when you begintrying to take steps to punish them for personal beliefs. How tolerant of you.