My experience in churches being tax exempt has been from a retail POV. I’ve seen many good christians come in and use the churches tax exempt status to save avoid paying taxes on personel items. Then there are those who try to wrangle a discount beyond saving the taxes because its “for the Lord” I suppose that has made me a little cynical.
I don’t think churches ought to be tax exempt just because they are a religious orginization. I think if they can demonstrate they are providing public service that’s another story.
Churches aren’t tax-exempt because they’re churches.
They’re tax-exempt because they’re non-profit corporations.
It is my understanding that the R C C doesn’t charge for doing a wedding, The couple just give a donation, if they didn’t they would not be billed.
Prior to liquidation, the last official act of a tax exempt organization, to distribute the remaining assets?
Can you cite any pertinent cases? I’ve seen such a situation and it might well arise again and would love to be better informed.
I’ve always been of a mind that churches should be taxed, but only after being allowed to deduct all costs of operation, all donations to other charities, and a hefty depreciation allowance. That would put them on an equal footing with most private folks.
The problem really is, regardless of the law, some churches do engage in odd commercial practices and deals. A full examination of the financial structure of the Dove church of Gainesville (Koran threatening leader), might reveal that the minister owned all the buildings and the land (with a mortgage) and used ‘volunteer’ labor to recondition furniture and electronics for sale in their adjacent to the church building.
When the city was challenged about his tax exempt status, they gave a legal shrug and said they would look into it.
If society chooses to accept the religious rite of marriage as the equivalent of a civil union, government should be able to decide which such marriages they accept. and, of course, to require a civil procedure of some sort, a ‘signing of the register at city hall’ if nothing else.
Churches must be allowed to exercise freedom of choice in their membership and participation in rites. Any other choice would be an imposition of government in favor of one church against the practices of another.
Anyway, cites? stories about churches breaking up and their assets taxed?
I’m sorry, I’m not quite sure how this addresses your underlying objection with why churches as a whole should lose their status, or which of my points you’re addressing.
Many churches also place restrictions on which of their remembers can receive communion. People engaged in ongoing homosexual activity (or really any illicit sexual activity, including contraception) are not supposed to receive communion in a Catholic Church. The same goes for any activity they consider a serious mortal sin.
One of the qualifying catagories under 501c is religious orginization, like, churches. I t isn’t as simple as saying “hey we’re non profit”
No kidding. And on the other hand, some straight couples can’t and/or don’t. Yet they are allowed to marry.
This is an interesting question that hadn’t occurred to me. Of course I have always thought churches should at least pay property tax: the land that is wasted and sits empty in most countries most of the time serving no useful purpose is a scandal. These institutions gain the same benefits everyone else gains but don’t have to pay for them, while non-believers are accordingly taxed extra.
All in all though it seems churches should be allowed to conduct their rituals as they see fit, according to their doctrines, so long as alternatives are available (civil rituals come to mind). There is a conflict here between separation of church and state and freedom of religion, but one where I think the resolution should be freedom of religion.
What if it’s a black gay jewish person who is kind of an asshole. Can you not invite them because they’re an asshole?
Honestly? I was posting quickly before I went to work, and didn’t notice I hadn’t.
It’s simply not the case that the priest is working for free, or that the building is not paid for by those who are using it. This is not a casual gathering in someone’s house, it’s an organised event in a dedicated premises, with employees who do that specific job.
You are correct that I’m so anti-religion that anything that inconveniences or destroys them would please me, though. I’d settle for them catching up with the modern world.
Yes, it’s bigotry. In practice (at least in my limited experience, and the less limited experience of those I’ve asked), Catholic churches don’t perform any sort of check, they simply state that non-Catholics shouldn’t partake. That I find acceptable, although far from ideal - not least because of the hypocrisy of a “catholic” church refusing anybody - but because, in my opinion, it is no different to, say, opening a soup kitchen for the needy but refusing service to Catholics, or blacks, or gays.
In both cases, it’s probably not illegal, but should be.
Er, if he refuses to conduct it based on someone’s religion, he’s discriminated on them based on religion. Just the same as if he refused based on their race or sexuality, as one should be free to be black or gay, just as one should be free to be Jewish, without being discriminated against.
Correct, what churches don’t allow people to marry who aren’t planning on or simply can’t have children? It’s a ridiculous argument.
Yes, absolutely. I’ve tried to make it clear, more than once, that the problem is treating someone differently because they’re black, gay, or Jewish. If you would equally have rejected them if they were an asexual Chinese Pastafarian, you’re fine.
Another quick reply to this, I just typed the sentence “black, gay or Jewish” again, and for whatever reason it doesn’t come naturally to capitalise only one of them. It’s not an intentional slur, and I don’t think it’s a subconscious one either… Just a slip when typing a list like that.
I didn’t ask if he was “discriminating on them based on religion”.
I asked how he was violating their freedom of religion by refusing to blaspheme against his religion for their personal benefit.
You seem to be perfectly OK with the idea of compelling someone to violate their sincerely held religious tenets. Why does your desire to be married in a Catholic church, or a Mormon tabernacle, or wherever else, trump the desire of the religious officiants involved to remain true to the dictates of God as they understand Him?
The IRS page on the subject. The meaty bit:
As has been mentioned several times, there are no shareholders or owners of a non-profit organization. It’s assets cannot be distributed to non-exempt purposes, including individuals (which certainly includes its board of directors and other staff).
Then the community went to the wrong authority - they should have called the IRS.
Again, it’s not that their assets would be taxed - it’s that they would be either distributed to another exempt organization, or to the government.
Churches don’t offer marriage as a service , but as a religious ceremony.
And, anyone who is not considered to be a member of the Catholic faith in good standing can be denied a catholic wedding. It would be hard to be a gay couple and also members of the catholic faith in good standing.
Lot’s of things that occur privately affect others. I can be a jerk aqnd not allow certain groups in my home, and I will have to bear whatever repercussions that come with it, but since it’s my private home, it’s my choice. Churches are private orginizations. Private individuals set it up and run it and decide what the guidelines are.
I tend to avoid capitalizing because it is old-fasioned – rules being enforced by those who want to seem better than others and otherwise is distracting. Capitalizing “Jew” is mandatory the way capitalizing “English” is mandatory. That is just the way it is. “Black” or “gay” is something else; clearly we prefer to capitalize the first and not the second: I would capitalize neither, and put it down to the vagaries of language history.
Incorrect - churches file as 501(c)(3), the same category as the United Way. “Religious organization” is not a separate category. There are some benefits that religious organizations enjoy, like parsonage exemptions as well as being exempt from filing certain financial documents - benefits that plenty of people disagree with who still maintain that churches should retain their non-profit status.
Thank you for that.
It’s legal in the sense that they don’t have to do it, but it would likely cost them their tax exemption. 501(c)(3)s must provide charitable services to the general public to qualify for exemptions.
However, having noted that the IRS would have to have a policy of withdrawing such exemptions and it does not currently have one for churches.
Huh. Didn’t know that.
Didn’t know that either. Take a bow, sir. 