# 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:** 22
**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, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/422 "2014-03-11T18:31:45Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > My view is quite simply that religion should not be an excuse for bigotry. It’s all very well to explain where the law allows it to be that, but that simply means that I disagree with the law. And I disagree with _you_, and with your fundamental philosophical premises, so I suppose we are at an impasse. You don’t have the law on your side (neither do I- at this point in time the law is neutral), so until one of us gets in charge and overturns the First Amendment, I suppose we don’t have much fertile ground for argument. Out of curiosity, on what grounds do you believe that ‘discrimination by any organization, religious or otherwise, etc.’ is wrong? Or do you simply take that as an axiom? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/423 "2014-03-11T18:33:55Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > No organisation, whether religious or otherwise, should be allowed to discriminate based on race, gender, sexuality, disability, religion, age (over majority), and quite probably a few other things. In commerce, or in any conceivable thing an organization might do? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/424 "2014-03-11T18:49:07Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > Seriously, you can’t scroll down more than 2 pages? Now I know why you haven’t been able to address any of the points I’ve repeatedly brought to your attention. Ok then we can both see where it says you describe your organization as charitable , RELIGIOUS, educational , or scientific , correct. So, even though they all use the same form, religious is not the same as charitable, educational or scientific is it? ---
**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, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/425 "2014-03-11T19:20:38Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Ok then we can both see where it says you describe your organization as charitable , RELIGIOUS, educational , or scientific , correct. > > So, even though they all use the same form, religious is not the same as charitable, educational or scientific is it? Sigh. I can see that you’re not actually going to address any of my points. But on the very slim chance that you might, let me just link you to [yet another IRS webpage](http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Exempt-Purposes-Internal-Revenue-Code-Section-501(c)(3)), which is a summary of exempt purposes for 501(c)(3) organizations. Please take note where it specifically describes what the IRS considers to be “charitable”: > [@](#): > > The term \*charitable \*is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; **advancement of religion** ; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency. [bolding mine] Now, for at least the third time, which of the reasons given for churches to be considered a non-profit do you disagree with, and what is your reasoning behind that? ---
**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, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/426 "2014-03-11T19:45:34Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > “Unjustified” might be the wrong word. It still doesn’t work since it’s an overreaching argument. We’d also have to take into account whether those few gay rights activists would actually succeed; if, say, 10% of all voters were in favour of forcing priests to perform gay marriages, that’s still not enough to make it likely to occur as an obvious roll-on effect. It depends on the state. Just as we have some states that want to make fundamentalist Christianity part of the school curriculum and implement their social preferences into law (see abortion, sex education, birth control, evion, etc.), you could very well see some states that takes it to the other extreme. Or are you saying that we will not have states that are as extremely liberal as Mississippi is conservative? > [@ctnguy](#): > > I don’t think it’s justified. People would not accept the fact that a small fraction of Christians would like to institute a theocratic dictatorship as a justifiable reason to discriminate against Christians in general. And yet they do. Remember, these are state laws we are talking about. > [@Steophan](#): > > I’m not suggesting anyone be forced to perform anything. It’s clear that people here aren’t content with simply disagreeing with my views, they have to invent additional ones based on nothing so as to disagree even more. Of course they don’t have to perform gay marriages, they can simply lose their tax exempt status or close their doors instead.:rolleyes: ---
**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, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/427 "2014-03-11T22:26:03Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > 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. More vague ranting. > [@Steophan](#): > > 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. You have failed to provide a single concrete example (other than the ones already disproven) to support your rant. > [@Steophan](#): > > 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. More vague unsupported claims, now including invented definitions and bad logic. As you note, religious leaders are paid. However, the people paying them are the members of the groups, not outside sources. That makes them equivalent to a private club, not a business. They are not selling merchandise or services to the general public; they are inviting people to join their association that provides specific group-related benefits. Your attempt to pretend that they are businesses is just silly. If you can find a church that offers “marriages” for a payment, you are free to tell them that they must perform those marriages for anyone who applies. (I would suggest wedding “chapels” in Las Vegas.) Failing that, you are making up definitions, (still unsupported by facts), simply to rant on against religion. (Don’t feel bad, we have lots of such threads, but you are certainly failing to make a serious point.) Next we will see you railing against Hindus for failing to offer a Catholic Mass at their wedding services as examples of religious discrimination. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/428 "2014-03-11T23:34:17Z")
Unless, of course, **Steophan** thinks that the church provides the flowers, the photographers, musicians, decorations, etc. I don’t think the florist is employed by the church. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The catholic church doesn’t “require” anything but they suggest you either donate one hour’s wages or volunteer for one hour a week. > > So just so we’re clear, the anti-gay marriage objection to gay marriage on the grounds that clergy might be forced to perform gay marriage is not totally unjustified. There are actually gay rights activists like Steophan that want to force priests to perform gay marriages. Hardly – these people are a very small minority. Unless, of course, you have proof otherwise? :dubious: ---
**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 12, 2014, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/429 "2014-03-12T00:44:10Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Hardly – these people are a very small minority. Yes, they are a very small minority. But the reactionaries WILL point at them as evidence of “our” ulterior motive. Y’know, I can dig when people say churches,\* all _churches, should not be tax-privileged_ at all\*. But that’s a whole lot different than saying we should use the power of the state to enforce the “right” doctrine. We used to do that, and the smell of burnt flesh was not pleasant. Yes, churches and other denominations have evolved and adapted. There are more moderate and liberal and progressive branches of _all_ the major faiths. But… the Justice Department did not file an injunction for the US Episcopal Church to ordain female clerics. Catholics did not start eating meat on Fridays because the Beef Cattle Association sued them or doing their rites in the local language because the city council mandated simultaneous translation if they kept using Latin. Conservative and Reform Jewish women did not give up frum because of a tax on long sleeves and wigs. They adapted to the evolving society, and in the process _ **it was unnecessary to deliberately destroy the more orthodox or prevent them from continuing to observe their way** _ in order to achieve this. Even to this day and on this issue: Disagreement on gay marriages and ordinations? Split the congregation, progressives go one way, reactionaries go the other. History shall judge them. But of course, no, that’s “tolerating bigotry”. (BTW, do people seem to think the cry of “bigotry” somehow should shut everyone up?) Thing is, there is not much effect in throwing around an accusation of “tolerating bigotry” just because everyone else is not as much of an absolutist hardliner about ritualistic ceremonies, if people ARE getting their rights recognized before the law where it counts. ---
**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 12, 2014, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/430 "2014-03-12T04:36:24Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I agree, it would be unconstitutional, but the Constitution doesn’t seem to bother the federal government much these days. That’s debatable (and possibly “rantable” in the Pit). > [@](#): > > In times of old, the Latter Day Saints, commonly known as the Mormons, did not allow blacks to become members of their priesthood. In the late 1970’s, changes were set in motion that would have taken away the tax exempt status of any church that still barred blacks. The issue never came before the courts, as fas as I know. The LDS Church got a revelation from God telling them to admit blacks rights before they lost their tax exemption. I don’t think this is quite accurate. If it were, then the Roman Catholic Church would have lost its tax-exempt status by now because of not admitting women into their priesthood. For the LDS, I think the tax-exemption, and possibly student financial assistance, in question was for church-run schools. ---
**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 12, 2014, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/431 "2014-03-12T04:43:50Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > 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. Will you admit your error if all it takes is just one example of such a church? > [@](#): > > 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. Wow. You really don’t know what you’re talking about, do you? There are some churches that, in fact, do meet in members’ homes. There are some churches that encourage tithing and other donations but still do not withhold any church service from those who don’t donate a red cent. Even those churches which do have tithing or other requirements for their members do offer charitable services and even some religious ministration to people who aren’t even members of that denomination. ---
**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 12, 2014, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/432 "2014-03-12T04:54:10Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > More vague ranting. Nope, a coherently argued point. If you’d rather insult it than argue against it, that’s your choice, but the only reason I can think for you to do so is that you _can’t_ argue against it. ---
**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 12, 2014, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/433 "2014-03-12T05:00:42Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Unless, of course, **Steophan** thinks that the church provides the flowers, the photographers, musicians, decorations, etc. I don’t think the florist is employed by the church. No, they provide the minister and the premises. Neither of which are free. They may not be paid directly by the couple getting married (although they often are), but they are paid for, ultimately, by the members of the church. Churches are, most of the time, organisations that own property, employ people, and offer services. To claim they’re not businesses is ridiculous, the same as claiming charities aren’t businesses. And to answer another point made by someone, I consider “bigotry is wrong” to be axiomatic. True, not all discrimination is bigotry (such as the women’s sports clubs mentioned earlier), but most is, and discrimination based on race, gender, sexuality, religion, disability, and so forth should very much be the exception rather than the rule. ---
**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 12, 2014, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/434 "2014-03-12T05:06:03Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > Will you admit your error if all it takes is just one example of such a church? No, because my claim isn’t that all churches work the way I say, but that many do, and that they should be treated as organisations and businesses. > [@](#): > > Wow. You really don’t know what you’re talking about, do you? There are some churches that, in fact, do meet in members’ homes. There are some churches that encourage tithing and other donations but still do not withhold any church service from those who don’t donate a red cent. Even those churches which do have tithing or other requirements for their members do offer charitable services and even some religious ministration to people who aren’t even members of that denomination. Yes, I do know what I’m talking about. I actually know the bible, and the doctrines of several christian churches, and many do expect tithing, and the bible explicitly demands it. A church that is simply an informal gathering in someone’s house would, like anything else of that nature, be immune to legal controls, but as soon as it becomes a formal organisation, that stops. I suppose you’d like to argue now that it’s acceptable for a church to offer it’s charitable services and religious ministrations for free only to white people? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/435 "2014-03-12T05:06:25Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Nope, a coherently argued point. If you’d rather insult it than argue against it, that’s your choice, but the only reason I can think for you to do so is that you _can’t_ argue against it. While I have provided explicit reasons that your argument fails, (churches are not businesses open to the public, churches do not charge to have marriages performed at them and clergy do not charge for officiating at marriages), you have continued to stomp your foot and cry “bigotry” without providing a single accurate example of what you claim to be talking about. Poking fun at you for your failure to make your case is the only option open to me unless I want to make up examples, (since you refuse to do so), but I do not choose to engage in straw man arguments. Perhaps, if you actually presented a factual scenario, (that you got right), you could try to make your point. ---
**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 12, 2014, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/436 "2014-03-12T05:11:30Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > No, they provide the minister and the premises. Neither of which are free. They may not be paid directly by the couple getting married (although they often are), but they are paid for, ultimately, by the members of the church. > > Churches are, most of the time, organisations that own property, employ people, and offer services. To claim they’re not businesses is ridiculous, the same as claiming charities aren’t businesses. > > And to answer another point made by someone, I consider “bigotry is wrong” to be axiomatic. True, not all discrimination is bigotry (such as the women’s sports clubs mentioned earlier), but most is, and discrimination based on race, gender, sexuality, religion, disability, and so forth should very much be the exception rather than the rule. Your axioms are wrong. There that was easy. ---
**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 12, 2014, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/437 "2014-03-12T05:13:16Z")
**Steophan** is the NFL bigoted if they refuse to hire a cripple? Just like a crippled person can’t properly play football, similarly a gay couple cannot properly fulfil the goals of what a Catholic marriage is all about. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/438 "2014-03-12T05:14:30Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Yes, I do know what I’m talking about. I actually know the bible, and the doctrines of several christian churches, and many do expect tithing, and the bible explicitly demands it. A church that is simply an informal gathering in someone’s house would, like anything else of that nature, be immune to legal controls, but as soon as it becomes a formal organisation, that stops. A rare few churches may demand tithing, but despite your reliance on your “knowledge” of the bible, you seem to have missed the point that Old Testament tithing was actually the state tax and it has not carried forward into Christianity, today. (Nor is it that prevalent even in Judaism and certainly is not relevant for other religions.) Your idea of a “formal organization” is simply something that you want to believe is true that has no basis in reality. > [@Steophan](#): > > I suppose you’d like to argue now that it’s acceptable for a church to offer it’s charitable services and religious ministrations for free only to white people? A church that offered its charitable work for free to only its own members would be extremely rare (if any exist). In the U.S., church run charitable organizations are incorporated as independent entities, separate from the churches, that are subject to the usual laws regarding civil rights–but those independent corporations do not provide marriage as such a service. You are simply mixing together things that you don’t understand in order to be mad. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/439 "2014-03-12T05:23:26Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > **Steophan** is the NFL bigoted if they refuse to hire a cripple? > > Just like a crippled person can’t properly play football, similarly a gay couple cannot properly fulfil the goals of what a Catholic marriage is all about. The difference is that the NFL has specific legal exemption to handicapped access laws (also to anti-trust laws.) The church has a much broader constitutional exemption. Congress could, tomorrow, pass a law requiring the NFL to open its opportunities to the handicapped, but couldn’t pass a law requiring the Catholic Church to marry gays. Sort of like comparing slavery and the age of consent. Slavery is unconstitutional, but a lower age of consent could be enacted state by state. (“Cripple?” Please!) ---
**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 12, 2014, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/440 "2014-03-12T12:55:14Z")
> [@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. Wow, you REALLY don’t know what you’re talking about. Which doesn’t surprise me. ---
**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 12, 2014, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/441 "2014-03-12T12:59:04Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > And to answer another point made by someone, I consider “bigotry is wrong” to be axiomatic. True, not all discrimination is bigotry (such as the women’s sports clubs mentioned earlier), but most is, and discrimination based on race, gender, sexuality, religion, disability, and so forth should very much be the exception rather than the rule. So it’s wrong for a religion to discriminate _on the basis of religion._ I don’t think there’s anything more to be said here. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742.md?page=23)