# Should churches that refuse to perform gay marriages lose tax exempt status? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 19, 2014, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742 "2014-02-19T23:54:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/322 "2014-03-10T10:31:07Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > Because just like many other 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations, churches provide valuable opportunities for the community to gather, build relationships, engage in other cooperative ventures to benefit society, etc. The reason we exempt non-profit organizations from taxation began with the importance of religious institutions in these activities, and in the role these institutions play in the lives of the American population. Churches have long been the incubators of civic involvement, and that has tremendous value - even if you disagree with many churches’ beliefs and activities. My experience in churches being tax exempt has been from a retail POV. I’ve seen many good christians come in and use the churches tax exempt status to save avoid paying taxes on personel items. Then there are those who try to wrangle a discount beyond saving the taxes because its “for the Lord” I suppose that has made me a little cynical. I don’t think churches ought to be tax exempt just because they are a religious orginization. I think if they can demonstrate they are providing public service that’s another story. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/323 "2014-03-10T10:50:02Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I don’t think churches ought to be tax exempt just because they are a religious orginization. I think if they can demonstrate they are providing public service that’s another story. Churches aren’t tax-exempt because they’re churches. They’re tax-exempt because they’re non-profit corporations. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/324 "2014-03-10T11:36:28Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > As I asked earlier, and no-one answered, what church provides weddings for free? It’s not a private gathering, it’s a service offered for money. It should be illegal to offer only to certain people and not others. It is my understanding that the R C C doesn’t charge for doing a wedding, The couple just give a donation, if they didn’t they would not be billed. ---
**Author:** ![crucible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@crucible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crucible)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/325 "2014-03-10T12:02:23Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > Worse, it’s illegal. Upon liquidation, a non-profit must distribute its assets to other similar organizations, or to the government. All of those people would be hauled off to federal prison. Prior to liquidation, the last official act of a tax exempt organization, to distribute the remaining assets? Can you cite any pertinent cases? I’ve seen such a situation and it might well arise again and would love to be better informed. I’ve always been of a mind that churches should be taxed, but only after being allowed to deduct all costs of operation, all donations to other charities, and a hefty depreciation allowance. That would put them on an equal footing with most private folks. The problem really is, regardless of the law, some churches do engage in odd commercial practices and deals. A full examination of the financial structure of the Dove church of Gainesville (Koran threatening leader), might reveal that the minister owned all the buildings and the land (with a mortgage) and used ‘volunteer’ labor to recondition furniture and electronics for sale in their adjacent to the church building. When the city was challenged about his tax exempt status, they gave a legal shrug and said they would look into it. If society chooses to accept the religious rite of marriage as the equivalent of a civil union, government should be able to decide which such marriages they accept. and, of course, to require a civil procedure of some sort, a ‘signing of the register at city hall’ if nothing else. Churches must be allowed to exercise freedom of choice in their membership and participation in rites. Any other choice would be an imposition of government in favor of one church against the practices of another. Anyway, cites? stories about churches breaking up and their assets taxed? ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/326 "2014-03-10T12:59:13Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > My experience in churches being tax exempt has been from a retail POV. I’ve seen many good christians come in and use the churches tax exempt status to save avoid paying taxes on personel items. Then there are those who try to wrangle a discount beyond saving the taxes because its “for the Lord” I suppose that has made me a little cynical. > I don’t think churches ought to be tax exempt just because they are a religious orginization. I think if they can demonstrate they are providing public service that’s another story. I’m sorry, I’m not quite sure how this addresses your underlying objection with why churches as a whole should lose their status, or which of my points you’re addressing. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/327 "2014-03-10T13:09:17Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > **Steophan** , I have a question. > > The Eucharist is a key sacrament / observance in most Christian churches. Some churches say any Christian is welcome to take communion; others restrict it to members of their particular denomination. > > The Eucharist is normally celebrated in public, but without a fee. > > By your analysis, is it bigotry for a church to restrict access to the Eucharist to either members of their own denomination, or at least to Christians generally, and not allow non-Christians to partake? > > I ask this in good faith; I’m trying to understand your general position on religious issues. Many churches also place restrictions on which of their remembers can receive communion. People engaged in ongoing homosexual activity (or really any illicit sexual activity, including contraception) are not supposed to receive communion in a Catholic Church. The same goes for any activity they consider a serious mortal sin. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/328 "2014-03-10T13:12:53Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Churches aren’t tax-exempt because they’re churches. > > They’re tax-exempt because they’re non-profit corporations. One of the qualifying catagories under 501c is religious orginization, like, churches. I t isn’t as simple as saying “hey we’re non profit” ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/329 "2014-03-10T13:14:22Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Man I am so tired of people saying gay couples can’t procreate. They can and they do. No kidding. And on the other hand, some straight couples can’t and/or don’t. Yet they are allowed to marry. ---
**Author:** ![Frank\_Merton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Frank\_Merton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank_Merton)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/330 "2014-03-10T13:14:37Z")
This is an interesting question that hadn’t occurred to me. Of course I have always thought churches should at least pay property tax: the land that is wasted and sits empty in most countries most of the time serving no useful purpose is a scandal. These institutions gain the same benefits everyone else gains but don’t have to pay for them, while non-believers are accordingly taxed extra. All in all though it seems churches should be allowed to conduct their rituals as they see fit, according to their doctrines, so long as alternatives are available (civil rituals come to mind). There is a conflict here between separation of church and state and freedom of religion, but one where I think the resolution should be freedom of religion. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/331 "2014-03-10T13:16:08Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > No, you don’t. You can invite who you like. If you refuse to invite someone who you otherwise would have done because they’re gay, or black, or jewish, then you’re a reprehensible human being. > > If it wasn’t a private party, but an event you charged for, sold tickets, or whatever, then refusing to sell them to gays, blacks, or jews _because_ they are gay, black or jewish should be illegal. What if it’s a black gay jewish person who is kind of an asshole. Can you not invite them because they’re an asshole? ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/332 "2014-03-10T13:16:12Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Why are you not capitalizing “Jew”? > > Not a challenge or meant to imply anything, but it strikes me as odd. > > Was it by accident or was it deliberate? > > If the latter then why? Honestly? I was posting quickly before I went to work, and didn’t notice I hadn’t. > [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > So when are you finally going to get it through your head that churches generally do _ **not** _ charge for, sell tickets, or whatever, to weddings, and thus your objection doesn’t apply? > > Or are you merely so anti-religion that you’re grasping any excuse to inconvenience them and ultimately destroy them? It’s simply not the case that the priest is working for free, or that the building is not paid for by those who are using it. This is not a casual gathering in someone’s house, it’s an organised event in a dedicated premises, with employees who do that specific job. You are correct that I’m so anti-religion that anything that inconveniences or destroys them would please me, though. I’d settle for them catching up with the modern world. > [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > **Steophan** , I have a question. > > The Eucharist is a key sacrament / observance in most Christian churches. Some churches say any Christian is welcome to take communion; others restrict it to members of their particular denomination. > > The Eucharist is normally celebrated in public, but without a fee. > > By your analysis, is it bigotry for a church to restrict access to the Eucharist to either members of their own denomination, or at least to Christians generally, and not allow non-Christians to partake? > > I ask this in good faith; I’m trying to understand your general position on religious issues. Yes, it’s bigotry. In practice (at least in my limited experience, and the less limited experience of those I’ve asked), Catholic churches don’t perform any sort of check, they simply state that non-Catholics shouldn’t partake. That I find acceptable, although far from ideal - not least because of the hypocrisy of a “catholic” church refusing anybody - but because, in my opinion, it is no different to, say, opening a soup kitchen for the needy but refusing service to Catholics, or blacks, or gays. In both cases, it’s probably not illegal, but should be. > [@Smapti](#): > > How does a priest refusing to conduct a marriage he doesn’t agree with violate anyone’s freedom of religion? Er, if he refuses to conduct it based on someone’s religion, he’s discriminated on them based on religion. Just the same as if he refused based on their race or sexuality, as one should be free to be black or gay, just as one should be free to be Jewish, without being discriminated against. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/333 "2014-03-10T13:17:22Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > No kidding. And on the other hand, some straight couples can’t and/or don’t. Yet they are allowed to marry. Correct, what churches don’t allow people to marry who aren’t planning on or simply can’t have children? It’s a ridiculous argument. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/334 "2014-03-10T13:19:36Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > What if it’s a black gay jewish person who is kind of an asshole. Can you not invite them because they’re an asshole? Yes, absolutely. I’ve tried to make it clear, more than once, that the problem is treating someone _differently_ because they’re black, gay, or Jewish. If you would equally have rejected them if they were an asexual Chinese Pastafarian, you’re fine. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/335 "2014-03-10T13:21:54Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Why are you not capitalizing “Jew”? > > Not a challenge or meant to imply anything, but it strikes me as odd. > > Was it by accident or was it deliberate? > > If the latter then why? Another quick reply to this, I just typed the sentence “black, gay or Jewish” again, and for whatever reason it doesn’t come naturally to capitalise only one of them. It’s not an intentional slur, and I don’t _think_ it’s a subconscious one either… Just a slip when typing a list like that. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/336 "2014-03-10T13:25:44Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Er, if he refuses to conduct it based on someone’s religion, he’s discriminated on them based on religion. Just the same as if he refused based on their race or sexuality, as one should be free to be black or gay, just as one should be free to be Jewish, without being discriminated against. I didn’t ask if he was “discriminating on them based on religion”. I asked how he was violating their freedom of religion by refusing to blaspheme against his religion for their personal benefit. You seem to be perfectly OK with the idea of compelling someone to violate their sincerely held religious tenets. Why does your desire to be married in a Catholic church, or a Mormon tabernacle, or wherever else, trump the desire of the religious officiants involved to remain true to the dictates of God as they understand Him? ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/337 "2014-03-10T13:25:55Z")
> [@crucible](#): > > Prior to liquidation, the last official act of a tax exempt organization, to distribute the remaining assets? > > Can you cite any pertinent cases? I’ve seen such a situation and it might well arise again and would love to be better informed. [The IRS page on the subject](http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Organizational-Test-Internal-Revenue-Code-Section-501(c)(3)). The meaty bit: > [@](#): > > In addition, an organization’s assets must be permanently dedicated to an exempt purpose. This means that if an organization dissolves, its assets must be distributed for an exempt purpose, to the federal government, or to a state or local government for a public purpose. As has been mentioned several times, there are no shareholders or owners of a non-profit organization. It’s assets cannot be distributed to non-exempt purposes, including individuals (which certainly includes its board of directors and other staff). > [@](#): > > When the city was challenged about his tax exempt status, they gave a legal shrug and said they would look into it. Then the community went to the wrong authority - they should have called the IRS. > [@](#): > > Anyway, cites? stories about churches breaking up and their assets taxed? Again, it’s not that their assets would be taxed - it’s that they would be either distributed to another exempt organization, or to the government. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/338 "2014-03-10T13:28:58Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I have repeatedly addressed that. If the church offers a service, it should offer it without discriminating according to gender, race, sexuality, religion, disability, or whatever. It should get no pass, morally or legally, for bigotry because it’s a religious organisation. > > A law that prevents that being enforced in public or when money changes hands is a bad law. Your freedom of religion should end when it affects other people. You _may_ be able to interpret that as saying two muslims couldn’t get a catholic wedding, but you certainly couldn’t deny gays or blacks one. Churches don’t offer marriage as a service , but as a religious ceremony. And, anyone who is not considered to be a member of the Catholic faith in good standing can be denied a catholic wedding. It would be hard to be a gay couple and also members of the catholic faith in good standing. Lot’s of things that occur privately affect others. I can be a jerk aqnd not allow certain groups in my home, and I will have to bear whatever repercussions that come with it, but since it’s my private home, it’s my choice. Churches are private orginizations. Private individuals set it up and run it and decide what the guidelines are. ---
**Author:** ![Frank\_Merton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Frank\_Merton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank_Merton)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/339 "2014-03-10T13:29:54Z")
I tend to avoid capitalizing because it is old-fasioned – rules being enforced by those who want to seem better than others and otherwise is distracting. Capitalizing “Jew” is mandatory the way capitalizing “English” is mandatory. That is just the way it is. “Black” or “gay” is something else; clearly we prefer to capitalize the first and not the second: I would capitalize neither, and put it down to the vagaries of language history. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/340 "2014-03-10T13:30:40Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > One of the qualifying catagories under 501c is religious orginization, like, churches. I t isn’t as simple as saying “hey we’re non profit” Incorrect - churches file as 501(c)(3), the same category as the United Way. “Religious organization” is not a separate category. There are some benefits that religious organizations enjoy, like parsonage exemptions as well as being exempt from filing certain financial documents - benefits that plenty of people disagree with who still maintain that churches should retain their non-profit status. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/341 "2014-03-10T14:51:27Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > At least on this thread, almost all the SSM guys are against forcing churches to perform SSMs. Thank you for that. > [@Sterling\_Archer](#): > > So how about a church that decides black people are not allowed to get married in their church? Are they allowed to discriminate on the basis of race? I am guessing they’re not, but this is a tricky distinction then. > [@Trinopus](#): > > It stinks…but it’s legal. It’s a First Amendment exception, covered under the Free Association clause. > > Same for a private club that excludes women…or Jews. As long as it’s strictly private, and not a business or profession, and no business gets done there, then it’s every bit as private as your kid’s birthday party. You can invite…and exclude…anybody you want. It’s legal in the sense that they don’t have to do it, but it would likely cost them their tax exemption. 501(c)(3)s must provide charitable services to the general public to qualify for exemptions. > [@](#): > > When the Government grants exemptions or allows deductions all taxpayers are affected; the very fact of the exemption or deduction for the donor means that other taxpayers can be said to be indirect and vicarious “donors.” Charitable exemptions are justified on the basis that the exempt entity confers a public benefit—a benefit which the society or the community may not itself choose or be able to provide, or which supplements and advances the work of public institutions already supported by tax revenues.18 History buttresses \*592 logic to make clear that, to warrant exemption under § 501(c)(3), an institution must fall within a category specified in that section and must demonstrably serve and be in harmony with the public \*\*2029 interest.19 The institution’s purpose must not be so at odds with the common community conscience as to undermine any public benefit that might otherwise be conferred. > > Bob Jones Univ. v. United States, 461 U.S. 574, 591-92 (U.S.S.C. 1983) However, having noted that the IRS would have to have a policy of withdrawing such exemptions and it does not currently have one for churches. > [@Munch](#): > > Worse, it’s illegal. Upon liquidation, a non-profit must distribute its assets to other similar organizations, or to the government. All of those people would be hauled off to federal prison. Huh. Didn’t know that. > [@Munch](#): > > FYI: If you click on the number of replies for the thread from the forum page, you’ll get a list of all posters in the thread. If you then click on their number of posts, you’ll get a list of all of those posts. It’s handy for long threads. Didn’t know that either. Take a bow, sir. 🆒 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742.md?page=18)