It’s bad enough that you answered “yes” to rhetorical questions that are meant to be obviously absurd if answered affirmatively, but to add “obviously” is just icing on the cake.
Let’s try again: should the NAACP be required to admit KKK members? Should Jewish temples be required to admit Nazis?
Yes? Obviously? How far off the deep end are you willing to take this?
But you seem to agree that churches can discriminate based on religion. Businesses can’t really do that. How do you think this is going to work?
No, we don’t. We’d just be required to adopt someone else’s. Does that sound fun?
This is how I feel. There is no reason for these businesses to be tax exempt. There charitable works can be like other 501C and etc organizations, but not the church in general.
Also a wedding between two Jews cannot be a Catholic wedding not can a marriage between a Catholic and a Mormon be a Catholic wedding.
Poor Steophan didn’t really think through his argument.
Marriage doesn’t “belong” to religion. It’s a practice that exists, in some form, in every human society throughout history, and predates every existing religion. It is a human institution, not a religious one,
That’s not the “essence” of marriage, that’s part of a specific subculture’s religious ceremonies, and has no binding force of law. Lots of marriages are conducted without that particular oath, and marriages that include it are no more difficult to dissolve than marriages that do not. And, of course, even if there were no such thing as divorce, a legal relationship that cannot be dissolved is not remotely the same thing as slavery.
You don’t see how forcing an atheist group to admit any loony, raving, fundamentalist, atheist-hating right-wing extreme Christian who wants to join wouldn’t harm them?
Heck, by your logic, not only would a group have to admit members it fundamentally disagrees with - atheists must admit conservative Christians, Jewish temples must admit Nazis, the NAACP must admit the KKK, and other such nonsense - but those groups could actually be flooded with new members who take over the group! A thousand Nazis could go to the local synagogue that has only 500 members, join up, and boom - they have voting control of the congregation and elect some Nazis to its governing body.
Start making sense, please.
Actually, a wedding between a Catholic and a Mormon can be a Catholic wedding, provided that the Mormon participant agrees to the stipulations required of the Catholic Church for it to be such a wedding. If the Mormon participant to the marriage doesn’t agree, then there won’t be a Catholic officiant for the wedding.
But that’s discrimination! You’re forcing Mormons to agree to stipulations!
(The greater point is still valid - Catholic weddings are Catholic.)
So should the Elks Lodge, the Shriners, the Rotary Club, *et al. *be taxed? They’re nonprofit civic organizations which are indistinguishable from churches in the eyes of the tax code.
Probably, they are mostly social clubs, but for their actual civic activities they should be exempt. As I said above for the various churches.
The money that is raised though for the salary of the clergy and buildings and etc. should be taxed. As far as I know the civic groups rarely have employees but monies raised for entertainment and social activities should be taxed to be fair. Money raised for charity and public works should be exempt.
What “business” is that? Who are the owners? Where are the shareholders? Hell, where are the profits?
Why?
One of those stipulations being to stop being a Mormon in which case it’s not an interfaith marriage.
Wrong. The Catholic Church requires the *Catholic *party to a mixed-faith marriage to do what they can to raise their children in the Catholic faith. The non-Catholic party doesn’t have to agree to squat. (I was the non-Catholic party at our wedding.)
“Atheists” aren’t an organisation that someone joins, so that doesn’t make any sense…
As long as the actions of the KKK members or the Nazis aren’t discriminatory, then they should be allowed to, yes. Obviously. Because the point is not to discriminate. Yes, this would destroy religions. That’s kinda the point, as you can’t have religion without discrimination.
I’m making perfect sense, as you and others have understood what I’m saying clearly. That you disagree with me doesn’t make my argument nonsensical. You’re just content to let people use religion as an excuse for discrimination.
Why should it be exempt?
I have a group of people over to my house every week to play D&D. This group of people is entirely white and male.
Am I in violation of the Civil Rights Act?
Because it’s not income. “Why should it be exempt?” is not how taxation works. You can’t just point at money and say, “give me a good reason not to tax that.”
God, you’re making me sound like a Republican.
Nonsense, again. They should offer exactly the same ceremony and ritual to everyone regardless of religion, or to no-one. The same as any other service offered by any other business. They are not being forced to do anything, they have every right not to offer marriages, and if their conception of marriage differs from society’s (as expressed by it’s laws), then that is what they should do.
Exactly the same for an organisation that wants to serve people of only one race, gender, sexuality, or whatever. For some reason, people here, on a supposedly intelligent board, continue to treat religion as something special, rather than the anti-human, discriminatory bullshit that it is.
Are you refusing people who would otherwise be invited to play because of their race or gender? If so, then you’re discriminating, and that is wrong.
To my knowledge, the Civil Rights Act doesn’t apply to private gatherings, so I doubt that even if you were discriminating with your invites, it wouldn’t be illegal.
It should however be, if it were practical to do so.