Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But I have found that when one is taking not for profit status they are unknowingly taking the government as a partner.
If something can be used to give covernment control, it eventually will be--Just my opinion.
As this is the Christian forum I will try to limit my reply to how it could affect Christians
I suspect that Muslims may face a much bigger set of issues relating to this that do most churches. I don't know that I think it is essential for most churches, per se, but religious charities should definitely pay attention to this. If you take the government's money, or get special treatment from the government, eventually you will in some way be expected to play by the government's rules. He who pays the piper and all...
That said, I find the link... less than compelling. The biggest issue raised in it (although in "code") is that Mike Huckabee wants churches to give up their tax exempt status so they can become political machines, allowing pastors to campaign and raise money for political campaigns from the pulpit. Gee, I wonder why...
I think the issues that Catholic Charities and other religious charities face is a more compelling issue. They take government funds, and act as contractors for the government, and as such they are being held to the same non-discrimination standards as the government. This of course, conflicts with their religious doctrines. In these cases, I think it was foolish for both the government and the religious charities to get involved in the first place (Thanks, Office of Faith Based Initiatives...), but it probably would be best for all concerned to sever the relationship.
As someone who is pro-equality, I can tell you that I absolutely would have a problem with it, and would oppose this as vocally as I oppose the attempts to maintain a second class citizenship for homosexuals.
Fortunately you are pretty safe, the law and court precedents are pretty unambiguous on this issue.
-NoCapo
this may sound a bit paradoxical.
I do agree with you.
I also support equal rights for all people with no discrimination based upon Gender, Religion, Sexual orientation, Race, National origin etc, I also disagree with tax-exempt status for religious organization.
I also support the right for all religions to practice as they believe--provided they do not violate criminal laws.
My basis for full support of religious practice, is based upon my opinion it would be very stupid for a person to belong to a religion they disagree with. Simple choice, if you disagree with a religion in any aspect, you do not become part of that religion.
As far as legal issues go, we just had Hobby Lobby win, as a business, that it did not have to comply with the health care law's contraceptive mandate on grounds that it violated ownerships private first amendment religious beliefs. Hard to believe with that decision is so fresh, we are building a slippery slope argument over the fear that priests would be forced into officiating same sex marriages.
From the questions\statements being released from the Supreme Court, it seems that those who are supportive Moderator cut: deleted may have to hold off on their victory dance
JusticeRuth Bader Ginsburg, (noting the Supreme Court’s
decision from just two years ago)
“What do you do with the Windsor case where the court stressed the federal
government’s historic deference to states when it comes to matters of domestic relations?”
the courts decision she is referring to stated:
the 6th Circuit Court ruled that the state marriage laws in Ohio, Tennessee,
Michigan and Kentucky—all democratically defining marriage as the union of
husband and wife—were good law.
The 6th Circuit ruled that these state marriage laws did not violate the Constitution.
One of the problem is when you think about these cases you think about
words or cases, and—and the word that keeps coming back to me in
this case is—is millennia, plus time.
First of all, there has not been really time, so the respondents say, for the federal system to engage in this debate … But still, 10 years is—I don’t even
know how to count the decimals when we talk about millennia.
This definition has been with us for millennia. And it—it’s very difficult for the Court to say, oh, well, we—we know better."
“My question is you’re not seeking to join the institution, you’re seeking to
change what the institution is. The fundamental core of the institution is the
opposite-sex relationship and you want to introduce into it a same-sex
relationship.”
Justice Stephen Breyer asked \ commented (noted that marriage understood as the union of a man and a woman)
“has been the law everywhere for thousands of years among people who were
not discriminating even against gay people, and suddenly you want nine people
outside the ballot box to require states that don’t want to do it to change …
what marriage is to include gay people.”
"How do you account for the fact that, as far as I’m aware, until the end of the
20th century, there never was a nation or a culture that recognized marriage
between two people of the same sex? Now, can we infer from that that those
nations and those cultures all thought that there was some rational, practical
purpose for defining marriage in that way or is it your argument that they were
all operating independently based solely on irrational stereotypes and prejudice?"
Last edited by june 7th; 04-29-2015 at 11:33 AM..
Reason: Use of word "perversion" is offensive to other members.
No for the reasons state above. A minister can even deny a Baptist from being married in a Methodist church or performing the ceremony. The consititution limits the state from such practices clearly. Abortion is the law but you cannot force a doctor to perform one still. Its foolish in my view for state to force such issue when it has long recognized conscience as reason not to serve like others in military. I'd say cities know that such arrest would be a reason for them to be sued as even the Supreme court has ruled on conscience objection. Threats by politicians doesn't mean much as their promises don't; often just rethoric as usual.
I suspect that Muslims may face a much bigger set of issues relating to this that do most churches. I don't know that I think it is essential for most churches, per se, but religious charities should definitely pay attention to this. If you take the government's money, or get special treatment from the government, eventually you will in some way be expected to play by the government's rules. He who pays the piper and all...
That said, I find the link... less than compelling. The biggest issue raised in it (although in "code") is that Mike Huckabee wants churches to give up their tax exempt status so they can become political machines, allowing pastors to campaign and raise money for political campaigns from the pulpit. Gee, I wonder why...
I think the issues that Catholic Charities and other religious charities face is a more compelling issue. They take government funds, and act as contractors for the government, and as such they are being held to the same non-discrimination standards as the government. This of course, conflicts with their religious doctrines. In these cases, I think it was foolish for both the government and the religious charities to get involved in the first place (Thanks, Office of Faith Based Initiatives...), but it probably would be best for all concerned to sever the relationship.
-NoCapo
Not really that much of an issue for Muslims in the USA
While there are over 2300 mosques in the USA the majority of them do not take tax exempt status.
There are probably a few hundred highly visible Mosques, the reality is the typical Mosque in the US is a spare room in someone's house. there is no paid Imam, no money collected (We are not required or obligated to tithe) It is simply neighbors meeting in a house for prayers.
A mosque while nice is not a necessity for Muslims. World wide the majority of Muslims simply say their prayers in any open space with the oldest person present serving as Imam
.
We are commanded to give Charity, but that can be to any charity of our choice. It is recommended we first give charity to those in our immediate neighborhood. For that reason the charity I give is for native American needs.
Yes, IMO they will be forced to perform them just like business owners are being forced to do things they do not want to do. Christian views will not be tolerated. It (the forcing) begun as soon as gay marriage became legal in some States.
Amazing! You are absolutely right once again! Ministers who conduct a business of weddings such as a wedding chapel that is open to the public will be required to extend their services to any members of the public who come into that place of business. Don't want to do it? Get out of the business.
Amazing! You are absolutely right once again! Ministers who conduct a business of weddings such as a wedding chapel that is open to the public.........
Please do not insert your words into my mouth. It is dishonest.
Good. God's word advocates a lot of terrible things. It's time we stand up for love and justice for ALL like our Pledge of Allegiance says we should. And I'm all for getting rid of the tax exempt status no matter what happens with churches officiating same sex marriages also.
I'll agree with God, you make your choices. I figure he knows more than we do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
