• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Churches against SSM lose their Tax Exempt Status?

Wake

Wake

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
18,536
Reaction score
2,438
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This question was raised elsewhere in this forum. Personally, I don't think government should "punish" churches for their religious beliefs. Furthermore, if thone churches lose their status for being against SSM, how long would it take before the remainder lose their status for being against abortion, etc.

Should government "nudge" churches?
 
Last edited:
No, they shouldn't.

But your SSM-to-abortion slippery-slope comparison makes no sense. Churches perform marriages. They don't perform abortions, and they have little to do with abortion aside form speaking out against it.
 
Last edited:
I've said it before, and I've said it again; I see no justifiable reason why promulgating nonsense, or, rather, a particular brand of nonsense, should exempt one from paying taxes.
 
Wake said:
I This question was raised elsewhere in this forum. Personally, I don't think government should "punish" churches for their religious beliefs. Furthermore, if thone churches lose their status for being against SSM, how long would it take before the remainder lose their status for being against abortion, etc.

Should government "nudge" churches?
Click to expand...

No. Who would advocate that?
 
Wake said:
I don't think government should "punish" churches for their religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting being taxed is a punishment?

According to a number of liberals who we can name specifically, paying taxes is ones duty, a social good, etc. Right?
 
Churches don't lose their tax exempt status for espousing political positions of any kind, until they cross the line. The line is the expenditure of church funds for political purposes.

They can rant and rail about the evils of whatever, they can intimate that Satan himself is on the opposing side, they can make all sorts of claims, preach whatever they want. They can encourage the members to donate to a PAC that espouses their chosen point of view. They just can't spend their own tax exempt money to influence politics.

If they do cross that line, then yes, they should lose their tax exempt status.
 
I don't believe any one is advocating for churches to lose their tax exempt status for being against SSM.
 
What if you practice your religion at home?? Would that qualify your house as a place of worship?? If so, where the hell is MY tax exemption!?
 
Wake said:
I This question was raised elsewhere in this forum. Personally, I don't think government should "punish" churches for their religious beliefs. Furthermore, if thone churches lose their status for being against SSM, how long would it take before the remainder lose their status for being against abortion, etc.

Should government "nudge" churches?
Click to expand...

No, they should be punished because there is a separation between church and state. Churches preform marriages, but they are separate from the state.
 
ksu_aviator said:
No. Who would advocate that?
Click to expand...

According to the person who I discovered posted said question.

Others also pine for such. If I may be so bold, NGNM85 is, I think advocating that position in this very thread.

Mach said:
Are you suggesting being taxed is a punishment?

According to a number of liberals who we can name specifically, paying taxes is ones duty, a social good, etc. Right?
Click to expand...

Of course not, Mach. However, having your tax-exempt status taken away for your religious beliefs, is. Does that seem about right?

According to liberals.
 
Wake said:
According to the person who I discovered posted said question.

Others also pine for such. If I may be so bold, NGNM85 is, I think advocating that position in this very thread.
Click to expand...

No, he advocated taking away tax exempt status for churches no matter what their beliefs. Completely different. You are building straw men.

Of course not, Mach. However, having your tax-exempt status taken away for your religious beliefs, is. Does that seem about right?

According to liberals.
Click to expand...

Speaking of straw men...
 
Redress said:
No, he advocated taking away tax exempt status for churches no matter what their beliefs. Completely different. You are building straw men.



Speaking of straw men...
Click to expand...

Don't you love it when people respond to what they think you said, instead of what you actually said?
 
Absolutely not. A church has the right to discriminate all it would like.

It gets tougher though when you talk about non-church businesses that are public entities affiliated with a church.

For instance, if a guy's partner is in a major car accident and the nearest hospital is a Catholic hospital and he arrives to check on his partner, I don't think the hospital should be allowed the right to deny visitation or refuse him the right to speak to his partner because of their religious belief. Once they've entered the realm of providing a public service, they should follow the laws of their state and - honestly - human decency.

If you are discussing an elective surgery, though, I might feel differently because at that point the patient has a choice of where to have the surgery. In that sense, I can see a similarity to abortion. It would be silly for a woman to sue a Catholic hospital to make them give her an abortion when there are other options out there. But if a pregnant woman collapses while walking past a Catholic hospital and for some reason (this is obviously highly hypothetical) the only thing that could save her life is to remove the fetus and they refuse to help her and she dies, that's a different story.

Inside the confines of their church, though, preach against gays and gay marriage all you like and you will never have to marry a gay couple. I think this is a bit of a red herring anyway. Catholics already refuse to do a LOT of weddings based on religious discrimination (and I don't mean that in a bad way) and I, so far, haven't heard of anyone suing them over it.
 
Wake said:
According to the person who I discovered posted said question.

Others also pine for such. If I may be so bold, NGNM85 is, I think advocating that position in this very thread.



Of course not, Mach. However, having your tax-exempt status taken away for your religious beliefs, is. Does that seem about right?

According to liberals.
Click to expand...

I would love to see the post in question, if I may be so bold. To see if it's actually saying what you claim it is.

NGNM85 is arguing for churches to lose their tax-exempt status, not because they are against SSM, but because they "spew nonsense." Please consider other people's opinions for what they are, not what you think they might be. Read carefully.
 
Last edited:
No business should get tax exempt status unless they are a Charitable Not For Profit (IMHO).
 
StillBallin75 said:
Don't you love it when people respond to what they think you said, instead of what you actually said?
Click to expand...

This whole thread is based on a faulty premise.

Do you agree with some conservatives that we should destroy the US economy to ensure Obama loses in 2012? It's something just like that, find something one nut might have said, and then try and create that as the default position of those you disagree with.
 
Redress, there are people who want to take away the tax-exempt status of churches for being against SSM. I have witnessed such intentions on this very forum and no I'm not going to spend hours to find those posts.
 
Wake said:
Redress, there are people who want to take away the tax-exempt status of churches for being against SSM. I have witnessed such intentions on this very forum and no I'm not going to spend hours to find those posts.
Click to expand...


Please supply links/evidence to these accusations.
 
Redress said:
This whole thread is based on a faulty premise.

Do you agree with some conservatives that we should destroy the US economy to ensure Obama loses in 2012? It's something just like that, find something one nut might have said, and then try and create that as the default position of those you disagree with.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to find the point where someone likened the one opinion to an entire group. The way I read this thread, it was a way of garnering support against the one idea of one individual. Why are you seemingly taking this personally?
 
Wake said:
Redress, there are people who want to take away the tax-exempt status of churches for being against SSM. I have witnessed such intentions on this very forum and no I'm not going to spend hours to find those posts.
Click to expand...

And there are people on this very forum who say we should destroy the US economy to ensure Obama does not get elected. You are still creating this massive straw man in a rather transparent effort to attack liberals. The very fact you will not document your claim is proof of that.
 
Wake said:
This question was raised elsewhere in this forum. Personally, I don't think government should "punish" churches for their religious beliefs. Furthermore, if thone churches lose their status for being against SSM, how long would it take before the remainder lose their status for being against abortion, etc.

Should government "nudge" churches?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not!
 
Wake said:
Redress, there are people who want to take away the tax-exempt status of churches for being against SSM. I have witnessed such intentions on this very forum and no I'm not going to spend hours to find those posts.
Click to expand...

I have never seen that, names of those posters?
 
winston53660 said:
Please supply links/evidence to these accusations.
Click to expand...

The point of this thread is the question I posted. And, no, I'm not going to cite sources of a few people thinking that churches should lose their tax-exempt status for being against SSM.

People have made this argument. You're ignorant if you think this idea never crossed ANY person's mind, ever. Your desire for a cite is as lame as me asking for cites because you claim some tea partiers have been racist towards Obama.
 
Wake said:
The point of this thread is the question I posted. And, no, I'm not going to cite sources of a few people thinking that churches should lose their tax-exempt status for being against SSM.

People have made this argument. You're ignorant if you think this idea never crossed ANY person's mind, ever. Your desire for a cite is as lame as me asking for cites because you claim some tea partiers have been racist towards Obama.
Click to expand...


Isn't bearing false witness a sin?
 
No, churches should not have their tax exempt status away for opposing same sex marriage. Now I would possibly agree with the idea of churches losing their tax exempt status altogether, but it should be all or nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom