Religion and LGBT people

[Nobody]

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.

**As an FYI to further the topic of 501c3** Conference Call: Supreme Court Asked to Define Religion Exemption (SCOTUS Blog)

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.

For the first part of your comment I would presume you're speaking to my reply to Frodo who said this:

Faith traditions have no right to be free legally, under secular law.

If they were speaking to tax exemption that is not indicated by their remarks to my understanding. Rather, their commentary regards the legal freedom of faith tradition having no rights under secular law.

Per your personal opinion regarding tax exempt status for religious institutions, I think revoking that would certainly insure a true 'separation of church and State'. Given a church has to still pay property taxes, but in the course of applying for the 501c3, they have to jump through a series of hoops set out by the IRS.
That doesn't sound at all like separation in it's truest form when income and exemption from paying taxes as a religious entity must be approved by a government office.

The problem with the aforementioned SB323, is that the sponsor intends that revocation of 501c3 tax exempt status apply to any organization as a punishment if they refuse to comply with augmenting their platform, or standards and beliefs, with regard to LGBT issues.

It's thought this will insure one can not receive a government benefit through the privilege of 501c3 and discriminate. However, as 'eHarmony' and the case brought against that private members only tax paying company proved some years ago by homosexual activists opposed to the Christian owned company not having a category for homosexual singles, and a case eHarmony lost. In the case of a private company who's tax exempt status was rescinded due to their opinions about LGBT issues, should the proposed SB323 pass into law, would have no chance to uphold those standards even in the private sector.

Suffice to say, I don't believe such methods as that proposed in SB323 and indicative in it's language of bigotry in it's own right as it's sponsor would seem to example as well being it's his bill, serve to promote civil rights when the language seeks to oppress them in a majority community.

I don't believe a minority community is entitled to demand to be free while their sponsors propose others be legally discriminated against so that those special rights may be appointed.

And special rights would be having the right to punish, prosecute, or levy against anyone who is morally opposed to homosexuality.
Sex is not a civil right.