They collectively have vast untaxed land holdings. This should not be taxed why?
Because just like many other 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations, churches provide valuable opportunities for the community to gather, build relationships, engage in other cooperative ventures to benefit society, etc. The reason we exempt non-profit organizations from taxation began with the importance of religious institutions in these activities, and in the role these institutions play in the lives of the American population. Churches have long been the incubators of civic involvement, and that has tremendous value - even if you disagree with many churches’ beliefs and activities.
I didn’t say atheist, I said an “atheist group.” Atheists do form groups specifically for promoting or associating with atheism and fellow atheists. Stop dodging the question.
Wow. At least you admit you want to destroy religion.
Of course, you’ve ignored my example of the NAACP admitting KKK members. Do you want to destroy ALL groups, associations, clubs, etc?
You have this goofy idea that “discrimination” is wrong. Discrimination simply means making a choice. We discriminate all the time. Usually it’s a good thing. We discriminate between good and crappy restaurants for instance. And if you join, say, a hockey league, you’re discriminating against other sports. Duh. Should hockey leagues be forced to admit surfers?
It makes absolutely no sense to insist that a group admit people who don’t qualify for membership on a rational basis. Your hatred for that group doesn’t justify it. Discrimination isn’t just “don’t let the blacks in our store!” There’s more to it than that, as you’re learning.
Why don’t you form a group to advocate your views? Don’t discriminate against those who completely disagree with you though - you have to let them in too. Good luck with that.
“RELIGION’S BAD!” doesn’t work as an argument in this context, and I don’t know what “anti-human” even means. I can also see this is useless. I’ll post the following only because I’d already typed it:
As bad as religious discrimination is, there are important reasons we give people a lot of freedom to practice their religion as they see fit. It’s part of our society’s view that people should be free to follow their own consciences unless there’s a very compelling reason to stop them from doing that, and it’s also born of centuries of experience that taught the West that very very bad things happen when government mixes with religion. I’ll say it again: nobody should be more aware of that than atheists because if we’re saying it’s OK for the government to dictate religious practice, we’ll end up with more enforced religion in public life, not less. And we already have plenty.
So now the law should require you to allow anyone who wants to come to your birthday party to be admitted? Not just based on race, now - ANYONE, because all discrimination is wrong, not just based on race. You don’t like someone? Too bad - you can’t discriminate against people you don’t like. Heck, you already think Nazis and the KKK have rights against discrimination.
How far down this rabbithole are you going to take us?
I didn’t ask if it was wrong, I asked if it was illegal.
Great. My church is now a private gathering, and I can exclude anyone I want to.
Really? My D&D group doesn’t include any Nazis, either. If it were practical, should the law force me to allow Nazis to join my D&D game?
There should be no tax exemption for any church of any religion. When one considers all the harm done in the name of some imaginary being they owe us all big time.
If tax exempt status endures the it should be available for atheist. It is only fair.
In what way do you think it’s not?
For the same reason that other nonprofits’ land holdings are not taxed.
Nothing about what I said would suggest that, and Nazis aren’t a protected class. What I said, quite clearly, was that if you refuse entry to your game, to someone you would otherwise have invited, because of their race or gender or whatever, you are being bigoted, and that in an ideal world that would be illegal. Actually, in an ideal world it wouldn’t be necessary for it to be illegal, but my point is still clear.
Only if you choose to rigidly enforce the “no Kender” rule. Useless annoying squatties have rights too, you jerk.
Why not?
So you’re saying sometimes it’s okay to discriminate?
Or is it only about religion and race? What if two religions are at odds? Would you insist that, for instance, that Jews admit Muslims? Or that they admit members of a radical Jew-hating Christian group?
Wait till my wife finds out she’s a bigot because she went on a “girl’s night out”!
Oh, and if you specify a preferred race on a dating site - you’re a bigot. No, wait - you’re a bigot if you specify a preferred gender. That’s right, if you’re not bisexual, you’re a hater.
You’re getting even more ridiculous. And that’s why the law doesn’t regulate these things. It would be stupid.
I find it disturbing that this site discriminates against non-members who haven’t registered with a username and password. How dare you, Cecil!
No. Try reading what I said.
No, again. Try reading what I actually wrote, not putting words into my mouth to fight the argument you wish I were making, because you can’t actually argue against mine without admitting you’re fine with religions getting a pass for bigotry.
Hell yes, a business shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against someone based on their political views. Of course, a political party or… whatever you call the KKK to the extent they’re legitimate - a protest group? - should not be allowed to prevent, for example, Jews or Blacks joining.
Only as far as it takes to remove any special protections for religions, and require them to behave to at least the minimum standards we expect of other organisations. You can’t on the one hand say people have freedom of religion, but on the other say religious organisations are allowed to discriminate based on religion. It’s an absolute contradiction.
If I want to be married in a Catholic church, it’s no different to wanting to be married in Disneyland, and, should the offer that service at all, they should - neither of them - be allowed to discriminate on the grounds of race, gender, religion, sexuality, disability, or anything else that is or should be protected.
They can have whatever meaningless private ceremonies they like, but they should not be marriages (for example), they should not be business transactions, and they should not be public, if such ceremonies are to be discriminatory in nature. Which would lead to an actual separation of church and state, another thing that most people here claim to want.
No, but a bar that offers favourable terms to women is discriminating.
No, but a dating site open only to certain races or sexualities would be.
You’re getting even further away from what I’m actually writing and creating ever larger strawmen.
And “discriminating” is automatically bad?
So you’d favor legal repercussions for a bar offering “Ladies’ Night” specials for women?
That wouldn’t be totally out there, would it? A place of public accomodation discriminating on the basis of sex?
That is not a reason, that is just inertia from ancient papal decrees.
Nm
“The same rituals”?
Meaning of course they have to convert to Catholicism.
You really don’t know much about this topic do you?