Do you support marriage for gay and transgender people?

[vegas giants]

Yup.

So the correct designation for you is hard-core activist.

You're welcome.

That is the correct designation for both of us

 

[mrjurrs]

their religious rights as a church . . what country are you from? lol

Bingo. What religious rights are you referring to? There are two. Establishment of religion or exercise of religion. Tax laws have zero to do with either. I'd go so far as to say the govt is violating all Americans rights regarding establishment of religion. Giving a tax break to an organization because they are a religious organization means that the govt is intruding on the establishment clause.

 

[AGENT J]

They are part of a group

Ill ask you AGAIN . . what group? the only group you put them into is a religious group

, the same way I don't believe businesses that are open to the public should be allowed to discriminate.

a public business can not, churches are not a public buinsess

If you believe churches should be protected from something just because they are churches, that's religious discrimination.

beliefs play no role in this, this is why your posts, false claims and topical ignorance keep failing

501's are a part of a law, there is no right to be a part of one. Y

theres a right not to be illegal discriminated against for them... again what country are you from to not know this basic common sense

you talk about violating their rights. What rights are you talking about? There is no right to be a 501(c).

again see bove, this isnt rocket science. They have the right not to be illegally discriminated against you want to violate that

From previous statements I feel you indicated you are a church goer. If true, you have a self interest in this topic. If not, I was mistaken.

Yes you are a mistaken, thats not self-interest in anyway LMAO

Last chance...How is removing a tax benefit a violation of a churches rights?

oooooh no, last chance to answer a question I've answered and destroyed your false claims with AGAIN
because it would be illegal discrimination based on your comment below

And if churches decide not to do something that is constitutionally provided for, they should lose their tax exempt status.

this is so much fun. SO why do rights not matter to you?

 

[AGENT J]

Bingo. What religious rights are you referring to? There are two. Establishment of religion or exercise of religion. Tax laws have zero to do with either. I'd go so far as to say the govt is violating all Americans rights regarding establishment of religion. Giving a tax break to an organization because they are a religious organization means that the govt is intruding on the establishment clause.

wrong again they also have a religious right to not be discriminated against based on their religion. you want to violate that right. NO thanks rights are important to me.

 

[roguenuke]

Agreed. If they discriminate against black people we would not be having this conversation

They do and can, and it is absolutely legal for a preacher or clergy member of any kind to refuse to marry someone who is of a certain race or entering into a certain racially related relationship (as in mixed race marriage). That is legal and will not at all jeopardize a church's tax status.

Church refuses to marry black couple in Mississippi | CNN

An African-American couple talks to CNN about being denied the opportunity to marry at their church because of their race.

www.cnn.com

American Preacher Refuses To Marry Black & White Because God Hates Race Mixing

Brother Donny Reagan of The Happy Valley Church of Jesus Christ in Tennessee rails against interracial marriage and mixed race children

www.romancemeetslife.com

 

[roguenuke]

That is a legal opinion. Freedom of religion has lots of limits. Churches are a business.

No they are not businesses. In fact, in many cases, the "fee" for a clergy to perform a wedding is considered a "donation" rather than an actual payment, to either the church or the pastor (if it is done at the church, it could be expected to give to both, for time and space use).

 

[roguenuke]

Why wouldn't a church marry gay people?

If you agree there are no rights to be tax-exempt, how can you possibly argue that the tax code they take advantage of cannot be removed? That position is a de facto claim of religious rights. If that doesn't mean rights, what are you trying to say it does mean?

Because "marrying" as in performing that religious rite, religious ceremony is a constitutionally protected right of churches to refuse to perform for anyone whom they consider going against their beliefs or simply want to deny it to. It is legal for them to do so because the ceremony is a religious rite, not an actual business thing. It is similar to being able to refuse to perform a funeral.

 

[Ren]

That is the correct designation for both of us

Nope. I'm the hard-core traditionalist. I like to keep most things as they are/were.

You're the ones always trying to change shit, so really, you're hard-core activist revisionists.

 

[mrjurrs]

Because "marrying" as in performing that religious rite, religious ceremony is a constitutionally protected right of churches to refuse to perform for anyone whom they consider going against their beliefs or simply want to deny it to. It is legal for them to do so because the ceremony is a religious rite, not an actual business thing. It is similar to being able to refuse to perform a funeral.

Your basis for constitutional protection? It's not refusal to do the act, it is refusal to do the act for particular people. Don't you feel that discriminating against certain people is 'man' interpreting god's will? The humans decision that god made a mistake in the creation of homosexuals?

 

[roguenuke]

Your basis for constitutional protection? It's not refusal to do the act, it is refusal to do the act for particular people. Don't you feel that discriminating against certain people is 'man' interpreting god's will? The humans decision that god made a mistake in the creation of homosexuals?

I don't care though. They are a church, not a business and that is their business. I feel no need to legislate other people's morality. You can protest them. You can just not go to their church. You can make sure everyone knows how they feel. Doesn't change that they, as a church, should have a right to do that.

 

[vegas giants]

Nope. I'm the hard-core traditionalist. I like to keep most things as they are/were.

You're the ones always trying to change shit, so really, you're hard-core activist revisionists.

Slavers and racists had your same philosophy

 

[vegas giants]

No they are not businesses. In fact, in many cases, the "fee" for a clergy to perform a wedding is considered a "donation" rather than an actual payment, to either the church or the pastor (if it is done at the church, it could be expected to give to both, for time and space use).

Its revenue. These fake terms change nothing

 

[vegas giants]

They do and can, and it is absolutely legal for a preacher or clergy member of any kind to refuse to marry someone who is of a certain race or entering into a certain racially related relationship (as in mixed race marriage). That is legal and will not at all jeopardize a church's tax status.

Church refuses to marry black couple in Mississippi | CNN

An African-American couple talks to CNN about being denied the opportunity to marry at their church because of their race.

www.cnn.com

American Preacher Refuses To Marry Black & White Because God Hates Race Mixing

Brother Donny Reagan of The Happy Valley Church of Jesus Christ in Tennessee rails against interracial marriage and mixed race children

www.romancemeetslife.com

Legal and horrible

 

[roguenuke]

Its revenue. These fake terms change nothing

It's not though, not any more than any other "donation" is. In fact, much of the time the money goes directly to the minister, not the church (depends on the circumstances). They have a right to refuse to perform religious services for anyone. It is that simple.

 

[roguenuke]

Legal and horrible

All that matters is that it is legal because they are a church.

I'm all for preventing actual government employees, JoPs, judges, county clerks, whoever is being paid directly from the government from being able to deny any couple a marriage, a marriage license, service, etc. I'm even for preventing licensed businesses from being able to refuse service. But a church is not a licensed business. Most of the time any money that goes to the church for a marriage or a baptism or a funeral is a "donation". An expected donation sure but still considered a "donation", whether it goes to the church or the pastor or both.

Your Guide to Wedding Officiant Fees and Donations

The ins and outs about when, how and what to pay your wedding officiant.

www.theknot.com

 

[vegas giants]

All that matters is that it is legal because they are a church.

I'm all for preventing actual government employees, JoPs, judges, county clerks, whoever is being paid directly from the government from being able to deny any couple a marriage, a marriage license, service, etc. I'm even for preventing licensed businesses from being able to refuse service. But a church is not a licensed business. Most of the time any money that goes to the church for a marriage or a baptism or a funeral is a "donation". An expected donation sure but still considered a "donation", whether it goes to the church or the pastor or both.

Your Guide to Wedding Officiant Fees and Donations

The ins and outs about when, how and what to pay your wedding officiant.

www.theknot.com

Whenever we get to the point where all it matters is it is legal then we have failed as a nation

 

[vegas giants]

It's not though, not any more than any other "donation" is. In fact, much of the time the money goes directly to the minister, not the church (depends on the circumstances). They have a right to refuse to perform religious services for anyone. It is that simple.

They provide a service and take in revenue.

That's a business

Semantics does not change that

 

[mrjurrs]

I don't care though. They are a church, not a business and that is their business. I feel no need to legislate other people's morality. You can protest them. You can just not go to their church. You can make sure everyone knows how they feel. Doesn't change that they, as a church, should have a right to do that.

Please note, I never denied their right to do that. I'm against American taxpayers subsidizing those actions.

 

[roguenuke]

Please note, I never denied their right to do that. I'm against American taxpayers subsidizing those actions.

They're not subsidizing that action. Their tax exempt status has zero to do with their ability to perform wedding ceremonies. I can sign up today with my state and perform wedding ceremonies too, picking and choosing who I want to marry without any penalty being placed on me for choosing to not marry say people who are greater than 10 years apart, or people who are Christian or those who don't approve of same sex marriage. Hell, as long as I don't charge anyone for my services, I can absolutely choose to marry or refuse to marry anyone I want.

 

[mrjurrs]

They're not subsidizing that action. Their tax exempt status has zero to do with their ability to perform wedding ceremonies. I can sign up today with my state and perform wedding ceremonies too, picking and choosing who I want to marry without any penalty being placed on me for choosing to not marry say people who are greater than 10 years apart, or people who are Christian or those who don't approve of same sex marriage. Hell, as long as I don't charge anyone for my services, I can absolutely choose to marry or refuse to marry anyone I want.

Who pays for the services provided to churches by taxes?

 

[roguenuke]

They provide a service and take in revenue.

That's a business

Semantics does not change that

They take donations. That is no different than donations for anything else given to a church. It has nothing to do with their performance of any ceremony.

Just like I can go today (since I've been ordained online as a minister) and sign up with my state to start performing weddings. I may decide not to charge anyone because it is something I want to do for friends and family but they give me gifts for my service. That isn't taxable (so long as the gifts are reasonable in price and this is family and friends). Because I refuse to give my time for certain others, should I have to pay a penalty? Count them as "tips" despite it being a service I exclusively offer only to certain people?

 

[roguenuke]

Who pays for the services provided to churches by taxes?

Like what? Roads? Infrastructure?

If your argument is that all churches should have to pay taxes that is completely different than churches being denied tax exemption for refusing to wed someone, or certain people. Those are two separate unrelated arguments. I can choose not to perform a wedding ceremony for you but to perform one for my sister or best friend if they request it. Should I lose some tax privilege or have to report a gift they give me at the wedding because I won't do weddings for others?

 

[mrjurrs]

Like what? Roads? Infrastructure?

If your argument is that all churches should have to pay taxes that is completely different than churches being denied tax exemption for refusing to wed someone, or certain people. Those are two separate unrelated arguments. I can choose not to perform a wedding ceremony for you but to perform one for my sister or best friend if they request it. Should I lose some tax privilege or have to report a gift they give me at the wedding because I won't do weddings for others?

My position is that churches should not be tax exempt. The wedding example is just that. One example of why I believe churches should pay taxes. The more important reason is that imo it infringes on the Establishment clause by providing govt benefits to religious organizations.

 

[vegas giants]

They take donations. That is no different than donations for anything else given to a church. It has nothing to do with their performance of any ceremony.

Just like I can go today (since I've been ordained online as a minister) and sign up with my state to start performing weddings. I may decide not to charge anyone because it is something I want to do for friends and family but they give me gifts for my service. That isn't taxable (so long as the gifts are reasonable in price and this is family and friends). Because I refuse to give my time for certain others, should I have to pay a penalty? Count them as "tips" despite it being a service I exclusively offer only to certain people?

Some of these churches that take donations have pastors that live in million dollar homes and fly private jets

It's one hell of a scam and it's a business

 

[AGENT J]

My position is that churches should not be tax exempt. The wedding example is just that. One example of why I believe churches should pay taxes. The more important reason is that imo it infringes on the Establishment clause by providing govt benefits to religious organizations.

You "feeling" churches shouldn't be automatically tax-exempt is one thing, you are welcome to those feelings

the wedding thing is absolutely nonsensical and no reason to justify churches not being tax exempt at all

the infringement of the establishment clause is equally as ridiculous because again, they are 501c so its not infringed on in any way what so ever lol

at best, maybe there's an argument to be had that says churches shouldn't be "automatically" 501c . . but then after that, there's nothing to stop them from applying for 501C and then getting it that would be justified.

Everythign you suggested would be an infringement of their rights and be illegal discrimination against religion.