Roberts Warns Churches Could Lose Tax-Exempt Status For Opposing Gay Marriage

originally posted by: combinatorics

originally posted by: ketsuko

So this is the first I've heard that what goes on inside the church is "legislating."

Last I checked, no one said, "Let's rewrite the Bible so that gays are left out." In fact, if anyone has rewritten the Bible to suit themselves and their agenda lately are the LGBT activists.

But, hey, they can take their Queen James version and go form their churches and preach the Gospel according how they would prefer it be.

Right. I guess you don't remember the religiously motivated Defense of Marriage Act(ludicrous name) which it took the Supreme Court to K.O. it into oblivion. Religions permeates politics.

Of course, as I wasn't here then, there is no record of my opinion on that act.

I will say that I have said here over and over that I think the state has no place in marriage. You can draw your own conclusions about what I thought of DOMA. I didn't defend it, wish they hadn't done it, but I understood the impulse that led to it, especially as it become clear that states where civil union was offered were having that rejected by activists.

a reply to: ketsuko

Do you know why state unions weren't good enough?

originally posted by: combinatorics

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes


No one spit on anyone. the people who form churches pay taxes, so they paid for the service already. Next?

Denying someone their civil rights is worse than spitting them in the face. I was actually being generous. They didn't pay taxes to serve their untaxed property. All those unpaid taxes cost government $billions. So, churches are actually riding on the shoulders of taxpayers.

So theatrical. That's a real stretch,t o attack the churches over taxes.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Roberts went off on a tangent that wasn't even related to the case.

You also didn't understand what I said. Marriage is not the exclusive domain of any religion, it's actually a state institution at this point and it has been ever since it provided legal and financial benefits. The fact that churches also offer something called marriage is a completely different discussion and it isn't being changed. Churches are free to discriminate as much as they want.

No, he spoke correctly, and he's not off on any tangent.

I understood you perfectly. You stated:

What this entire thing can be reduced to is that church doctrine is subservient to the state and a lot of Christians simply don't want to accept that right now.

That statement makes it clear that you believe churches should be under the control of the government. contrary to your claim now that "churches are free" to do what they want.

Marriage is supported by governments because it is beneficial, in the traditional form, to societies. It is not a state institution.

originally posted by: ketsuko

Of course, as I wasn't here then, there is no record of my opinion on that act.

I will say that I have said here over and over that I think the state has no place in marriage. You can draw your own conclusions about what I thought of DOMA. I didn't defend it, wish they hadn't done it, but I understood the impulse that led to it, especially as it become clear that states where civil union was offered were having that rejected by activists.

I wasn't around either. And this isn't about your opinion. I called out the behavior of churches. Also, that rejection of civil unions (if it even happened) wouldn't have meant much. MA legalized same-sex marriage way back when and it meant zilch with DOMA on the way.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
That statement makes it clear that you believe churches should be under the control of the government. contrary to your claim now that "churches are free" to do what they want.

Marriage is supported by governments because it is beneficial, in the traditional form, to societies. It is not a state institution.

Marriage offers legal and financial benefits, ever since governments started offering benefits to people who get married it was moved from a purely religious institution to a state institution. It has nothing to do with tradition, marriage today from the governments perspective is nothing but a legal status and denying that legal status to a section of the population is discriminatory, which is unconstitutional.

Marriage means something more to a church, but churches are allowed to deny marriages to anyone they wish and that hasn't changed, and their marriages don't offer any legal benefits in the first place.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: imitator

Sirry dude look at the stats the millennials are rejecting religion at a staggering rate in the usa because religions being so out of date.
When they get older they will show their kids why and religion will drop off.
Happening in many western countries.

That is your opinion. I would argue millennials are rejecting church because most of them cater to the beliefs of the mentally ill progressive authoritarian government. Not because its "out of date". What's the point of church if its just leftist propaganda and stands for nothing.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
That statement makes it clear that you believe churches should be under the control of the government. contrary to your claim now that "churches are free" to do what they want.

Marriage is supported by governments because it is beneficial, in the traditional form, to societies. It is not a state institution.

Marriage offers legal and financial benefits, ever since governments started offering benefits to people who get married it was moved from a purely religious institution to a state institution. It has nothing to do with tradition, marriage today from the governments perspective is nothing but a legal status and denying that legal status to a section of the population is discriminatory, which is unconstitutional.

Marriage means something more to a church, but churches are allowed to deny marriages to anyone they wish and that hasn't changed, and their marriages don't offer any legal benefits in the first place.

Yes..."allowed to deny marriages" but the title of the thread speaks to the threat of taking away the tax-free status of a religious institution if they do. And yes...it IS a threat. The only purpose in this threat is to attempt to FORCE them to do otherwise. Are you comfortable with your government threatening people to force them to do something? This is one of those slippery slopes where some day it could be "do this or lose your health care". And "do this" can range from stop smoking, stop drinking soda all the way to "don't talk bad about the president".

THAT is some scary crap! And as anti-American and anti-freedom as it gets.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Well the government threatens you if you dont pay taxes. They threaten you for all kinds of things actually.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: ketsuko

Do you know why state unions weren't good enough?

No actually I don't since the only purpose of the license is to confer the legal benefits. My marriage license does not marry me. It is only a contract that confers the legalities in the eyes of the law. A civil union does the exact same thing.

My marriage license similarly does not confer any degree of "dignity" on me, nor does it confer happiness.

And if the couple in question wants the marriage aspect, well there are plenty of spiritual institutions of all flavors, even Christian, who would marry them, even back then.

a reply to: Profusion

Isn't this just the bitter opinion of one of the judges that voted against overturning the gay marriage ban? This sounds like sour grapes to me. As a Supreme Court Justice, he should know DAMN well from precedent occurring from the Loving v. Virginia ruling and the Constitution that this can't and won't happen.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Profusion

Isn't this just the bitter opinion of one of the judges that voted against overturning the gay marriage ban? This sounds like sour grapes to me. As a Supreme Court Justice, he should know DAMN well from precedent occurring from the Loving v. Virginia ruling and the Constitution that this can't and won't happen.

Those were different times when people still had a sense of respect.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Well the government threatens you if you dont pay taxes. They threaten you for all kinds of things actually.

And them taking more control is what I would like to stop...then we can address how they already control us. I'd rather not see a Revolution with all that death and all, but besides the control we want them to have and the things we want them to be responsible for as our employees...everything else is off limits. The states? I'd be more apt to give the states some power but not the federal government.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Cant wait for the churches to turn around and praise the scotus decision, do they still pray to god or the green buck.

It's one reason why I've lost a lot of faith in the Church because it's all about the size of the congregation rather than stay true to their original principles.

a reply to: ketsuko


The license is just about an official date and place in time for tax and divorce purposes, ect. Make sure the insurance company cant screw the wife out of funds if I depart this cruel world. Just a legal notification document. Make sure the kids have a legal name.

Plus they want to make sure I am not marring my sister and that sort of thing. I wonder if gays will have to forgo the blood test! LOL

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
That statement makes it clear that you believe churches should be under the control of the government. contrary to your claim now that "churches are free" to do what they want.

Marriage is supported by governments because it is beneficial, in the traditional form, to societies. It is not a state institution.

Marriage offers legal and financial benefits, ever since governments started offering benefits to people who get married it was moved from a purely religious institution to a state institution. It has nothing to do with tradition, marriage today from the governments perspective is nothing but a legal status and denying that legal status to a section of the population is discriminatory, which is unconstitutional.

Marriage means something more to a church, but churches are allowed to deny marriages to anyone they wish and that hasn't changed, and their marriages don't offer any legal benefits in the first place.

Churches are not and never have been obligated in any way to preform marriages at large. The state doesn't even recognize that church as the only place you can get married. The state provides a place right there in the Court House of wherever. Its sort of hypocritical for gays to want to get married in a church that doesn't even recognize the validity of gay marriage. Its not a goddamed pizza place.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

His point is what if you are a Catholic school and have housing for married couples. What if you don't give a gay couple married housing?

Nothing in the ruling that I read says anything about forcing religious institutions being forced to do anything at all.

Many straight couples do not get married in a church and churches can and sometimes do decline to marry some straight couples. What do they do if they really want to get married in a church? They go find a church that will marry them.

There is no reason to suggest gay couples will have any different experience. Many will not deem it necessary to have a church wedding, those that do will find a church that will happily perform the ceremony for them. It is unfortunate that some gay couples will not be able to bless their marriage among their friends and family within the congregation they cherish and it is unchristian-like of the church to reject them.

The religious institutions will be forced to accept gay marriage. It will be freedom of religion .. as long as your religion believes exactly what we say it should.

There is nothing in the ruling that changes anything for the church - other than put them on notice that their selfish unchristian attitude is costing them adherents. No church is being told what to believe by the Supreme Court.

No one is forcing their religious beliefs on you. NO ONE. You can continue with your homophobic mind-set and ignore the fact that gay folks are being married by other churches and non-religious practitioners. Sage advice from someone from years ago: if you don't like the idea of gay folks getting married then don't marry one.

What you cannot do is force YOUR religious beliefs on others. When you are doing a job that is unconnected to your religious practice, you have to carry out the (legal) work practices that the job entails. If you are a county clerk tasked with issuing marriage licenses, then you are carrying out your duties as a representative of government, not your religion. Government cannot 'favor' any religion or belief system over another. If it is your job to issue marriage licenses, then it is your job to issue marriage licenses - either do your job or get out.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Profusion

Isn't this just the bitter opinion of one of the judges that voted against overturning the gay marriage ban? This sounds like sour grapes to me. As a Supreme Court Justice, he should know DAMN well from precedent occurring from the Loving v. Virginia ruling and the Constitution that this can't and won't happen.

Those were different times when people still had a sense of respect.

Lol. Respect has ALWAYS been earned. Bigots don't deserve respect.

The Vatican's Wealth is estimated at around 15 Billion.

Good article here:
From Laundering To Profiteering, A Multitude Of Sins At The Vatican Bank
www.npr.org...

I am 100% for religious institutions not being forced to recognize gay marriage at threat of losing their tax-exempt status.

I also think that religious institutions massively exploit their tax-exempt status and much of what they claim is non-profit is anything but that. We have a local mega-church leader here in the Chicago area that has 4 cars...takes the Ferrari to work...and lives in a 10 Million dollar home. He has convinced his flock that his wealth is God's will as opposed to their hard earned money that they pay him in trade for salvation.

This article cites religious colleges offering housing to straight couples, but not gays or religious based adoption agencies...I am OK with both continuing to cite religious beliefs as a reason to discriminate, but I want the federal gov to take a very close look at their books first before granting them that exception...cuz both religious universities and religious based adoption agencies are well known as significant money making operations under the false cover of religious tax exemption.

If they are conducting a profitable business, then they can not discriminate.

a reply to: Profusion

People are already calling for churches to give up taxes.

time.com...

The Church of Jesus Christ will never comply to gay marriage. Bring on the taxes.