Actually, yes they are.
The official policy of the Southern Baptist Church used to be that interracial relationships were a sin and while most no longer still believe this, some do come out of the woodwork.
For example, you may remember the shitstorm from the 2000 Republican primaries when George Bush gave a speech at Bob Jones University which banned students from dating outside their race while John McCain, to his credit refused.
To say nothing of the various “Christian Identity” churches…
As I asked earlier, and no-one answered, what church provides weddings for free? It’s not a private gathering, it’s a service offered for money. It should be illegal to offer only to certain people and not others.
You are confusing the concept of a service provided “for money” with the concept of a service provided “for profit”.
A church does not charge for marriage services for the purpose of making money. A church charges for marriage services for the purpose of covering the expense of conducting that service, because in the end a church is not an institution that exists to make a profit - it is an institution that exists for the purpose of glorifying God. (Whether you believe that there is a God, or that said God is worthy of glorifying, or that the actions of that church serve to glorify Him, is not relevant to this conversation.)
Moreover, you are continuing to conflate the legal concept of marriage with the religious concept of marriage. Marriage, as in the legal right to have the personal/financial/legal union of two people be acknowledged by the state, is a civil right. Marriage, as in the rite of having the union of two people solemnized by a church, is not. It is a religious ritual which is conducted on the terms which the solemnizing entity considers to be the terms dictated and understood by a supernatural power which is beyond the scope of temporal law. The latter is not necessary for the former to take place, and demanding that a Catholic church conduct a Catholic wedding for a couple which is not liturgically eligible to receive one makes about as much sense as demanding that the Catholic church begin ordaining Jews or Sikhs or Pastafarians to the priesthood.
Thanks for the laugh, I needed that.
One of the things that churches do, separate from their religious functions, without being in ‘business’, is to own land on which the church is situated.
I suspect that on occasion, an independent group of believers (a ‘church’) obtains land and erects a building, and edifice, which they use for their ceremonies. Years, decades, pass; the people get older and attendence declines. A developer comes along and offers them $10,000,000 for their corner lot in what has become a thriving commercial area.
No taxes have ever been assessed or collected on the property.
The remaining 100 members decide to accept the offer and to split the money, $100,000 apiece, $200,000 for a couple.
Taxable?
So you’re basically saying that you don’t care what religious people believe. That’s all well and good, but we live in a country with a constitution that says people have the right to worship as they choose, and that their government has no authority to say “No, your God is wrong, you’ll believe what we tell you”.
Actually I don’t, I live in a country where the church is, somewhat more than nominally, part of the state, although I’ve been tailoring many of my responses to the US as that’s where most of the other people posting here are from. So, when the Church of England acts in a bigoted fashion, it is the state doing so.
But you are right about one thing, I don’t care what religious (or non-religious) people believe. I care how they act. And one of the functions of Government is to tell people how to, or how not to, act.
Worse, it’s illegal. Upon liquidation, a non-profit must distribute its assets to other similar organizations, or to the government. All of those people would be hauled off to federal prison.
Utterly wrong. There are many churches, perhaps most, that do not expect any remuneration for a wedding service. We paid no money to the church when we married. I would guess that if money is sought, it is simply recompense for actual outlay–“hiring” the organist, for example.
Not in the religious sphere, except where the government has a compelling interest. Since the government already does weddings, there is no need for the government to require a religious institution to do them.
Now if religious institutions were the ONLY place to get married, then the government might have a compelling interest. but then again, maybe not. Christian kids don’t have a right to a Bar Mitzvah, last I checked.
Well, that’s a summary of the minority side of the argument on the last few pages. It’s certainly not an accurate summary of the view of most people who support same-sex marriage.
Well, yes, but as we’ve mentioned in a bunch of these threads over the years, a look at those who argue “churches must be forced to accommodate SSM or else lose their privileged status” will show that in the majority, they are those who fundamentally would argue “churches must lose their privileged status”, period.
Which makes me wonder about the extreme application: say religious congregations lose their privileges. ALL congregations, ALL privileges. Is doctrinal exclusivity OK then?
Or will the argument apply even more because “now you are ALL public businesses! you must accommodate or CLOSE!”
Sure perhaps in 50 years. Social consciousness changes slowly and sometimes it takes generations dieing out for the ideas more common in a new generation to become the norm. Not to long ago most churches would never have a woman as an ordained minister. Now many more do although there are still plenty of holdouts.
Churches will gradually change because they won’t be able to maintain decent membership while holding on to outdated deliefs. The question in the OP is whether the government should be involved in punishing those who don’t change as quickly as we think they should.
In drawing lines between religious freedom and public interests my answer is no. Within the confines of their own church they can be wrong, bigoted, or just plain stupid.
Are most weddings open to the public or are they by private invitation?
I don’t see a good reason for churches to be tax exempt but even if they were not I don’t think they should be compelled to preform a service that goes agasint thier beliefs.
They shouldn’t be compelled to do anything. They don’t have to perform weddings, and I’d be completely against compelling them to do so.
If they choose to perform them, they should do so without discrimination.
I strongly doubt that most Christian churches will be performing gay marriages 50 years from now, or for that matter 500 years from now. It must be said that churches which have enthusiastically embraced the ‘reappraising’ position on homosexuality are, uh, not the most demographically healthy in the world. To say the least. And I’d also say I would agree with them. Gender complementarity and procreation are essential to Christian marriage, and a gay couple can neither represent gender complementarity, nor can they procreate.
None of which is, of course, relevant to whether the government should perform gay marriages (which I am generally fine with: imposing religious morality is not the business of the state, and there’s already a big gap between legal marriage and what I would consider ‘real’ religious marriage).
Incidentally Steophan I disagree with your premises (although in the legal sense they aren’t really relevant). It is not ‘bigoted’ for a church to refuse to perform a same sex marriage, any more than it is bigoted for a women’s tennis team to refuse to include guys (or for a NAACP rally to exclude Klansmen).
The church isn’t discriminating against individuals because of their identity, they are discriminating against certain kinds of behavior, and saying ‘these sorts of relationships are marriages, these sorts are not’. The Catholic Church holds (and I agree with them) that by the Christian definition of marriage, a union of two men or two women simply cannot be a marriage. They can’t procreate, and they can’t represent gender complementarity.
Gay men are free to enter a Catholic marriage to a woman, just like Jewish men are free to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy if they want an Eastern Orthodox wedding.
Several posters, including me, have outlined a number of those reasons in this thread. What do you disagree with in those specific reasons?