(February 24, 2013 at 5:29 pm)Nobody Wrote: I don't see a problem that an oppressed people pursue equality by law. However, where the problem can arise is when those in the pursuit of that seek in the process to obstruct by law others from the personal moral opposition to having to tolerate what they personally, religiously, deem intolerable.
There's an openly homosexual Senator in California at the moment who's introduced SB323 to the Legislature there. His hope is to rescind all tax exempt organizations, which would include churches, if they do not agree to set aside their moral and religious ideologies that are grandfathered in under the civil right of the 1st amendment, and tolerate the civil right of homosexuals to be tolerated.
So when a minister of a Fundamentalist church objects to two men entering into the house of god, holding hands and acting in a manner of public demonstration of affection, that minister who would not permit that to happen even amid heterosexual couples, would be subject to a lawsuit and loss of his church tax exempt status.
Because the scriptures that church reveres proclaim that behavior is sexually immoral and an affront to the god of his faith tradition. And that disrespectful conduct that flaunts that scripture at will by those two homosexual men, must be tolerated! Or else!
The objection to homosexual's civil rights occurs when certain among their activist base, the radical liberal front among them, seeks to revoke other peoples rights to opinion about homosexuality. While instilling by law clauses that imply prosecution in the name of religious bigotry so as to insure not even faith traditions are free, without penalty, to speak against immoral behavior.
I understand your position, but your analysis may not be accurate. Tax exemption is a special privilege - not a civil right - granted to those who are deemed to be performing public service. As long as it is deemed that the churches are providing certain public benefit (whether are not they actually do so is another matter), they are given tax exemptions in recognition. However, if the the institution promotes or fosters policies that are not in public interest, such as promoting segregation or racial bigotry or, yes, bigotry against homosexuals, then it can lose its tax-exempt status as it is now no longer working for public benefit.
I assume that is the argument being made over there. I do not support the idea that any institution should in any way be coerced to tolerate gays in their midst if they do not wish to. However, I also feel strongly about the idea that religious institutions should not be tax exempt in the first place and since by taking that away, none of their actual civil rights are being infringed upon, I would support the legislation.
