Ministers Threatened with Jail/Fines For Refusing to Officiate at Gay Weddings

[Jenny A]

The city attorney has backed down after coming to the conclusion that The Hitching Post's tax exempt status does not affect the exemption for religious organizations. http://boisestatepublicradio.org/post/co...rights-law

But Gridley said after further review, he determined the ordinance doesn’t specify non-profit or for-profit.

“After we've looked at this some more, we have come to the conclusion they would be exempt from our ordinance because they are a religious corporation,” Gridley explained.

The group that helped create Coeur d'Alene's anti-discrimination ordinance says the Hitching Post shouldn't have to perform same-sex marriages. The Kootenai County Task Force on Human Relations says in a letter to the mayor and city council that the Knapps fall under the religious exemption in the law.

The Idaho ACLU is still watching:

Leo Morales of the ACLU of Idaho said the exemption makes sense as long as the Hitching Post primarily performs religious ceremonies.

“However, if they do non-religious ceremonies as well, they would be violating the anti-discrimination ordinance,” Morales said. “It's the religious activity that's being protected."

[Anomalocaris]

To be honest, I'm not sure if Christianity condemns interracial marriages or not so I cannot talk about the problem - But when exercising freedom of religion aggregated with religious institutions such as churches, an individual shouldn't be forced to marry gay people... But of course, if we're talking about civil marriage, Dura Lex Sed Lex.

Christianity has a tendency to condemn whatever would garner them the votes of the hicks, rednecks, and other undereducated and the reactionary, until such time as the general social progress makes a particular opportunism too costly with the general public, they then turn 180 on the issue, while claiming they have always been consistent and we're always divinely inspired to lead progress.

[Heywood]

The real question in my mind is whether religious organizations should have tax exempt status just because they are religious organizations. I think the answer to that question is no. Only separate charitable, political, or educational arms of a church should have tax exempt status and that status should have the same requirements as those for secular organizations including anti-discriminatory laws. Granting them tax exempt status simply because they are churches is the establishment of religion.

- bolded by me

Suppose a church could not afford to pay its property tax. Would the government then be entitled to seize the church and auction it off? Wouldn't such a seizure deprive the members of the church the ability to worship God as they see fit?

Keeping churches tax exempt makes it a little easier to maintain the church/state separation in my opinion.

[Brakeman]

The real question in my mind is whether religious organizations should have tax exempt status just because they are religious organizations. I think the answer to that question is no. Only separate charitable, political, or educational arms of a church should have tax exempt status and that status should have the same requirements as those for secular organizations including anti-discriminatory laws. Granting them tax exempt status simply because they are churches is the establishment of religion.

- bolded by me

Suppose a church could not afford to pay its property tax. Would the government then be entitled to seize the church and auction it off? Wouldn't such a seizure deprive the members of the church the ability to worship God as they see fit?

Keeping churches tax exempt makes it a little easier to maintain the church/state separation in my opinion.

A church isn't a religion and it doesn't pay taxes, the congregation does. A church is simply a part of the congregation's wealth. If they didn't pay the taxes and the state took possession of the building, would it affect anyone's religiosity? NO. Would it take any individuals rights away? No.

The constitution protects the rights of individual beliefs and freedoms, not the rights of religious incorporational possession.

[Mister Agenda]

I'm with the theist on this one.

The service this chapel (even if it's legally registered as a for-profit business)provides is clearly not only about filling out paperwork: it is providing an EXPERIENCE or THEME-- the experience of being married in an environment compatible with the believers of a particular religion. You can't go to an amusement park which advertises the experience of riding roller coasters, and demand that they provide the experience of water slides; you don't get to say that they are discriminating against those looking for the experence of waterslides, because they never intended to build their business on that theme.

If you are talking about officially eliminating religion in the US, okay-- have that talk. But enforcing civil liberties by legislating the behavior of religious businesses surely has to be seen as self-contradictroy. Since there are plenty of non-religious institutions capable of performing a legal marriage, there's really no good reason to force religious institutions to perform that role for any particular couple.

They performed non-Christian weddings. They were fine with civil ceremonies. Suddenly they're singing a different tune. A church can refuse to marry a couple because they're mixed race. A Vegas quicky marriage chapel can't. Do you have an argument for this chapel not serving gay couples that couldn't also be used to allow them to refuse to serve blacks or mixed race couples or Jews?

Local character Maurice Bessinger tried the religious argument for not serving blacks and lost. Why should he have been forced to serve blacks if he could have refused to serve gays?

---

To be honest, I'm not sure if Christianity condemns interracial marriages or not so I cannot talk about the problem - But when exercising freedom of religion aggregated with religious institutions such as churches, an individual shouldn't be forced to marry gay people... But of course, if we're talking about civil marriage, Dura Lex Sed Lex.

No one's being forced to marry anybody. The most they might have to do is to allow a gay wedding to take place in their chapel and let someone else perform the ceremony.

---

“However, if they do non-religious ceremonies as well, they would be violating the anti-discrimination ordinance,” Morales said. “It's the religious activity that's being protected."

And they were doing non-religious ceremonies until about a minute ago.

[Jenny A]

The real question in my mind is whether religious organizations should have tax exempt status just because they are religious organizations. I think the answer to that question is no. Only separate charitable, political, or educational arms of a church should have tax exempt status and that status should have the same requirements as those for secular organizations including anti-discriminatory laws. Granting them tax exempt status simply because they are churches is the establishment of religion.

- bolded by me

Suppose a church could not afford to pay its property tax. Would the government then be entitled to seize the church and auction it off? Wouldn't such a seizure deprive the members of the church the ability to worship God as they see fit?

Keeping churches tax exempt makes it a little easier to maintain the church/state separation in my opinion.

It would deprive the church members of their real property as would failing to pay their mortgage. You see the right to worship does not include the right to pay less for the facilities to do so than others. Tax exemptions for churches is essentially government sponsorship of churches. The church pays no property tax and yet the property tax funded fire department is expected to come and the tax supported police are expected to investigate thefts on the property and so on.

Further, giving churches a tax exempt status puts the government in the unhealthy role of deciding which churches represent "real" religions.

[Heywood]

It would deprive the church members of their real property as would failing to pay their mortgage. You see the right to worship does not include the right to pay less for the facilities to do so than others. Tax exemptions for churches is essentially government sponsorship of churches. The church pays no property tax and yet the property tax funded fire department is expected to come and the tax supported police are expected to investigate thefts on the property and so on.

Further, giving churches a tax exempt status puts the government in the unhealthy role of deciding which churches represent "real" religions.

A mortgage is a voluntary contract between a mortgagor and a mortgagee whereby the church agrees ahead of time to forfeit use of the property. Property tax is not voluntary. The analogy you presented isn't accurate in my opinion.

Further if Churches were assessed property taxes it would only be right and fair to then allow them the ability to endorse political candidates and measures. What if they endorse the losing side? It is not unheard of for winners to use government laws and regulations....including the ability to levy taxes....to punish those who opposed you. The use of the IRS to punish Tea Party activist is a perfect example of the government being used to punish political enemies.

By keeping Churches tax exempt...you simply make it easier to maintain that separation between Church and state.

[Minimalist]

Keeping churches tax exempt makes it a little easier to maintain the church/state separation in my opinion.

You're missing the point ( common with you.)

Removing the exemption would eliminate the tax deduction for donors TO the churches.

And that would put them out of business in a big fucking hurry!

Not the worst possible result.

[Chas]

It would deprive the church members of their real property as would failing to pay their mortgage. You see the right to worship does not include the right to pay less for the facilities to do so than others. Tax exemptions for churches is essentially government sponsorship of churches. The church pays no property tax and yet the property tax funded fire department is expected to come and the tax supported police are expected to investigate thefts on the property and so on.

Further, giving churches a tax exempt status puts the government in the unhealthy role of deciding which churches represent "real" religions.

A mortgage is a voluntary contract between a mortgagor and a mortgagee whereby the church agrees ahead of time to forfeit use of the property. Property tax is not voluntary. The analogy you presented isn't accurate in my opinion.

Further if Churches were assessed property taxes it would only be right and fair to then allow them the ability to endorse political candidates and measures. What if they endorse the losing side? It is not unheard of for winners to use government laws and regulations....including the ability to levy taxes....to punish those who opposed you. The use of the IRS to punish Tea Party activist is a perfect example of the government being used to punish political enemies.

By keeping Churches tax exempt...you simply make it easier to maintain that separation between Church and state.

That is essentially true. A government could use differential taxation to discriminate among religions, to lighten the burden of a favored group and increase the burden on ones not in favor.

[Heywood]

Keeping churches tax exempt makes it a little easier to maintain the church/state separation in my opinion.

You're missing the point ( common with you.)

Removing the exemption would eliminate the tax deduction for donors TO the churches.

And that would put them out of business in a big fucking hurry!

Not the worst possible result.

We were talking about property taxes....not income taxes....dummy.

Regarding income tax.....I'd like to simplify the tax code and eliminate all deductions.