# 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:** 20
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/382 "2014-03-11T01:06:36Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Pretty much, yes, although it’s more that I expect to be treated the way they treat other people, regardless of sexuality, religion, race, or whatever, based on what I actually do. So you want a religious institution to treat everyone the same regardless of religion? > [@](#): > > False. So you think Affirmative Action is morally wrong? > [@](#): > > Then your constitution is wrong. You’re a Brit, right? You know that America was founded (in large part) by people trying to escape religious oppression and the searching for someplace where they could exercise their religion freely, right? So we have a constitution that protects that right to freely practice religion as they see fit. Hell we even have a mechanism for removing that right through an amendment process. Like I said, its attitudes like yours that justify a lot of the opposition to gay marriage. > [@](#): > > Of course. I’ve repeatedly defended their right to marry no-one. What is wrong is for them to marry some people, but not others, based on sexuality, religion race, or whatever. Right or wrong, its legal. > [@](#): > > I see that you only care about the freedom of religion of the priest and not the couple getting married. Odd, that. In what way am I interfering with the freedom of religion of couples getting married? Your position doesn’t sound rational or objective. Is Steophan the only person on the “we should force churches to perform gay marriage” train? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/383 "2014-03-11T01:09:49Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Except the extremely liberal ones are probably hemorrhaging members. . . . Maybe so. Perhaps they’re acquiring wisdom and leaving religion behind entirely, while the more extreme churches gradually become more liberal. You have your wishful thinking; can you deny me mine? ---
**Author:** ![ekedolphin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ekedolphin/32/10003_2.png) [@ekedolphin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ekedolphin)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/384 "2014-03-11T01:22:29Z")
Answered without looking at the rest of the thread first. Absolutely not. I disagree with them, and their reasons for doing so (“love your neighbor as yourself” is far more current than the Old Testament), but if they honestly believe that their religion prevents them from accepting gay marriage, that should be entirely up to them. As a liberal Christian, I don’t want to _force_ conservative churches to perform gay marriages against their will. I want Jesus to change their hearts and help them realize that they’re wrong. What’s in someone’s heart is much more important than outward shows of piety-- especially if those “outward shows” is merely to prevent losing tax-exempt status. Forcing a church to perform gay marriage “at gunpoint” is only going to make things worse. What I would like to see is a constitutional amendment guaranteeing Americans the right to same-sex marriage, but making a specific exemption, similar to the laws being passed now, allowing any church to decline to perform a same-sex marriage on the grounds of religious freedom. In a best-case situation, there will be some church _somewhere_ that will gladly perform it (although I’m sure that in very conservative states, it might require quite a trip), and in worst-case scenarios, the couple could at the very least get married by a justice of the peace or something. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/385 "2014-03-11T01:28:31Z")
> [@ekedolphin](#): > > What I would like to see is a constitutional amendment guaranteeing Americans the right to same-sex marriage, but making a specific exemption, similar to the laws being passed now, allowing any church to decline to perform a same-sex marriage on the grounds of religious freedom. How is that an “exemption”? Churches don’t have to perform weddings they disagree with now, and allowing same-sex marriage doesn’t have anything to do with that, so how can they be “exempt” from a non-requirement? ---
**Author:** ![ekedolphin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ekedolphin/32/10003_2.png) [@ekedolphin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ekedolphin)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/386 "2014-03-11T01:36:21Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > How is that an “exemption”? Churches don’t have to perform weddings they disagree with now, and allowing same-sex marriage doesn’t have anything to do with that, so how can they be “exempt” from a non-requirement? _shrugs_ Cool, then. As long as the government guarantees same-sex marriage to everyone living in the United States, and allows churches to decide whether or not their congregation will perform them, it doesn’t matter much to me whether it’s called “an exemption” or simply _status quo._ (I’m not a lawyer, after all; I’m pre-psych.) 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/387 "2014-03-11T01:57:56Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > How is that an “exemption”? Churches don’t have to perform weddings they disagree with now, and allowing same-sex marriage doesn’t have anything to do with that, so how can they be “exempt” from a non-requirement? So that if someone like \*\*Steophan \*\*shows up at the courthouse the next day with a lawsuit along the lines that he has been arguing in this thread, he gets dismissed as having no case right off the bat, saving us the time and money to litigate what to you seems obvious. ---
**Author:** ![ekedolphin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ekedolphin/32/10003_2.png) [@ekedolphin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ekedolphin)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/388 "2014-03-11T02:01:26Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > So that if someone like \*\*Steophan \*\*shows up at the courthouse the next day with a lawsuit along the lines that he has been arguing in this thread, he gets dismissed as having no case right off the bat, saving us the time and money to litigate what to you seems obvious. Right, but if the city government refuses to perform the marriage, he gets to sue the living daylights out of them and be in the right. My point, exactly. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/389 "2014-03-11T02:29:26Z")
> [@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. No. You are repeating your vague claims without addressing the particulars that I presented. Basically, you are trying to stand on your soap box and rile up the crowd while avoiding any responsibility to actually provide a genuine thought. > [@Steophan](#): > > 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. Again, you are ranting without substance. Please address the specifics I presented. I already noted that a religious leader who is authorized by the state to officiate at weddings could be obliged to officiate at a civil marriage. So what is your claim? If you are claiming that people who hold beliefs that differ from those of a religion should have the right to demand that the church, as an institution, provide a wedding service that violates the tenets of that religion, you are just being silly–or worse. There is no point. There are so many ways in which two persons may marry that barging into a church, synagogue, mosque, or temple to demand that the institution violate its own beliefs serves no purpose except to make the state intrusive into people’s lives. Further evidence, to me, that you have no genuine interest in this discussion is that you continue to harp on the “money changing hands” claim while steadfastly pretending that that claim has not already been debunked. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/390 "2014-03-11T02:44:14Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > . . . you continue to harp on the “money changing hands” claim while steadfastly pretending that that claim has not already been debunked. It isn’t wholly an empty concern. Some establishments have attempted to sidestep the law by claiming that they are accepting “donations” and not actually “charging” for goods or services. This came to a nasty head in one of the Freeway-side rest areas, off Fwy 5, here in San Diego. Vending is prohibited in such areas, but food trucks and little mobile gift-shops had set up, making a mini-flea-market there, on the pretense that they weren’t “selling,” but only “giving away” food and gifts, and accepting “donations” in return. Of course, if you took a sandwich, and decided not to donate anything…or donated less than the “recommended” amount, the guy running the food truck got angry. In at least one case I know of, he got violent. (A friend of mine took a sandwich and said, “Nope, no donation.” There was a fist-fight.) Eventually, the Highway Department shut the affair down. But for a while, it was an interesting example of a business trying to masquerade as a non-business. Churches could do the same thing. But they don’t need to, because of the First Amendment. ---
**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 11, 2014, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/391 "2014-03-11T04:52:51Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > No. You are repeating your vague claims without addressing the particulars that I presented. Basically, you are trying to stand on your soap box and rile up the crowd while avoiding any responsibility to actually provide a genuine thought. There is nothing vague about the claim that religion should not be an excuse for bigotry. It is a wide ranging, general claim, yes, but not vague, and it covers all the specific cases. > [@](#): > > Again, you are ranting without substance. > > Please address the specifics I presented. > I already noted that a religious leader who is authorized by the state to officiate at weddings could be obliged to officiate at a civil marriage. So what is your claim? > > If you are claiming that people who hold beliefs that differ from those of a religion should have the right to demand that the church, as an institution, provide a wedding service that violates the tenets of that religion, you are just being silly–or worse. Why the “if”? I’ve repeatedly stated that that is my claim. If the tenets of a religion are to support bigotry, then those tenets _should_ be challenged and violated. I don’t consider that silly, I consider that necessary. > [@](#): > > There is no point. There are so many ways in which two persons may marry that barging into a church, synagogue, mosque, or temple to demand that the institution violate its own beliefs serves no purpose except to make the state intrusive into people’s lives. No, the point is to prevent bigotry. If churches and other organisations voluntarily stop discriminating against people on spurious grounds, there’d be no need for the state to intervene. That intervention is a means, not an end. > [@](#): > > Further evidence, to me, that you have no genuine interest in this discussion is that you continue to harp on the “money changing hands” claim while steadfastly pretending that that claim has not already been debunked. Until you can show me that all priests and ministers work for free, that no church charges for the use of it’s premises, and so forth, it’s hardly been debunked. As a general rule, churches expect their members to pay 10% of their income to the church, although obviously that varies in practice. They are not free, private gatherings in someone’s house, in which case the government probably should keep out. They are paid-for services, in a place built for that specific purpose, delivered by paid employees, which advertise exactly what they are. In other words, a business, and they should be treated as such. ---
**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 11, 2014, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/392 "2014-03-11T06:10:05Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > As a general rule, churches expect their members to pay 10% of their income to the church, although obviously that varies in practice. They are not free, private gatherings in someone’s house, in which case the government probably should keep out. They are paid-for services, in a place built for that specific purpose, delivered by paid employees, which advertise exactly what they are. In other words, a business, and they should be treated as such. …Cite for a church refusing services to someone for failing to tithe? ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/393 "2014-03-11T06:34:32Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > **As a general rule, churches expect their members to pay 10% of their income to the church, although obviously that varies in practice.** They are not free, private gatherings in someone’s house, in which case the government probably should keep out. They are paid-for services, in a place built for that specific purpose, delivered by paid employees, which advertise exactly what they are. In other words, a business, and they should be treated as such. They do? I don’t think that’s correct even if one decides to use the word “church” to only include places of Christian worship even though we’re supposed to be talking about all religions. Among the Mormons yes, but is that really true for Catholics, Baptists, Shia Muslims, Conservative Jews and about a thousand other groups? ---
**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 11, 2014, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/394 "2014-03-11T08:08:15Z")
What is the rationale for “non-profits” not paying taxes? They use government services too. Maybe if they truly have no income then they would not pay income taxes, that makes sense, since if I have no income I don’t either, but they should not escape other taxes the way they do. It is based on a misunderstanding that they do “good.” Hogs-waller. They benefit the managers and generally do less good for society than the typical for-profit enterprise. ---
**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 11, 2014, 10:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/395 "2014-03-11T10:36:24Z")
> [@Frank\_Merton](#): > > What is the rationale for “non-profits” not paying taxes? They use government services too. Maybe if they truly have no income then they would not pay income taxes, that makes sense, since if I have no income I don’t either, but they should not escape other taxes the way they do. It is based on a misunderstanding that they do “good.” Hogs-waller. They benefit the managers and generally do less good for society than the typical for-profit enterprise. So the ACLU does less good for society than Wal-Mart? ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/396 "2014-03-11T11:44:28Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > They do? > > I don’t think that’s correct even if one decides to use the word “church” to only include places of Christian worship even though we’re supposed to be talking about all religions. > > Among the Mormons yes, but is that really true for Catholics, Baptists, Shia Muslims, Conservative Jews and about a thousand other groups? Mormons who don’t tithe can still be married by their Bishop or Branch President. If they don’t have a Temple Recommend, they they won’t be entering the Temple for a sealing. They can still have a church marriage, performed by LDS clergy, and that performed in an LDS chapel. What Steophan is studiously avoiding understanding for the US is that the government isn’t making a religious ceremony a marriage. The marriage is in effect when the parties to said marriage and the person authorized by the state to be an officiant sign the marriage license. The religious aspect is an addition placed on the parties and the officiant but not placed on them by the government. The additions are placed on them by the religion. If there is no ceremony but the two parties and the officiant sign the certificate and the officiant submits the certificate to city hall, their church might not consider them “married in the church,” but surely the government considers them married. Now, that’s the way I understand the case. I’m willing to be corrected. Oh, and I would love to know which religions charge for their marriage ceremony. None that I’m familiar with does so. ---
**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 11, 2014, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/397 "2014-03-11T11:46:02Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > They are paid-for services, in a place built for that specific purpose, delivered by paid employees, which advertise exactly what they are. In other words, a business, and they should be treated as such. I’d find this really funny if I hadn’t predicted it already. A church is not a business Steophan, no matter how tightly you clutch your pearls and wish it. > [@Frank\_Merton](#): > > What is the rationale for “non-profits” not paying taxes? … It is based on a misunderstanding that they do “good.” Hogs-waller. They benefit the managers and generally do less good for society than the typical for-profit enterprise. This has also been addressed in this thread, just like your last question. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/398 "2014-03-11T12:10:16Z")
I can’t understand why anyone would want to get married (or anything) from a church they belong to. Just go somewhere else! We have separation of church and state so the state can’t run religions nor Religions the state! It seems the churches try by guilt or forced beliefs. If one doesn’t follow the church’s teachings just leave. ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/399 "2014-03-11T12:16:23Z")
> [@ekedolphin](#): > > Absolutely not. I disagree with them, and their reasons for doing so (“love your neighbor as yourself” is far more current than the Old Testament), but if they honestly believe that their religion prevents them from accepting gay marriage, that should be entirely up to them. Am I misunderstanding you or are you saying that “love your neighbor as yourself” is not an Old Testament teaching? Leviticus 19: 18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord. Yep, the nasty old, obsolete book of Leviticus. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/400 "2014-03-11T12:22:05Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > I’d find this really funny if I hadn’t predicted it already. A church is not a business Steophan, no matter how tightly you clutch your pearls and wish it. > > This has also been addressed in this thread, just like your last question. There are people I know of who do not give anything to their church, It is up to a person to donate or not. It isn’t a charge and I also know of couples who give what they want to the person who performs the marriage. They are not asked to give anything, although many people do. ---
**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 11, 2014, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/401 "2014-03-11T12:28:34Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > There are people I know of who do not give anything to their church, It is up to a person to donate or not. It isn’t a charge and I also know of couples who give what they want to the person who performs the marriage. They are not asked to give anything, although many people do. That’s not the point - bringing in a truck-full of donations still doesn’t make the church a business. Charging people at the door to come in doesn’t make a church a business. The IRS is very clear on what a business is, and what a non-profit organization is -there are extremely distinct differences. But Steophen will continue to screech “but it’s a _business_!” no matter how many times that is made clear to him. It’s all smokescreen to try to hide his desire to just eliminate churches altogether, preferably with the aid and assistance of the government. That much is clear at this point. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742.md?page=21)