# 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:** 28
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/542 "2014-03-13T20:59:00Z")
> [@Frank\_Merton](#): > > I think leave religions alone – don’t allow them to impose their will on others and run things other than churches (especially schools) and over time they will disappear. They need political power to hold onto people. There are some things that churches must not be allowed, including freedom from taxes and the right to run roughshod over the rights of others (such as making lots of noise) and of course when they get crazy medical notions the children need to be protected from them. Mostly agree, except I’d leave them the exemption from taxes, in return for their staying out of partisan politics. The moment Pastor Bob says, “If you vote for Candidate A, you will burn in hell,” bang, his tax exemption goes away. (However, the absurd case in Pasadena, where the IRS tried to zap a church where the minister gave a sermon on the topic of “Peace,” and this was taken as a political anti-war statement, was going much too far. Breaking this “tax exemption treaty” has to be much more direct and overt than merely praising peace.) ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/543 "2014-03-13T21:03:04Z")
> [@Frank\_Merton](#): > > Do you think religion is a valid excuse for bigotry? . . . It’s ugly and nasty and stupid and sad. But, yes. Religions get to be bigoted. Much as individuals get to be bigoted. You could have a private golf course that doesn’t permit women to play. And that’s where the “it’s not a business” argument becomes meaningful. Or, hell, the KKK. They can be as bigoted as they want, so long as they don’t break any laws. We can all hold them in (nauseated) contempt, but it is their right to hold such views, and to communicate them. ---
**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 14, 2014, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/544 "2014-03-14T01:43:13Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > And, that’s not bullshit, it’s precisely what the Catholic church says happens. > > [How Much Does it Cost to Marry in the Church? - For Your Marriage](http://www.foryourmarriage.org/how-much-does-it-cost-to-marry-in-the-church/) > > " If the bride or groom or both are registered parishioners, the suggested amount may be minimal, or none. The assumption is that they are already supporting the parish with their regular financial contributions" > [@](#): > > Actually, nothing. Sacraments are not for sale. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (#2121) makes clear that the First Commandment forbids _simony_, which is the buying or selling of sacred things. And notice in the part YOUR quote where it says “or NONE”. It’s because traditionally, people usually offer to make a donation, so they’re offering guidelines on how they can do so. (I would imagine if people asked if their donation could go to a charitable organization affiliated with the church, that would be welcomed) Do I think the church should allow gay marriage? Yes. Do I think they should be forced to do so? No, I do not. I may criticize them, I may say they’re wrong for doing so, but I don’t think I should be able to force them to do it. History has shown us that it’s usually a bad idea when religion and government mix. ---
**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 14, 2014, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/545 "2014-03-14T02:05:52Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > 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. > > 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. But this relies on an assumption which is common in these debates, and in the government’s policies. It defines ‘freedom of religion’ as strictly applying not even just to religious organizations, but even just to their religious functions. This is seen for example wrt abortion and the Affordable Care Act. The government seeks to define religious freedom as pretty mush _just_ the freedom to conduct religious services. If the organization hires people, then it has to violate it principals to meet the requirements of the act. By further extension if individuals are forced to go against their religious views in business, that’s viewed as a totally different topic. But to actually religious people it’s not some totally different topic. Secular type progressives, even of good will, carry their own assumption that strict organized religion is at best a nice show or symbol, or just BS that other people are entitled to foolishly believe in as long as it’s strictly hidden away in a church. They have consistent trouble seeing things from the POV of people who actually believe. And in the general the argument ‘oh that’s not going to happen’ lacks credibility. Punishing religious organizations for not performing same sex marriages is clearly a somewhat popular view on the web, still outside the ‘electable spectrum’ of Democratic candidates for major office, for now perhaps…but so was same sex marriage itself not that long ago. On the comparison of discrimination against blacks to holding Biblical views on homosexuality, it begs the whole question. If you think those two things are really the same, you probably put no weight on what the Bible (Abrahamic religious scripture in general) says\*. But the issue is religious freedom for who those who do place weight on that. Likewise arguments like ‘what if I made up a new religion which said white people are untouchable’ assumes the centuries old religion at the core of our culture (and it’s relatively similar cousins) is the same as some casual ‘what if’. It again assumes the conclusion that traditional religious belief is BS. It doesn’t seriously address how to handle the rights of the large minority (at least) who don’t think that and hew to a particular (family of) religion(s) central to our history. And I don’t agree that the cases of wedding providers successfully sued were people who ‘didn’t want to serve gays’ rather than objecting to a particular event. It was the opposite. They didn’t want to participate in a wedding ceremony they felt, for religious reasons, was a sacrilege. There’s no indication they sought the right not to take photographs or bake cakes for homosexual clients wrt any other event. \*racists in the modern West (ie the age of African slaves sent to the New World, and even after) tried to justify racism with the Bible but it’s actually a very long stretch. The societies of the Old Testament and Rome were not literally racist, about skin color. And there’s nothing explicit in the Bible about it. OTOH condemnation of the _practice_ of homosexuality is quite explicit. Liberal Christians construct various arguments to justify ignoring those passages (context, translation issues, etc) with plausibility that could be debated separately. But the starting point is quite different than the case of race and the Bible. ---
**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 14, 2014, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/546 "2014-03-14T02:20:06Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > 1. 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 - > > 2. 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. 1. It’s just the opposite AFAIK in the cases actually brought to court. Small businesses like photographer and baker didn’t want to take part in a same sex marriage ceremony. There was no indication they were in the habit of turning down business from homosexual clients in any other context. 2. ‘Proportional numbers’ where people admit they just have a bug up their ass about religion would presumably be in the same study with the proportional numbers where people admit they just don’t like certain other races. So, if you surveyed a large group of people on the latter question and nobody or a tiny fraction admitted to racial hatred, would the ‘scientific’ approach then be to reject the hypothesis that anyone is a racist, for ‘lack of proof’. IOW sorry, it’s not serious to come back with ‘cite source’ as the response for a statement such as I made. If you really think there isn’t now a lot of hostility to traditional religious belief, per se, in this society, you can just say so and each person can decide if that’s a plausible or ridiculous statement. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/547 "2014-03-14T02:29:32Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > I’d struggle to find that many cases where the Catholic Church has ever actually changed a core moral or doctrinal teaching. Seriously? Look up Catholic atrocities and tell me what you find. Some pretty immoral pratices > [@](#): > > Please give me a cite that the Catholic Church ever forbade common people from reading the Bible (and when I say the Catholic Church, I mean either a pope or an ecumenical council or maybe one of the most authoritative theologians- not some regional meeting or some low-level priest somewhere). Not strictly forbade but discouraged by keeping the Bible in dead languages and not wanting it translated into English. William Tyndale was burned at the stake for it. > [@](#): > > Do you have any evidence that embracing modernism and liberalism in the realm of sexual ethics would attract more people to Christianity? I’m not saying it will attract more people. I’m saying Churches will eventually have to change and mature along with society. All you have to do is look at church history to see this is true. The entire reformation and protestant movement is an example. More churches ordaining women. more integration rather than claiming God wants the races seperate. etc. These are not issues of permissiveness or watering down beliefs, but basic issues of truth and justice concerning humanity. The Catholic church may not have officially changed it’s doctrine but the fact that it chooses not to enforce them sends a message. I hear the new Pope will move to make some changes that traditionalists won’t like. We’ll see. I just doubt any church that values tradition over truth and a sense of justice will do well in an increasingly more educated and aware society. > [@](#): > > ‘Liberal’, pro-gay churches tend to be demographically declining, cite. > [@](#): > > while evangelical churches are doing a much better job and attracting and keeping people. they are for now but I predict that after a few generations when SS marriage is more common place and SS couples have shown their value as members of society, churches who continue to reject our gay brothers and sisters as equals will find it harder to attract a new generation. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/548 "2014-03-14T02:51:49Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > But this relies on an assumption which is common in these debates, and in the government’s policies. It defines ‘freedom of religion’ as strictly applying not even just to religious organizations, but even just to their religious functions. This is seen for example wrt abortion and the Affordable Care Act. The government seeks to define religious freedom as pretty mush _just_ the freedom to conduct religious services. If the organization hires people, then it has to violate it principals to meet the requirements of the act. By further extension if individuals are forced to go against their religious views in business, that’s viewed as a totally different topic. But to actually religious people it’s not some totally different topic. . . . That’s the problem: some people wanted the “religious freedom” to deny their employees the right to obtain contraception, even on a plan the employees purchased. The employer wasn’t even purchasing the plan, only making money available to the employee to buy insurance. They were trying to use religious freedom as a tool to pry apart other people and their freedoms. This came to a (hellish) head in Arizona, where they tried to claim that it was “religious freedom” to allow shopkeepers to refuse to serve gays. This is why we’re limiting religious freedom to religious ceremonies. The theocrats tried to use it as a basis for secular discrimination. They bit off far too much…and lost some teeth in passing. Stop trying to sneak theocracy in by the back door, and we’ll stop trying to define religious freedom narrowly. Keep it up…and we’ll keep fighting back. We can co-exist…but that doesn’t mean “Everybody you don’t like has to suck it up.” ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/549 "2014-03-14T03:32:08Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Seriously? Look up Catholic atrocities and tell me what you find. Some pretty immoral pratices Without making any defense of various Catholic actions, it should be noted that **Corry El** ’s claim was that the church has not changed a core teaching, not that it has always followed those same teachings. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Not strictly forbade but discouraged by keeping the Bible in dead languages and not wanting it translated into English. William Tyndale was burned at the stake for it. This distorts history. There were several English translations that preceded and followed Tyndale (and Wyclif). Wyclif was censured and Tyndale executed for having preached ideas considered heretical and for having created translations that differed remarkably from the approved translations in support of their ideas, not for having translated the bible, _per se_. (England was one of the last countries in Europe to get a bible in the vernacular, most other countries having already created their own (church approved) translations.) It should be noted that the Catholic Douai-Rheims English translation was actually created and published before the Authorized/King James Version. (Both were attempts to improve upon (or correct) Henry VIII’s Great Bible using more direct translations from the Hebrew and Greek than the Great Bible had employed.) ---
**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 14, 2014, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/550 "2014-03-14T04:22:20Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > And ten bucks says Steophan thinks this makes perfect sense too. No takers. Since he already made it clear he opposes all discrimination on the basis of “gender” I’m still waiting for his explanation as to whether the local women’s softball team that refuses to let me be a member is full of “bigots” or not. ---
**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 14, 2014, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/551 "2014-03-14T04:36:49Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I’m neither attempting to force anyone to believe anything, nor take any actions at all. I am saying that, should they act, they must act in a non-bigoted fashion regardless of their beliefs. > > If that is against your 235-year-old holy writing, that matters no more from a moral point of view than millennia old holy writing. A constitution should not be considered that way, it should be adjusted when shown to be wrong. Allowing religion as an excuse for bigotry is wrong, and your constitution needs to be changed to recognise that. Er… it’s not holy writing. Also it can be changed and has been done so on numerous occasions. You have heard of Constitutional amendments haven’t you? > [@](#): > > Assuming you’re talking about the US, you have, to my knowledge, no Steophans there, and I also suspect you’re right that your country, **despite nominally having separation of church and state** , will never allow the church to relax it’s control. But also, one day, your country will not be a world superpower, and **will have to follow more advanced countries or be left behind.** That may be a way off, but it’s probably sooner that some people think. Unlikely to be in the lifetime of many people posting here though. How exactly are you saying the US “follow the rest of the advanced countries”? Get rid of the separation of Church and State? No thanks, we prefer not having religious schools funded by the government. Works for Canada and the UK but it doesn’t work for us. Besides which “advanced countries” are forcing churches, Catholic or otherwise, to perform marriages for gay couples? ---
**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 14, 2014, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/552 "2014-03-14T04:39:27Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > History has shown us that it’s usually a bad idea when religion and government mix. Yeah, that was shown pretty well back in jolly ol’ England, you know, Steophan’s country. Personally, I think it’s absolute and utter bullshit that certain members in parliament are there simply because they happen to hold a particular office in a particular religion. But, of course, nobody in England gives a fig about what I think about their government. ---
**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 14, 2014, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/553 "2014-03-14T05:14:18Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > No takers. > > Since he already made it clear he opposes all discrimination on the basis of “gender” I’m still waiting for his explanation as to whether the local women’s softball team that refuses to let me be a member is full of “bigots” or not. Perhaps rather than waiting, you could go read the posts where I’ve answered that. The short answer, though, is that they’re not bigots, as there are fundamental and relevant differences between men and women when it comes to playing sports. Why did you put “gender” in quotes in your post? > [@Monty](#): > > Yeah, that was shown pretty well back in jolly ol’ England, you know, Steophan’s country. Personally, I think it’s absolute and utter bullshit that certain members in parliament are there simply because they happen to hold a particular office in a particular religion. But, of course, nobody in England gives a fig about what I think about their government. I agree with what you think about our government there. The arguments about House Of Lords reform are ongoing, and the practical effect of that is that the Bishops in that House won’t do anything outrageous else the reforms to remove them would happen much sooner. Not a perfect solution, but an improvement. Eventually, I expect to see a fully elected second chamber, for better or worse. ---
**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 14, 2014, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/554 "2014-03-14T05:19:20Z")
**Ibn Warraq** : How’d you like Steophan’s BS about the US having “nominal separation of church and state” and his blather about some church having control of our government? Comedy Platinum, that. ---
**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 14, 2014, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/555 "2014-03-14T07:30:34Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Perhaps rather than waiting, you could go read the posts where I’ve answered that. The short answer, though, is that they’re not bigots, as there are fundamental and relevant differences between men and women when it comes to playing sports. So sorry, this is a ludicrously long thread, most of your posts have been quite repetitive and I didn’t see all of them. ---
**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 14, 2014, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/556 "2014-03-14T07:33:15Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > **Ibn Warraq** : How’d you like Steophan’s BS about the US having “nominal separation of church and state” and his blather about some church having control of our government? Comedy Platinum, that. I’m not sure he understands the differences between the various churches in the world. He seems to believe that repeating an assertion again and again makes it a fact. ---
**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 14, 2014, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/557 "2014-03-14T07:44:18Z")
I really don’t know how it works in detail here but I suspect that in Vietnam churches are viewed as business enterprises (which is a reasonably good description) offering a variety of services and taxed accordingly. This seems reasonable to me in a world where there is true separation of church and state and not one where it is a fiction. ---
**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 14, 2014, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/558 "2014-03-14T07:51:56Z")
> [@Frank\_Merton](#): > > I really don’t know how it works in detail here but I suspect that in Vietnam churches are viewed as business enterprises (which is a reasonably good description) offering a variety of services and taxed accordingly. This seems reasonable to me in a world where there is true separation of church and state and not one where it is a fiction. You don’t know very much about Vietnam do you? That said I’ll play along. Please define “church” using your own words. Don’t just link to someone else’s words. Please define “state” using your own words. Please explain the difference between the Abrahamic and Dharmic religions? Again, use your own words. Thanks in advance. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/559 "2014-03-14T11:47:34Z")
As I see it there is separation of Church, that means the state cannot back any Religion, It is no different that I can see some of our civil laws could be called bigotry. I cannot understand why a person( Gay or otherwise would want to be married in such a church to begin with. They apparently don’t accept the churches teachings and if they call it bigotry that dos not make it so. Once Catholics couldn’t eat meat on Fridays that is no longer a rule for them. restaurants were not forced to serve them fish if they didn’t have it on the menu. If a person joins a church, but doesn’t believe in it’s teachings then why stay in it? Many Catholics do not get married in a Catholic Church and as I understand it, the Church doesn’t consider that a valid Marriage. ---
**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 14, 2014, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/560 "2014-03-14T12:48:02Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Perhaps rather than waiting, you could go read the posts where I’ve answered that. The short answer, though, is that they’re not bigots, as there are fundamental and relevant differences between men and women when it comes to playing sports. I’d say there are fundamental and relevant differences between a Catholic church offering to wed couples in a Catholic marriage vs. a non-Catholic marriage too. ---
**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 14, 2014, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/561 "2014-03-14T13:00:14Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > 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 I accept your clarification. > [@](#): > > 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 Yes, yes, yes. The line is drawn at harm. Murder is a harm; refusing to marry someone because they don’t qualify for the standards of marriage you created does not. Just because marriage standards exist in other religions, or in civil society, that are different doesn’t mean your church’s shouldn’t stand. They’re just different, like any other religious belief. Religion is about shared beliefs. People are not excluded from a religion or its rituals because they disagree with them - the exclude themselves. It’s just like, for instance, a Republican demanding the right to run for an elected office within the Democratic party. Of course he can’t do that, because he doesn’t qualify by virtue of his beliefs, and that is his choice. It’s perfectly rational. > [@](#): > > 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. No. I’d say churches may not discriminate based on sexual orientation in some circumstances, such as hiring people for a non-religious job like an accountant. Just as you explained above with murder, birth control etc. It’s not the group being discriminated against that matters, it’s the type of discrimination and function in which it occurs. > [@](#): > > 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 don’t think the fact that some churches are paid for weddings has any relevance at all, and I’ve said so. It doesn’t make them a business. > [@](#): > > I only hope that Christianity moves on from its traditional homophobia before that happens, or else there are going to be big problems. It’s never going to happen. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742.md?page=27) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742.md?page=29)