• 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?

If you'll look back, the very first thing I posted about this was in regards to church-affiliated public service organizations and I said that this is a different beast than the church its self.

Catholic Charities (a church-afilliated 501(c)(3)) in Illinois elected to end their STATE-FUNDED adoption programs because they were required to follow state law. This has no direct impact on the Catholic Church its self and who it can and cannot marry. It only means that if Catholic Charities (a not-for-profit service organization who takes state-funded grants) must follow state laws if it is to receive state funds.

The question remains, if they were to continue their services with solely private donations, would they be allowed to discriminate? That would be the question.

Further, the state did not strip Catholic Charities of its 501(c)(3) status in any way, shape, or form. Nor did it require the Catholic Church to perform same-sex civil union ceremonies.

No no no no no...don't try to move the goal posts here. The question was should church's be punished for not supporting gay marriage and the counter claim was this was not happening. I proved that it is happening in Illinois and may be happening in NY. Don't try to change the rules to meet your needs. Up until this law was passed in IL, these religious organizations where allowed to help the people they chose to help (which is a legal in every state in the union) and now they are not allowed to continue their work, which is related to their beliefs, because they don't believe in same sex marriage. They are being punished for their beliefs. It is a fact. You lost. Sorry.
 
A church? Yes. If we have tax payer funding for any religious institution, all religious institutions must be allowed access to it. Otherwise you are funding particular belief structures with tax payer dollars while "punishing" others by not allowing them the same services and abilities as other churches. The government is forbidden to do so. IMO, this is an all or nothing case. Either all churches are allowed access to funding, or none are.


They have to follow the non-discrimination laws of the State.
 
They have to follow the non-discrimination laws of the State.

They didn't. In fact, most states don't force religious institutions to follow non-discrimination laws. Actually, 49 states (maybe 48 now) don't force religious institutions to follow non-discrimination laws.
 
They have to follow the non-discrimination laws of the State.

That can certainly be contrived as state force used against the free practice and expression of religion. As I said, I think this is an all or nothing case. Religious freedom is very important and we must tred carefully in order to maintain it. If funding is made available to churches, it must be done in a way in which all churches can gain access to it. If we put rules on practices of religion in order to get tax payer money, that's the government funding particular belief structures it "agrees" with while punishing those it disagrees with. They are forbidden from doing so. Either all churches are allowed equal access to tax payer dollars or none are; it's how it has to be with this case.
 
They didn't. In fact, most states don't force religious institutions to follow non-discrimination laws. Actually, 49 states (maybe 48 now) don't force religious institutions to follow non-discrimination laws.

If they are given state funding, is it unreasonable to ask them to follow non-discrimination laws? If they choose to not take state money, they should be free to discriminate as they please. I think that's fair.
 
They didn't. In fact, most states don't force religious institutions to follow non-discrimination laws. Actually, 49 states (maybe 48 now) don't force religious institutions to follow non-discrimination laws.

Specifics maybe?
 
No.
1st amendment.
 
If they are given state funding, is it unreasonable to ask them to follow non-discrimination laws? If they choose to not take state money, they should be free to discriminate as they please. I think that's fair.

It is if the status quo was in opposition and the only change was a law that (among other things) targeted religions for persecution.
 
No no no no no...don't try to move the goal posts here. The question was should church's be punished for not supporting gay marriage and the counter claim was this was not happening. I proved that it is happening in Illinois and may be happening in NY. Don't try to change the rules to meet your needs. Up until this law was passed in IL, these religious organizations where allowed to help the people they chose to help (which is a legal in every state in the union) and now they are not allowed to continue their work, which is related to their beliefs, because they don't believe in same sex marriage. They are being punished for their beliefs. It is a fact. You lost. Sorry.

No. I never changed the goal post.

I said from the get go that a church shouldn't lose it's tax exempt status for being against gay marriage. But that I had questions regarding church-affiliated public service organizations.

You sent, as evidence, that churches are losing their tax exempt status because of gay marriage, an article about Catholic Charities dropping its adoption services because, as a recipient of state taxpayer dollars, they would have to abide by state law in the provision of services.

The church did NOT lose its tax exempt status, which is the issue at hand.

A church-affiliated, state-taxpayer-dollar-receiving, public service organization was given a choice to abide by state law in exchange for receiving taxpayer dollars OR receive no state funds to support the provision of services.

They have every right to discriminate all they like. They just won't receive taxpayer dollars to do so and the Catholic Church its self did not lose its tax exempt status and is not forced to perform or recognize any marriage it doesn't want to perform or recognize.

An affiliated service organization is NOT the same thing as a church. From their own website: "Catholic Charities is an independent 501 (c) (3) non-profit corporation. Our Federal Tax Identification number is 93-0386801." Independent 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation means that they are a separate organization from the Catholic Church its self. Every local affiliate is overseen by its dioceses, but it is still a separate organization for tax purposes and is subject to the laws of the state - where the church its self is not.

You are arguing things about legality. I work for a 501(c)(3) and have for the past 16 years of my life (three different ones, mind you) - so I know how these things work.

Non-profits are not exempt from laws the way a church is exempt. The church proper was not impacted by this law. The separate charitable corporation was affected and they had a choice to abide by the laws of the state or not and they opted not to.

That is not punishment of a church in any way, shape, or form.
 
The First Amendment is quite clear.

Churches, or anyone else, can maintain that gay marriage is wrong, they can even state that god is going to get us if we allow it, as Pat Robertson did. They can state all sorts of nonsense, claim that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, that the current or some past POTUS is the Antichrist, whatever. It's called freedom of speech.

Churches are not supposed to try to use their tax exempt status to raise money for political purposes, however. Doing so would be a violation of the tax code, which does not allow for a deduction for political donations, but does for a religious donation.

Now, you can be of the opinion that churches should not be tax exempt institutions. The tax code is clear, however, that they are. If someone doesn't like the idea that churches don't pay taxes, then they can take it up with their favorite lawmaker. Perhaps when pigs fly, Hell freezes, and San Francisco goes Republican, they can actually get their opinion enshrined into law. It won't happen any sooner than that, however.
 
Don't you love it when people respond to what they think you said, instead of what you actually said?

this is one of my favorite things here at DP LOL
and it happens a lot! and usually its a person that has no clue what they are talking about and or if they actually respond to what you said they have NOTHING of merit to offer. Its quite funny. Just look at abortion, gay and/or TSA threads and youll find some WHOOPERS! lol
 
oh and to answer the OP
of course not and I doubt ANYBODY of any type of rational wants that, its just another fantasy thread started by you.
Churches are free to conduct CHURCH/RELIGIOUS matters how they want the 1st isnt going anywhere
 
oh and to answer the OP
its just another fantasy thread started by you.

A fantasy thread started by me?

People, no matter how few, have made this tax argument.

You're a troll.

Fin.
 
Last edited:
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?

why should their political stance make a difference?

churches should not have tax free status anyway.... why does god get a break and the devil has to pay?

geo.
 
A fantasy thread started by me?

People, no matter how few, have made this tax argument.

You're a troll.

Fin.

yes fantasy thread, its obvious :D
 
If I may be so bold, NGNM85 is, I think advocating that position in this very thread.

No, I was very clear; I don't think any churches should be exempt from paying taxes, for any reason. Period. There's no reason to grant the Catholic church a tax exemption that is denied to Neo-Nazis, Flat-Earthers, conspiracy theorists, etc., etc. There's no reason why the state should give preferential treatment to a specific type of nonsense.
 
Back
Top Bottom