Should churches that refuse to perform gay marriages lose tax exempt status?

[lance_strongarm]

@Miller

No, I don’t see the incongruity.

Not married. Living “in sin” contrary to church teachings.

Married. Living according to church teachings.

Incongruous.

Presumably, they see a lot of value in much of the Catholic conception of marriage. Except for the part about not living together before hand.

Right. And the church doesn’t think they can just pick and choose what they like about it.

Again, just because you reject one old idea, doesn’t mean you must reject all old ideas.

Unless you reject an idea only because it is “old.”

But sure, you could decide there’s nothing wrong with this situation. Just don’t be surprised when the church thinks otherwise.

I still find it funny that someone would care specifically about a Catholic wedding in that situation though. They’ve already shown they dont’ care much about Catholic teachings on relationships, so why care now? Just get a civil marriage.

[Miller]

Very few religious people, Catholics included, agree 100% with all the dictates of their religion. This doesn’t mean that they don’t agree with any of their religion, or that they don’t value their faith.

I’m not sure why this is such a shock to you.

[lance_strongarm]

@Miller

Very few religious people, Catholics included, agree 100% with all the dictates of their religion. This doesn’t mean that they don’t agree with any of their religion, or that they don’t value their faith.

I’m not sure why this is such a shock to you.

It’s not a shock. It’s just kind of silly to me.

Why place such value on certain parts and none on others?

Why not just toss the whole thing? Or start a new one? It’s just kind of strange when someone doesn’t even care about church teachings about marriage, and then suddenly cares alot about them. That’s my point. What’s the point of having a religion at all?

I guess this is the protestant in me talking. If you want your own version of Catholicism, maybe you should start a new church instead of pretending.

[Melchior]

@lance_strongarm

It’s not a shock. It’s just kind of silly to me.

Why place such value on certain parts and none on others?

Why not just toss the whole thing? Or start a new one? It’s just kind of strange when someone doesn’t even care about church teachings about marriage, and then suddenly cares alot about them. That’s my point. What’s the point of having a religion at all?

I guess this is the protestant in me talking. If you want your own version of Catholicism, maybe you should start a new church instead of pretending.

When he told me that they were getting married, I was quite surprised. Why do it? He was 62 and she was 64.

[Cyros]

@Melchior

When he told me that they were getting married, I was quite surprised. Why do it? He was 62 and she was 64.

Seems a good time to get married to me. You gain access to inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, the right to make medical decisions if the other is unable to make them for themselves.

[monavis]

One thing I can’t understand is, why the Gay marriages would stop a believer from serving Gay weddings but serve those who are divorced, live together, Steal, etc. ,It seems they pick and choose what Commandments they like or don’t like. And most of all the command of Jesus not to judge others. The NT says," If a man set aside his wife and marries another they commit adultery, one who marries one who is put away commits adultery"Of course some just pick and choose the sins they like or not, it sounds a lot like the Pharisee’s that Jesus seemed to abhor.

[Falchion]

@monavis

One thing I can’t understand is, why the Gay marriages would stop a believer from serving Gay weddings but serve those who are divorced, live together, Steal, etc. ,It seems they pick and choose what Commandments they like or don’t like. And most of all the command of Jesus not to judge others. The NT says," If a man set aside his wife and marries another they commit adultery, one who marries one who is put away commits adultery"Of course some just pick and choose the sins they like or not, it sounds a lot like the Pharisee’s that Jesus seemed to abhor.

There’s quite obviously a qualitative difference “serving Gay weddings” and “serv[ing] those who are divorced.” The better complaint would be a believer who is willing to serve a wedding between two divorcees but not a gay wedding. Or, for that matter, who won’t serve gays (period), but will serve those who are divorced.

But your complaint they draw the line somewhere between participating in the sin (that is, playing a role in what they believe to be an impermissible ceremony) and shunning the sinner (serving those who are divorced) strikes me as somewhat inapt. Indeed, as I understand the religious teachings, that’s about where the line is supposed to be drawn.

[monavis]

@Falchion

There’s quite obviously a qualitative difference “serving Gay weddings” and “serv[ing] those who are divorced.” The better complaint would be a believer who is willing to serve a wedding between two divorcees but not a gay wedding. Or, for that matter, who won’t serve gays (period), but will serve those who are divorced.

But your complaint they draw the line somewhere between participating in the sin (that is, playing a role in what they believe to be an impermissible ceremony) and shunning the sinner (serving those who are divorced) strikes me as somewhat inapt. Indeed, as I understand the religious teachings, that’s about where the line is supposed to be drawn.

There is nothing in the Bible stating that two people can’t get married, but it does state that it was adultery to put aside one’s wife and take another, and not to marry one who has been put away. Of course they can serve whom they wish, but they are not living as the Bible they use for an excuse doesn’t seem to say one should discriminate, but Judge not lest you be judged. It sounds to me like the people who worry about other’s sins just don’t like anyone who chooses a different sin than theirs. If one uses the Bible then they shouldn’t serve divorced people who remarry or even live together. Of course they can decide they don’t want to serve a Gay couple’s wedding and that is their right, but they are not doing as stated by the Bible, just using their own decisions to make them selves look like the Pharisees did!

[JRDelirious]

@Cyros

You gain access to inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, the right to make medical decisions if the other is unable to make them for themselves.

Which BTW can be achieved through a nonreligious civil marriage ceremony. No need to get into an argument with the clergy. It’s the license that enables and enforces those rights, not the sacramental blessing.

[lance_strongarm]

@Melchior

When he told me that they were getting married, I was quite surprised. Why do it? He was 62 and she was 64.

Yes, why do it? Ask yourself that when you think about gay marriage. If old people have a good reason to marry, and nobody objects, why object to gays marrying?

[lance_strongarm]

@JRDelirious

Which BTW can be achieved through a nonreligious civil marriage ceremony. No need to get into an argument with the clergy. It’s the license that enables and enforces those rights, not the sacramental blessing.

Hey, it just occurred to me - maybe Steophan doesn’t understand that?

[Hector_St_Clare]

Is there seriously an argument here that religious organizations should face censure for not performing gay marriages?

What sorts of sexual behavior a religion chooses to bless or forbid really shouldn’t be the business of the state. If your religion teaches that you’re doing something sexually immoral, or at least that they don’t wish to recognize your relationship as equal to a marriage, then you have three choices: either abide by their rules, or leave, or stay in your church as a sort of second-class member. All that is between you and your religious authorities, it’s not the business of the state.

Does Steophan want to compel Eastern Orthodox churches to perform Christian-Jewish mixed marriages and Roman Catholic churches to marry divorcees?

[vtxrider]

I have read a whole lot about how some think churches should not be tax exempt. So let’s take this from a purely analytical approach.

When a regular business does business, where are they taxed? They make money, but they do not pay tax on all that money. They pay sales tax on items they consume, but not on things to be resold. They take a portion of an employees salary and send it to the IRS, but the business is not taxed. They do pay tax on whatever money is left after all the bills are paid.

Now for a church. The members give money (that has already been taxed) to the church. The church pays the salaries of the employees. They also take taxes out of those salaries and send it to the IRS like any other business. They pay taxes on good consumed (gas, electricity, phone, carpet, etc.) And there is nothing left at the end of the day.

I know at our church, we create a budget based on expected giving. If that giving falls short (it always does) then the budget gets modified accordingly. I have been a member of this church for over 20 yrs and I have never seen us have a surplus.

Theoretically, if more money did come in than was planned, then that money would be split among the different ministries (food for shelters, missionaries, youth programs ect).

The only area to possibly tax is the property. But we do not tax schools or other such places. If you started taxing the property, then it would only hurt other areas of ministry. And since most of the property tax goes for schools and the like, and the members are already paying property tax where they live, what is to be gained?

So those that want the status removed are getting all worked up over property taxes? Cause that is all there would be.

As for exclusivity, I am not sure what religions you have experienced, but we let anyone in the door. It would only be if someone were disruptive, that we would ask them to leave.

[Munch]

@vtxrider

The members give money (that has already been taxed) to the church.

<snip>

So those that want the status removed are getting all worked up over property taxes? Cause that is all there would be.

1. The donations that the members gave are tax-deductible, which amount to over $100 billion in taxable income that the federal government loses out on.

2. You forgot a major difference between businesses and churches - businesses distribute their profits to owners/shareholders. There is no such entity for a church.

[lance_strongarm]

@Hector_St_Clare

Does Steophan want to compel Eastern Orthodox churches to perform Christian-Jewish mixed marriages and Roman Catholic churches to marry divorcees?

Why, yes, it seems he does. Welcome to this nutty thread.

[Shodan]

@Munch

You forgot a major difference between businesses and churches - businesses distribute their profits to owners/shareholders. There is no such entity for a church.

Possibly because churches are not there to turn a profit to be distributed. So there are no shareholders.

There seem to be three arguments being bandied about in this thread.
[ol][li]Non-profits should be taxed. I suppose that is a notion for debate.[/li][li]Churches should be taxed. That immediately falls foul of the First Amendment, which protects religions from being singled out in this manner, by taxing them in ways that other, non-religious non-profits are not. [/li][li]Churches who do not abide by the dictates of the Democratic party should be taxed. Same objection - it is against the First Amendment to try to force religious organizations to alter their beliefs and practices because non-participants don’t like them.[/ol][/li]:shrugs:

At least we know, as if there had been any doubt, that proponents of SSM who told us “if you don’t like gay marriage, just don’t enter into one” were lying.

Regards,
Shodan

[Miller]

@Shodan

At least we know, as if there had been any doubt, that proponents of SSM who told us “if you don’t like gay marriage, just don’t enter into one” were lying.

You are, of course, deliberately ignoring the fact that outside of one or two posters, every marriage equality advocate who has posted in this thread has condemned the idea of forcing churches to recognize gay marriage.

[Munch]

@Shodan

Possibly because churches are not there to turn a profit to be distributed. So there are no shareholders.

More accurately, because by nature of being a 501(c)(3) they are prohibited from doing so. But that won’t prevent the usual posters to whinny “but they’re businesses!”.

[Steophan]

@lance_strongarm

Why, yes, it seems he does. Welcome to this nutty thread.

Yes, of course I do. Bigotry is still bigotry, and is still wrong, when performed under the cloak of religion. Of course, they don’t have to perform any marriages at all, that’s an easy option for them if they feel certain people shouldn’t be married. What they can’t do is pick and choose. If a service is offered, it should be offered to all.

[Munch]

“I’d like the lasagna, please.”
“Sir, this is McDonald’s.”
“So?”
“We don’t serve lasagna.”
“But you serve food, though, don’t you?”
“Well, yes…”
“Then not serving lasagna is bigotry! I demand satisfaction!”

Catholic churches offer Catholic weddings. Synagogues offer Jewish weddings. Etc. If you don’t want a Catholic wedding, then don’t get one. Go down the street where they actually serve lasagna.