# 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:** 27
**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 13, 2014, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/522 "2014-03-13T14:35:46Z")
> [@Sterling\_Archer](#): > > Whoah there. From the church’s point of view, what they’re doing is not bigotry at all. They believe homosexuality is a sinful behavior and is not consistent with God’s view of what a marriage should be. A homosexual marriage is not the only kind they won’t allow. Some churches/pastors won’t even marry people that are living together before marriage. If you were to show up with a mail-order bride who doesn’t speak English, the church would not marry the two of you either. The pastor normally meets with the couple and gets to know them and makes sure their relationship and faiths are consistent with getting married in that church. In fact, a LOT of churches won’t marry people who do not share the same faith as the church. > > Forcing the church to ignore all these objections, and treating them like a business offering “Marriage ceremonies for all!” is completely missing the point. That is not how church marriage works. > > Society is free to disagree with the church. But by telling the church, “You must allow all who desire to be married to get married” it’s like you are telling the church members, “You must believe that God approves of and blesses ALL of these marriages, regardless of your religious tradition of what marriage is and isn’t. If the govt says it’s a marriage, you have to give it God’s approval.” That’s what is happening in a religious ceremony by the way. Have you been to a church wedding? It is nothing like a civil ceremony. > > Trying to enforce govt beliefs on churches is what caused people to leave their European countries in the first place. It’s one of the pillars this country was founded on, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, and it’s extremely important. Yes, this is the best answer given here yet. I don’t especially care what **Steophan** might consider ‘bigotry’ or not. Christian marriage isn’t just about romantic-comedy clichés, it’s about procreation and defined gender roles, and a gay couple is flatly incapable of fulfilling what a Christian marriage is supposed to be about. That isn’t bigotry, it is a statement of fact. ---
**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 13, 2014, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/523 "2014-03-13T14:49:13Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Ha ha ha. Accusing me of using weasel words, when you’re the one trying to weasel out of accepting that weddings have to be paid for. It also appears you don’t know what the episcopal church is… you’re not doing very well here. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I know damn well what the Episcopal Church in the USA is, having grown up in said church (I don’t expect you to have made a life work out of reading my posts on this forum, but I have mentioned a time or two during my posting history that nifty tidbit about my youth). It most certainly is not the Church of England. Yes, it has historical and even current relationship to the CofE, but it is not the CofE. ---
**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 13, 2014, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/524 "2014-03-13T14:52:07Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Christian marriage isn’t just about romantic-comedy clichés, it’s about procreation and defined gender roles, and a gay couple is flatly incapable of fulfilling what a Christian marriage is supposed to be about. That isn’t bigotry, it is a statement of fact. I’d buy that if the church also forbid the marriage of the infertile or post-menopausal. ---
**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 13, 2014, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/525 "2014-03-13T14:53:27Z")
Enough with this pay for weddings thing. It’s irrelevant. A church is not a business that just provides wedding services to whoever wants to pay for them. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/526 "2014-03-13T15:51:02Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > And I’ll ask again - for what purpose? The obvious one. Tax revenue. Chruches as well as other buildings of NPOs still use public services such as police, fire department, etc. > [@](#): > > The level of disentangling churches from other 501(c)(3) would be burdensome to the Nth degree, even if you could provide a reasonable motive for doing so that doesn’t run afoul of the 1st Amendment, or even the 14th (as I’d argue the equal protection clause would be far more meaningful when trying to treat churches differently from other non-profits). You’re assuming something here that I haven’t said. Your comments indicate that NPOs get their exempt status because they are seen as a boon to society. They supposedly offer some societal benefit which should be encouraged through tax breaks. This is supported by the catagories listed that I’ve already mentioned I understand that and agree. My simple point is that religion is not by default beneficial to society. The Westboro Baptists are an example as well as the movie “Jesus Camp” > [@](#): > > Misconstruing “charity work” with “non-profit organization” is common. Doing “charity work” is not what the non-profit status is for, as I have laid out numerous times in this thread. I didn’t say it was and didn’t miscontrue anything. ---
**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 13, 2014, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/527 "2014-03-13T16:10:05Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > My simple point is that religion is not by default beneficial to society. Nothing is, by default, beneficial to society when you cherry pick individual counterexamples. In general, our society has benefited from encouraging people to form organizations where they can share common interests. It has added to the civil welfare of our communities. This has value. Additionally, like I have said before: > [@](#): > > The level of disentangling churches from other 501(c)(3) would be burdensome to the Nth degree, even if you could provide a reasonable motive for doing so that doesn’t run afoul of the 1st Amendment, or even the 14th (as I’d argue the equal protection clause would be far more meaningful when trying to treat churches differently from other non-profits). “But…Westboro Baptist Church” is not an adequate justification for such a blatant breach of the 14th Amendment. > [@](#): > > I didn’t say it was and didn’t miscontrue anything. Then maybe I misunderstood the reason you said “That said I do realize that many churches do charity work.” Maybe you could clarify. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/528 "2014-03-13T16:47:32Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Yes, this is the best answer given here yet. > > I don’t especially care what **Steophan** might consider ‘bigotry’ or not. Christian marriage isn’t just about romantic-comedy clichés, it’s about procreation and defined gender roles, and a gay couple is flatly incapable of fulfilling what a Christian marriage is supposed to be about. That isn’t bigotry, it is a statement of fact. Infertile? By all means, you can marry here! You’re both in your 70s, and no longer able to have children? Fine! Just don’t plan to ever have kids? Sure, why not! You’re going to be a stay-at-home father, while your wife works? Come on in! Gay? Haha, _no_. Marriage is about procreation and defined gender roles, you see. You simply aren’t capable of fulfilling what a Christian marriage is all about. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/529 "2014-03-13T16:55:38Z")
> [@Sterling\_Archer](#): > > Trying to enforce govt beliefs on churches is what caused people to leave their European countries in the first place. It’s one of the pillars this country was founded on, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, and it’s extremely important. That seems like a rather too simplified version of American immigration to me. You can also point to people who left their countries because they weren’t able to enforce their own religious beliefs. To paint the initial immigrants as the freedom-loving oppressed masses is a wee bit rosy. ---
**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 13, 2014, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/530 "2014-03-13T17:15:26Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I doubt I think I’m always right any more than most other people here. But you do think your beliefs about what’s right and wrong should be imposed on others who disagree with you even when it intersects with their personal lives. That’s the difference. ---
**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 13, 2014, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/531 "2014-03-13T17:34:18Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > But you do think your beliefs about what’s right and wrong should be imposed on others who disagree with you even when it intersects with their personal lives. That’s the difference. No, my whole argument is that beliefs should _not_ be imposed on other people, and that religious beliefs are no exception to that. You can believe what the fuck you like, it’s your actions that matter. I’m also not talking about people’s personal lives, I’m talking about what they do to others. You’ll never understand this, I expect, because you think some beliefs should be privileged over others. I don’t, I care about the actions. _Why_ someone acts in a bigoted fashion is irrelevant, it’s _what_ they do that matters. ---
**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 13, 2014, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/532 "2014-03-13T17:51:14Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > No, my whole argument is that beliefs should _not_ be imposed on other people, and that religious beliefs are no exception to that. Oh my God, you actually wrote that? You’re so deeply confused I don’t know if you’ll ever get untangled. You actually believe that people who live by their own beliefs, and decline to accommodate others with different ones (who are also free to go do the same) is imposing religious belief rather than allowing it? > [@](#): > > You can believe what the fuck you like, it’s your actions that matter. I’m also not talking about people’s personal lives, I’m talking about what they do to others. Of course you’re talking about their personal lives. Religion is personal. Refusing to marry someone in your religion because they don’t qualify for marriage according to your religion doesn’t “do something” to others. It simply follows a set of beliefs. > [@](#): > > You’ll never understand this, I expect, because you think some beliefs should be privileged over others. Yes. > [@](#): > > I don’t, I care about the actions. _Why_ someone acts in a bigoted fashion is irrelevant, it’s _what_ they do that matters. But unless you come out and say that you would like to regulate EVERYTHING people do - such as refusing to choose a mate due to their race, for instance - that’s not true. You also want some beliefs to be privileged. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/533 "2014-03-13T18:20:54Z")
In general the ‘tax exemption’ for religious organizations is a red herring except in the case of local property taxes on properties they own. If churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. were ‘subject’ to income taxes, they’d just be non-profits, and so owe no income tax. So the valid tax issue is local property taxes. I support a tax exemption for religious organizations, but I don’t think you can argue it’s required by the first amendment (to the US Constitution). That only literally says there can’t be an ‘established’ (ie govt preferred official religion like the Church of England, what the people who actually wrong the amendment had specifically in mind). It’s been more widely construed in various ways some of which I agree with and some I don’t, but hard to see how it could stretched to say all religious organizations’ properties couldn’t taxed, as long as not discriminating among them or against them all compared to other property owners. However I’m of the generally conservative approach to things and I don’t see a reason to abandon the long history of supporting religious organizations, as long as equally, by relieving them of the burden of property tax. Almost nowhere is that a large % burden on other property taxpayers. And religious organizations more than most (though not all, it’s true) private organizations in civil society have bringing people together, physically at the house of worship, as a major characteristic. But regardless if one agrees with the foregoing or not, it’s highly prejudicial to a real free society to have the government use taxation as a weapon to get private civic organizations to agree to prevailing ‘wisdom’ about what’s ‘just wrong’. People trying to use that club against churches over gay marriage should think hard about what precedent it would set for the govt to differentially tax non governmental organizations based on their ‘wrong’ views on all kinds of other issues, depending on whatever 50%+1 of the electorate or judges might decide is ‘wrong’ at any given moment in the future. That’s an extremely bad idea, and wise people in favor of changing the age old definition of marriage (I respectfully disagree with them) should be able to see 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 13, 2014, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/534 "2014-03-13T18:26:37Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > That said; I would say, as a liberal person, that it is enough that the existence of people who believe in institutionalising fundamentalist Christian practices - even if they succeed to the extent that some have done on a state and local level - that that is enough for me to say “Well, clearly it’s a slippery slope, so Christians can forget about even the less stringent stuff they’re after.” Likewise, it would seem like it’s not enough just to say “There are activists out there who would force churches to perform gay marriages.” and extrapolate that out into “Aha, so it’s justified for us to deny not just that, but gay marriage in general, because one would mean the other.” So you can have conservative slippery slopes but not liberal ones? > [@Smapti](#): > > Elrond Half-Elven might have to disagree with you on that point… I think Elrond’s grandfather or great grandfather was human, depending on whether you consider his great grandmother to be elven because she was born an elf or human because she was ressurected as a human. > [@Frank\_Merton](#): > > Do you think religion is a valid excuse for bigotry? All the rest of your response had nothing to do with what the man said. And here we have another poster who at least implies that churches should perform gay marraiges or be punished somehow. It seems to me that many of the people offended by a church’s rejection of gay marriage is just as driven by a hatred of religion as it is by devotion to civil rights. Sure they’re extreme (for chrissakes, even Der Trihs is defending a church’s right to exercise their religion freely) but they are not non-existent and I suspect that a lot of anti-religious folks (a much alrger subset of the population) might be swayed to punish church’s for not performing gay marriages. So were the anti-gay marriage folks as off base as we all painted them to be about forcing priests to perform gay marriages? > [@crucible](#): > > I would bet there have been almost zero prosecutions for religious groups having long term capital gains, and finding a way NOT to let the government put their hands on it. "Hey, we’ve got a million bucks here from our property sale and we’d like to donate it to your charitable organization…I understand you are looking for a new manager of charitable giving and that the salary is $100000 a year…??? I’ll need to assistants…$50K each. … There are plenty of cases where quid pro-quo get prosecuted. Tax exempts are used in tax shelters all the time. > [@Steophan](#): > > Their point of view is _wrong_. That sounds like an opinion, an uninformed one. > [@](#): > > Oh, and to the people who keep saying “the Constitution allows it”, that’s irrelevant. If I was calling for people to be punished for not providing marriages to gay people, then it might be, but I’m talking about the morality of bigotry, not the legality of it. I thought this was about revoking tax exempt status. If you’re arguing that churches are being immoral for refusing to perform gay marriage, then your position doeswn’t sound nearly so radical as “we should be forced to perform gay marriages upon pain of losing tax exempt status” ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/535 "2014-03-13T18:28:22Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So you can have conservative slippery slopes but not liberal ones? Whoops. That first line you quoted there should’ve been “…that it is **not** enough the the existence of…” The same later on. That’s why I say “likewise”, “even if”, and so on. My mistake! ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/536 "2014-03-13T18:50:27Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Whoops. That first line you quoted there should’ve been “…that it is **not** enough the the existence of…” The same later on. That’s why I say “likewise”, “even if”, and so on. My mistake! But I guess the idea still is about ‘conservative’s slippery slope’ which unjustifiably says that changing the legal definition of marriage to include two (let’s just consider two for now) people of the same sex will lead to religious organizations (and their members in every day life) being subject to government coercion if they don’t go along with this in the private sphere. But how is that a ‘slippery slope’? It’s already happening. It’s already happen_ed_ as far as defining acceptance of same sex marriage as a prerequisite for a business serving the public (photographers, wedding cake bakers and so forth who didn’t want to serve gay marriage ceremonies for their personal religious reasons have been brought to court and lost). And IMO reasonable people who can take a step back from an argument, and not be in ‘cross fire talking head’ mode all the time, can easily see that. Of course that’s going to be the result of formalizing public acceptance of same sex marriage by law. So it’s hard IMO to argue that that’s some ‘slippery slope’ argument. Where such laws have been passed, some people experience an increase in what they perceive as their rights, but others a decrease. And it’s a value judgement to say one or the other is deluded to think they’d gained/lost rights. There is a zero sum element to it. And not only this thread but many discussions, and events in other countries (‘hate speech’ prosecutions for strict Biblical teachings) show that there is not much ‘slope’ to go before religious organizations themselves come under the gun. That’s a real corollary to redefining marriage: tends to put traditional religious belief in government cross hairs. IMO honest people on the pro gay marriage side should just admit that. In fact some do, and some are as was mentioned more just anti-religious (anti-Christianity mainly) than they really are pro ‘civil rights’ ---
**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 13, 2014, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/537 "2014-03-13T18:57:13Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > But I guess the idea still is about ‘conservative’s slippery slope’ which unjustifiably says that changing the legally definition of marriage to include two (let’s just consider two for now) people of the same sex will lead to religious organizations (and their members in every day life) being attacked by government coercion if they don’t go along with this in the private sphere. But how is that a ‘slippery slope’? It’s already happening. But not really. A few outliers saying wacky things isn’t the same thing as a legislator actually proposing a law or something. When that happens, you might have a point. > [@](#): > > It’s already happen_ed_ as far as defining acceptance of same sex marriage as a prerequisite for a business serving the public (photographers, wedding cake bakers and so forth who didn’t want to serve gay marriage ceremonies for their personal religious reasons have been brought to court and lost). But that’s not a case of RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS being forced to do something, just business people. The only reason they lost is there was no law against discriminating against gays. If they had refused, even for “personal religious reasons,” to serve black clients, for instance, it would have been different. Maybe religious groups shouldn’t be forbidden to refuse service to gays, but regular business people should be. Some day sexual orientation will be added as a protection in civil rights laws. > [@](#): > > There’s a real corollary to redefining marriage, which is to put traditional religious belief in government cross hairs. IMO honest people on the pro gay marriage side should just admit that. In fact some do, and some are as was mentioned more just anti-religious (anti-Christianity mainly) than they really are pro ‘civil rights’ So? Just because someone else uses a bad argument for something doesn’t mean the good arguments are invalid. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/538 "2014-03-13T19:23:13Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > But I guess the idea still is about ‘conservative’s slippery slope’ which unjustifiably says that changing the legal definition of marriage to include two (let’s just consider two for now) people of the same sex will lead to religious organizations (and their members in every day life) being subject to government coercion if they don’t go along with this in the private sphere. But how is that a ‘slippery slope’? It’s already happening. > > It’s already happen_ed_ as far as defining acceptance of same sex marriage as a prerequisite for a business serving the public (photographers, wedding cake bakers and so forth who didn’t want to serve gay marriage ceremonies for their personal religious reasons have been brought to court and lost). But that doesn’t actually have anything to do with gay marriage; it’s about discrimination against gay people, full stop. At least, in all the cases i’ve seen, the business owner’s rationale for not wishing to serve those particular customers has been their homosexuality, rather than the event in question - it’s just that it’s not really common for a commercial organisation to even become aware of any customer’s sexuality unless it’s involved with the service they provide. It’s the same as discrimination on any proscibed grounds, and it’d exist even if gay marriage were banned utterly, should likewise strongly anti-gay businesses discover the sexuality of their customers. > [@](#): > > And not only this thread but many discussions, and events in other countries (‘hate speech’ prosecutions for strict Biblical teachings) show that there is not much ‘slope’ to go before religious organizations themselves come under the gun. That’s a real corollary to redefining marriage: tends to put traditional religious belief in government cross hairs. IMO honest people on the pro gay marriage side should just admit that. In fact some do, and some are as was mentioned more just anti-religious (anti-Christianity mainly) than they really are pro ‘civil rights’ Considering that, quite literally, there are attempts, some successful, around the US to ban gay marriage entirely, it seems a little bit unreasonable to point to hate speech prosecutions for some religious speech as being “not much ‘slope’”, and call that a “real” corollary. One is “Sometimes, this is bad.” The other is “We don’t recognise your right to do this at all.” Plus, it doesn’t strike me as particularly reasonable to proscribe in advance the terms by which your opponents get treated as honest. And cite for that last part, i’m afraid. I’d be especially interested in proportional numbers, if they’re avaliable, or just your opinion if not. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/539 "2014-03-13T19:23:46Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > You actually believe that people who live by their own beliefs, and decline to accommodate others with different ones (who are also free to go do the same) is imposing religious belief rather than allowing it? This is sloppy writing that ruins an otherwise good point… Of course not accommodating others with different beliefs is imposing religious belief. What you want to say is > [@](#): > > You actually believe that _allowing people to_ live by their own beliefs _that_ decline to accommodate others with different ones (who are also free to go do the same) is imposing religious belief rather than allowing it? I do this because it made me do a big double take, and I almost argued you were stupidly wrong until I realized what you meant to say. I’m not sure I agree, though, because the law does get to tell you what you do and don’t have to accommodate, to some extent. Religious freedom is limited by the law. The question is where you draw the line. You apparently draw the line at what a church is required to do, but are okay with a religious business being told what to do. Some people think that religious businesses shouldn’t be told what to do–see the whole birth control issue. And some believe that the government should be able to tell the church what to do in some circumstances. In fact, you already think this is okay. The government is free to tell the church that they can’t, say, murder, steal, rape, etc. Or to go with marriage, the government is free to tell churches that they cannot have child weddings. They do have some limited control You and **Steophan** just disagree on whether a church can be compelled not to discriminate based on sexual orientation. It’s not some big overall issue, but an issue of where to draw the line. And that’s exactly what makes the position so precarious. That’s exactly why it’s possible for the current thinking to shift towards forcing churches to allow gay weddings. You treat their marriage ceremonies as a business (as they involve paying for use of the facilities), and, boom, churches have to allow it. I only hope that Christianity moves on from its traditional homophobia before that happens, or else there are going to be big problems. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/540 "2014-03-13T19:32:53Z")
I do agree, BTW, that a religious organization should be able to not marry people who disagree with their religious principles, BTW. And I think the courts will not stop that. But when the only difference between two religious beliefs is the acceptance of homosexuality, I think it’s more precarious. And if you do marry straight people who believe homosexuality is not inherently sinful, I think you’ll have a hard time arguing that you should be able to not marry gay people who do not believe homosexuality is inherently sinful. I suspect that will be the actual test once the government decides to regulate religious weddings–is it about beliefs or about orientation? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/541 "2014-03-13T19:37:11Z")
That’s an interesting question. Would a Church have problems marrying, say, two unrepentant thieves, where they might not have problems with marrying a couple who declare an opinion that stealing isn’t at all bad, but who haven’t themselves stolen anything? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742.md?page=28)