The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Condemns SCOTUS Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: ketsuko

I think if they want to change policy, they should get a little skin in the game, don't you?

What like all the people who receive plenty from the same government they vote for?

How many in the churches already pay taxes?

Not only that, but many in the churches also don't give a rip what the gays do. They only ask to be left to their beliefs and to be allowed to live their beliefs in peace.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Mandroid7
End your tax exemptions or shut your face

And if they end their tax exemption, then they are subject to tax law which means Congress has made a law respecting religion, now hasn't it? That would seem to be in violation of the 1st Amendment.

That they have tax exemption means that Congress has already made a law with respect to religion.
To gain exemption, one must prove to the IRS that you are a true religion. By making any such decision, there is a violation of the first amendment.

In order to qualify for exemption status, a church must stay out of state business.

My only complaint is a constitutional one. A church should not be forced to carry out something it doesn't believe in based on its religion regardless of what the other thinks. It's not your religion so stay out of it. Wanna get married? Go to your local licence office and get it official no religious ceremony needed after all the gays aren't religious so why force religious people to partake? I am for gays having partnership but a marriage it is not.

a reply to: xuenchen

And? What are they going to do?

a reply to: ketsuko

Do you always answer questions with questions?

Kind of pointless. I don't argue, just to argue. Get to a point please.

Churches rake in billions. They don't pay taxes. They shouldn't get a say. They should get a say if they don't want to perform the church ceremony, that is my stance.

Why are you talking about the people in church paying taxes? irrelevant.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
a reply to: ketsuko

Not sure you understand the win of today, it has nothing to do with forcing churches to marry gays, its a win for love and equality, you know the stuff jesus talked about.

You simply haven't been paying attention to the writing on the wall. Either that or you are only looking at what Thomas Sowell calls "two dimensional" thinking. Cause/Effect.

On the surface, that's what the ruling would seem to be, but underneath, they labeled marriage a "civil right" which means that if anyone refuses to marry a same sex couple, they have violated a civil right. That means a gay couple can indeed go to a church (or mosque or synagogue) and demand to be married. If the church refuses, they are violating a new civil right which they can then be prosecuted under law for.

If you think people will simply respect religious feelings now, I don't think you have been paying attention.

is this conjecture or is it written specifically in the law?....this is about making a law by a government entity, that prohibits gay marriage. that law(s) was done away with. a church is not a government entity.

originally posted by: Badgered1

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Mandroid7
End your tax exemptions or shut your face

And if they end their tax exemption, then they are subject to tax law which means Congress has made a law respecting religion, now hasn't it? That would seem to be in violation of the 1st Amendment.

That they have tax exemption means that Congress has already made a law with respect to religion.
To gain exemption, one must prove to the IRS that you are a true religion. By making any such decision, there is a violation of the first amendment.

In order to qualify for exemption status, a church must stay out of state business.

Then I guess the entire tax code is un-constitutional. I can live with that.

a reply to: ketsuko

Nope. Sorry you are wrong. What you are suggesting is a violation of the 1st Amendment. If KKK rallies can be protected as free speech, then the government isn't going to force a church to marry a gay couple. How about proving intent before making accusations for once?

originally posted by: ketsuko
The gays do, and the Catholics and Southern Baptists will likely be among the first to have gay couples demand to be married in their churches.

Could my wife and I have gotten married in a Southern Baptist church, what with me being a completely lapsed Catholic and her being an evil Jooooo?

(I already know the answer, NO!)

originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: ketsuko

Do you always answer questions with questions?

Kind of pointless. I don't argue, just to argue. Get to a point please.

Churches rake in billions. They don't pay taxes. They shouldn't get a say. They should get a say if they don't want to perform the church ceremony, that is my stance.

Why are you talking about the people in church paying taxes? irrelevant.

Here is the point - If the government decides to punish churches (or other houses of worship) for whom marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman by making them pay taxes, then that is the Federal Government making a law to prohibit the free exercise of religion, something the 1st Amendment expressly forbids it to do.

This leads us to a showdown between Amendments - 1st and 14th. No matter who wins that decision, the entire country loses.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Badgered1

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Mandroid7
End your tax exemptions or shut your face

And if they end their tax exemption, then they are subject to tax law which means Congress has made a law respecting religion, now hasn't it? That would seem to be in violation of the 1st Amendment.

That they have tax exemption means that Congress has already made a law with respect to religion.
To gain exemption, one must prove to the IRS that you are a true religion. By making any such decision, there is a violation of the first amendment.

In order to qualify for exemption status, a church must stay out of state business.

Then I guess the entire tax code is un-constitutional. I can live with that.

Technically it is. There are very few things the Constitution lists as ways Congress can generate revenue. Namely tariffs (Congress is currently trying to cede that right away with the TPP), a sales tax, and a prohibitory tax

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ketsuko
The gays do, and the Catholics and Southern Baptists will likely be among the first to have gay couples demand to be married in their churches.

Could my wife and I have gotten married in a Southern Baptist church, what with me being a completely lapsed Catholic and her being an evil Jooooo?

(I already know the answer, NO!)

No, but neither could my husband and I have gotten married in a mosque either since we're both Christian. However, gays can sue now on the grounds of having their civil rights violated.

originally posted by: ketsuko
The gays do, and the Catholics and Southern Baptists will likely be among the first to have gay couples demand to be married in their churches.

This has NOTHING to so with churches! Why do you all keep bringing churches into this???

originally posted by: 5thNovember
A church should not be forced to carry out something it doesn't believe in based on its religion regardless of what the other thinks.

Churches are not being forced!

originally posted by: ketsuko
Here is the point - If the government decides to punish churches

The government isn't punishing churches!

originally posted by: ketsuko
No, but neither could my husband and I have gotten married in a mosque either since we're both Christian. However, gays can sue now on the grounds of having their civil rights violated.

No, they cannot, just like you or I could not have claimed our rights were being violated if we wanted to get married in a mosque or church respectively.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: xuenchen

And? What are they going to do?

Exorcise the entire United Stated of America!

Illinois bishop plans gay-marriage exorcism

Mexican Archbishops Perform National Exorcism, Blame Satan for Marriage Equality

a reply to: xuenchen

What this mean ? that now they are going to withhold support for the political leaders that agree with this ruling?, well the last time I check the US was not a theocracy

a reply to: windword

I agree. They should hop RIGHT to it. I'm sure that will fix the problems immediately!

originally posted by: ketsuko
On the surface, that's what the ruling would seem to be, but underneath, they labeled marriage a "civil right" which means that if anyone refuses to marry a same sex couple, they have violated a civil right.

A CIVIL right means it's a secular right. Has nothing to do with religion.

That means a gay couple can indeed go to a church (or mosque or synagogue) and demand to be married. If the church refuses, they are violating a new civil right which they can then be prosecuted under law for.

Not true. At all. You couldn't be more wrong.

a reply to: windword

Oh, my heavenly god, we truly have not learned, remember 9/11 and the blame on humanity and an angry god for the decimation of soo many souls.

Thankfully is not many that have not achieved some kind of understanding this days.

But we need to be mindful as some people purpose in life predestinated is indeed to keep the rest of those that follow them in the darkness. Is not their fault.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

The gay lobby will angle to work this exactly like anti-miscegenation laws which means they will.

They will not work this like Roe v. Wade where people who did not agree with abortion were simply allowed to be conscientious objectors. They've learned their lesson. If you allow that, you risk a successful counter-movement that can sway the culture back to their side of thinking and away from yours.