# 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:** 19
**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, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/362 "2014-03-10T17:27:23Z")
For the record, this idiot (Beutler) agrees with **Steophan** that churches should lose their tax exemptions if they hold to traditional beliefs about marriage. And, of course, the Church of Denmark is currently legally required to perform same sex marriages. > **[GOP's "religious liberty" scam just died: Why Brewer's veto is so momentous](https://www.salon.com/2014/02/27/gops_religious_liberty_scam_just_died_why_brewers_veto_is_so_momentous/)** > > Once upon a time, the right thought it could push its agenda behind claim of religious freedom. Those days are over ---
**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, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/363 "2014-03-10T17:38:33Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > And in your attempt to treat religion as just another restaurant or other public accomodation, you’re led to the absurd idea that religions can’t discriminate based on religion. I don’t consider that an absurd notion, I find it fully in keeping with the idea that people should be free to have any religion or none. People can believe whatever they like, and I fully agree that no government has any business in that. I’m only concerned with their actions, and if those are discriminatory that’s a problem. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Keep pushing him and he’ll admit that he doesn’t believe in religious freedom at all, and would be happy to see religions destroyed entirely through his policies. He said as much earlier in this thread. (I hope I’m not misrepresenting your view, Steophan, but that’s how I recall it). > > That’s his bottom line. I wish he’d just come out and say it more often. I believe in religious freedom, I just long for the day when everyone freely decides it’s massively dangerous bullshit. I do not believe that religious freedom - the freedom to believe whatever you like - extends to the freedom to act however you like and get a pass on it based on your beliefs. If what I’d like comes to pass, and it makes it harder for people to brainwash others into believing their dangerous bullshit, all the better. In short, yours was a pretty good summary, but missing a little nuance. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Steophan, do you think white people should be subject to lawsuits if they only marry a white person, or vice versa for blacks? Should a black girlfriend by able to sue a white man if he dumps her and the marries a white woman instead? No. I could just about accept that, if someone makes a promise to marry, then finds out that their betrothed was “black” according to the just-one-drop idea, then refused to marry them, they should be liable for any costs occurred. Some people will only be attracted to people of a certain sin colour, just as with other physical features. That’s not a problem. Not marrying someone because of their skin colour, when you’re attracted to them, love them, and would do if they were of a different race, is bigoted arseholery, but allowable as it’s ultimately private. The closest thing to this that _really_ would need to be stopped would be families or other institutions that attempt to prevent their members from marrying outside their race or religion. ---
**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, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/364 "2014-03-10T17:38:48Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I don’t think the churches should be the ones to decide. That is, if as a society we decide that such marriages are legal, the church should perform them, and if we decide that they are not, then they should not. So if the law of the land decreed that interracial marriages were illegal, churches should not be able to perform secret, spiritual marriage ceremonies for interracial couples? ---
**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, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/365 "2014-03-10T17:41:04Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > And if, as a society, we decide that churches can limit participation in their customs to those who belong to those traditions? Your opinion is wildly inconsistent, and cherry picks what it wants when it wants. Missed this. Yes, as a society the US (among many others) has done that, and can do that. It is, however, wrong to do so. Things, fortunately, are changing, and organisations that shelter bigots are becoming less accepted. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/366 "2014-03-10T17:42:31Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > For the record, this idiot (Beutler) agrees with **Steophan** that churches should lose their tax exemptions if they hold to traditional beliefs about marriage. Umm … lose their tax-exempt status. I’m not sure how forcing churches into profitable status is going to get them to marry gay couples. SSM … or Schedule B … tough choice. ---
**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, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/367 "2014-03-10T17:45:14Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > The closest thing to this that _really_ would need to be stopped would be families or other institutions that attempt to prevent their members from marrying outside their race or religion. Why? If a church chooses to deny you communion because you married a Jew or a Buddhist, bearing in mind St. Paul’s comments on the matter, that’s there choice. ---
**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, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/368 "2014-03-10T17:47:36Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > It is, however, wrong to do so. No, it’s not. See, I can make absolute statements with zero effort in backing it up as well. It’s not nearly as much fun as you make it out to be, though. You have not provided a sufficient enough reason to coerce religious organizations to act against their beliefs. “What they’re doing is wrong” is not a reason. “What they’re doing is harming children” is a good reason to force Christian Scientists to administer healthcare to their children. “Peyote is a really harmful substance” is a good reason to prevent Native American tribes from utilizing the drug in their ceremonies. “Poisonous snake bites are fatal” is a good reason to prevent churches from snake handling. “It’s wrong” doesn’t cut it here. ---
**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, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/369 "2014-03-10T17:51:02Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > So if the law of the land decreed that interracial marriages were illegal, churches should not be able to perform secret, spiritual marriage ceremonies for interracial couples? They certainly would not be legally able to, no. Obviously, they would be able to if they were secretive enough… I don’t think you’re asking if they should be able to, I think you’re asking if I think they should actually do it. Firstly, I believe that law would be wrong. However, despite some exceptions, in general religions have shown themselves to be terrible moral arbiters, and one should not assume that they will decide better than the public. I would say they should, if they believe it necessary, conduct the marriage and be willing to take the legal punishment for doing so, but I would also say there are probably better ways of protesting such a law. Is that inconsistent? Maybe. It doesn’t alter my fundamental point that neither law nor church should be bigoted, though. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/370 "2014-03-10T18:03:00Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Is that inconsistent? Maybe. It doesn’t alter my fundamental point that neither law nor church should be bigoted, though. Just the law and churches? It’s okay for labor unions, museum or political parties to be bigoted. You’d be surprised how many Republicans are bigoted against liberalism. ---
**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, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/371 "2014-03-10T18:07:56Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Missed this. Yes, as a society the US (among many others) has done that, and can do that. **It is, however, wrong to do so.** Things, fortunately, are changing, and organisations that shelter bigots are becoming less accepted. See, there’s the problem. Religion is a whole framework about what’s right and wrong for those who adhere to it. Religious freedom leaves that to the religion. Requiring religions not to discriminate in marriage is about as absurd as trying to pass a law forbidding individuals from discriminating in marriage, such as in my question about suing people for choosing to marry someone of a certain race (or sex, for that matter). ---
**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, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/372 "2014-03-10T18:09:06Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Just the law and churches? It’s okay for labor unions, museum or political parties to be bigoted. You’d be surprised how many Republicans are bigoted against liberalism. It’s WRONG though. We should require political parties not to discriminate. They should let anyone join them regardless of political party. Makes sense. ---
**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, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/373 "2014-03-10T18:14:55Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I don’t consider that an absurd notion, I find it fully in keeping with the idea that people should be free to have any religion or none. People can believe whatever they like, and I fully agree that no government has any business in that. I’m only concerned with their actions, and if those are discriminatory that’s a problem. You can’t simply declare actions are different from beliefs. That means total regulation of religious practice. Anything you say or do, rather than simply think. > [@](#): > > I believe in religious freedom, No you don’t. > [@](#): > > I do not believe that religious freedom - the freedom to believe whatever you like - extends to the freedom to act however you like and get a pass on it based on your beliefs. Again, no, you clearly don’t. > [@](#): > > If what I’d like comes to pass, and it makes it harder for people to brainwash others into believing their dangerous bullshit, all the better. Proof that your true motivation is to destroy religious freedom. > [@](#): > > No. I could just about accept that, if someone makes a promise to marry, then finds out that their betrothed was “black” according to the just-one-drop idea, then refused to marry them, they should be liable for any costs occurred. I didn’t ask that. Should she be able to sue for discrimination? Get damages just for the harm of him choosing to reject her based on race? (not just for any costs incurred, which might apply to any jilted financee.) > [@](#): > > Some people will only be attracted to people of a certain sin colour, just as with other physical features. That’s not a problem. But that’s discrimination! > [@](#): > > Not marrying someone because of their skin colour, when you’re attracted to them, love them, and would do if they were of a different race, is bigoted arseholery, but allowable as it’s ultimately private. So now you’re throwing “private” into this? Is religion public, not private? > [@](#): > > The closest thing to this that really would need to be stopped would be families or other institutions that attempt to prevent their members from marrying outside their race or religion. Great, so you’re going to make a law against that too? The private (not public) business of family relations is now yours to regulate as well as their religious affairs? ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/374 "2014-03-10T18:17:47Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > It’s WRONG though. We should require political parties not to discriminate. They should let anyone join them regardless of political party. Makes sense. Make PAC’s and lobbyist give equally to both sides … that does make sense. ---
**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, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/375 "2014-03-10T18:19:30Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Make PAC’s and lobbyist give equally to both sides … that does make sense. Make individual donors do the same. Also, all voters must split their votes between all parties on a ballot to the extent possible. ---
**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, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/376 "2014-03-10T18:29:32Z")
It would certainly be an improvement in politics if people voted based on what politicians actually do, not what they profess to believe. ---
**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, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/377 "2014-03-10T19:39:59Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > It would certainly be an improvement in politics if people voted based on what politicians actually do, not what they profess to believe. I agree. Do you want to pass a law requiring them to? ---
**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, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/378 "2014-03-10T22:22:33Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I disagree. I think as generations pass and SSM is more cmmonly accpeted and SS couples become part of more people’s day to day experience churches that don’t welcome SS couples or allow SS couples to marry there will be seen in the same light as other discriminatory traditions that have all but disappeared. I don’t think so. The Roman Catholic church has held its current view on divorce & remarriage (categorically forbidden, as long as one’s previous partner is still alive) for almost two thousand years now. It is not popular today, but it’s _never_ been popular. People have wanted to do all sorts of other forbidden sexual things- contraception, premarital sex, adultery, self-pleasuring- for two thousand years now, and the Catholic church has been pretty consistently against them. The Orthodox Church as well, though they have a bit more wiggle room on divorce and contraception. I doubt that the teaching against gay ‘marriage’ is going to disappear anytime soon. And for what it’s worth, neither Catholicism nor Orthodoxy, nor a lot of evangelical churches, ordain women either. There are churches which do ordain women, and which have reappraised traditional teachings about sex and marriage, but they aren’t growing particularly fast right now. Unpopularity has never been a rerally good reason, either theologically or demographically, for a church to change its moral teachings. [ > [@cosmosdan](#): > > For example, more churches ordain women now than did 100 years ago. The LDS church had to start ordaining black people. To survive congregations have to attract and keep new generations of believers and it becomes more difficult to do that when you cling to outdated unpopular beliefs that are generally seen as unfair. On the contrary, I think churches which are perceived as wishy-washy, watering down their beliefs to suit the prevailing political fashions of the time, are the ones which are unlikely to attract members. If the church doesn’t provide you with anything countercultural, anything you won’t get from the prevailing culture, then why bother going to church at all? ---
**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, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/379 "2014-03-10T22:32:14Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > On the contrary, I think churches which are perceived as wishy-washy, watering down their beliefs to suit the prevailing political fashions of the time, are the ones which are unlikely to attract members. If the church doesn’t provide you with anything countercultural, anything you won’t get from the prevailing culture, then why bother going to church at all? I don’t know. I think some people want a middle ground between the prevailing culture and the extremism they get at many churches. “Wishy-washy” doesn’t have to be nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/380 "2014-03-10T23:49:39Z")
**lance strongarm** : Agreed. The evidence for this can be found in the amazing variety of churches that exist. I can walk five blocks and be at an ultra-conservative church…or an extremely liberal one. The church, as an institution, already engages in picking and choosing. ---
**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 11, 2014, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/381 "2014-03-11T00:05:25Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > **lance strongarm** : Agreed. The evidence for this can be found in the amazing variety of churches that exist. I can walk five blocks and be at an ultra-conservative church…or an extremely liberal one. > > The church, as an institution, already engages in picking and choosing. Except the extremely liberal ones are probably hemorrhaging members. Look at the UCC, the Episcopal Church, the Disciplies of Christ… The exceptions here are the ELCA (which is still partly an ethnically-based church, that remains strong in Scandinavian-descended regions of the Midwest), and the Unitarians who for some inexplicable reason are gaining members. The Unitarians are starting from a very small base though, and they largely don’t even self-identify as Christians, so that provides little solace for _Christians_ who consider themselves extremely liberal. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742.md?page=20)