Gray Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 Go to any gay rights thread from before 2014 and search slippery slope. That is probably the best way to unearth old discussions where people concerned about churches getting sued to perform same sex marriages were scoffed at. We still have no example of any actual church being forced to perform same sex marriage.
Gray Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 That is just Gray deflecting. No, I just think it's off topic. We've always been talking about first and 14th amendment issues. The UK has neither a first nor a 14th amendment
KevinG Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 What you might be remembering is the pro-gay marriage people saying that churches won't be forced to recognize or perform gay marriage. Which is still the case and will continue to be the case. I'm not so sure about that. I hope you are correct. Supreme Court Justice Robert's confirmed that the recent decision could affect tax exempt status of those churches who refuse to perform or recognize gay marriages. There are many pundits who are arguing that this should be the case.
Gray Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 I'm not so sure about that. I hope you are correct. Supreme Court Justice Robert's confirmed that the recent decision could affect tax exempt status of those churches who refuse to perform or recognize gay marriages. There are many pundits who are arguing that this should be the case. I believe what was being referred to by Roberts was not churches but rather universities who don't recognize or allow married gay students
Zakuska Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 (edited) No, I just think it's off topic. We've always been talking about first and 14th amendment issues. The UK has neither a first nor a 14th amendment But their law has allowed certain Churches/Pastors to opt out of performing "gay marriages". To which Gay Millionaires are suing their Government. So its directly on topic. Edited July 17, 2015 by Zakuska
KevinG Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 I believe what was being referred to by Roberts was not churches but rather universities who don't recognize or allow married gay students The exact term used to describe organizations that could lose tax exempt status by Justice Robert's was "religious institutions". When it comes to an organization like Brigham Young, Notre Dame, or SMU the distinction is without a lot of difference. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 Apologies if this has already been posted. Hat-tip to Dan Peterson over at Patheos for point it out to his readers. http://ldsmag.com/can-we-count-on-legal-protection-for-our-beliefs/ 1
Gray Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 But their law has allowed certain Churches/Pastors to opt out of performing "gay marriages". To which Gay Millionaires are suing their Government. So its directly on topic. If that's how far you have to stretch to find examples of threats to religious freedom, fine. But the whole context of the conversation is the recent US supreme court ruling.
Gray Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 (edited) The exact term used to describe organizations that could lose tax exempt status by Justice Robert's was "religious institutions". When it comes to an organization like Brigham Young, Notre Dame, or SMU the distinction is without a lot of difference. BYU is not a church. This is the context. He's not talking about churches, but about various other private organizations. Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 36–38. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today Edited July 17, 2015 by Gray
KevinG Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 No BYU is not a Church, and that is not the point. It is a Church sponsored institution that reserves the right to admit and govern students based on LDS principles. That is ultimately an expression of free speech and religion.
carbon dioxide Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 BYU is not a church. This is the context. He's not talking about churches, but about various other private organizations. Would be in question yes but that does not mean the answer would be yes, they must lose their tax exempt status.
Gray Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 No BYU is not a Church, and that is not the point. It is a Church sponsored institution that reserves the right to admit and govern students based on LDS principles. That is ultimately an expression of free speech and religion. They may still do so, but taxpayer subsidy of private schools is contingent, not guaranteed.
KevinG Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 They may still do so, but taxpayer subsidy of private schools is contingent, not guaranteed. Good thing BYU isn't government funded.
Bob Crockett Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 (edited) Good thing BYU isn't government funded. You are wrong. It is. It could, but does not, turn away government-funded student grants. As such, it is subject to a number of government educational initiatives. I also believe it receives plenty of government contract funds. https://financialaid.byu.edu/discontinuance https://titleix.byu.edu/. Edited July 17, 2015 by Bob Crockett 2
Gray Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 Good thing BYU isn't government funded. Tax exempt status is a form of government funding
jwhitlock Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 What would be wrong with having an openly gay Assistant Scoutmaster in an LDS troop? Why would anyone object? As long as they hold to the ideals and standards of the Church and the Scouting program (as is expected of all leaders, even non-LDS ones), who cares? And if they don't follow the program, then they can be removed. I'm an employer, and I'm not allowed to discriminate against gay people, but I can still fire them if they perform poorly or commit a fire-able offense. This doesn't mean that gay people can demand to be Scout leaders, and then do whatever they want with impunity. Frankly, I think you've created a world of paranoid delusion around this. Not really. My state is already exerting control of who can serve in Primary by demanding background checks. Since the way they've implemented those checks does nothing to really halt abuse, there's something else involved. I've always thought that a hefty dose of paranoia about the government and special interest groups is a good thing. I've seen nothing recently to change that. 1
KevinG Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 Tax exempt status is a form of government funding That is the same argument that SSM supporters are using in saying the government should exert control over Churches. Of course we all know that not taking something away is not the same as giving something to. 3
jwhitlock Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 Actually, I did care how he did it. I told you I disagreed with his use of an offensive name for gay people. I didn't read it as a slam. It seemed like an accurate observation. What do you think was incorrect about it? Tonie's rants are basically the pro-gay equivalent of fringe Christian fundamentalism. I wanted to see if you, as a pro-gay supporter, would distance yourself from that kind of stuff. You didn't. That's all that I needed to understand.
tonie Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 (edited) jwhitlock, you appear opposed to a homosexual serving in Scouts; are you willing to post why? Edited July 17, 2015 by tonie
jwhitlock Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 Tax exempt status is a form of government funding This kind of comment shows just how far from reality some perspectives are. Government takes my money at gunpoint in the form of taxes, and then when they "reduce" those taxes for some reason, they're giving me a benefit. What a wonderful system. Not. 1
Gray Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 (edited) That is the same argument that SSM supporters are using in saying the government should exert control over Churches. Of course we all know that not taking something away is not the same as giving something to. The state already denies tax exemptions to churches that are suspected to be businesses disguised at churches. But I know of no instance where a church has ever lost tax exempt status due to discrimination or any other unpopular doctrine. Schools seem to be treated differently (Bob Jones case). Edited July 17, 2015 by Gray
Gray Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 This kind of comment shows just how far from reality some perspectives are. Government takes my money at gunpoint in the form of taxes, and then when they "reduce" those taxes for some reason, they're giving me a benefit. What a wonderful system. Not. If the government decides to pay you $10,000, would you consider that to be the government funding you? What's the difference between that and the government taking $10,000 off of your personal tax burden? Either way you have $10,000 more than you would have had. 1
jwhitlock Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 If the government decides to pay you $10,000, would you consider that to be the government funding you? What's the difference between that and the government taking $10,000 off of your personal tax burden? Either way you have $10,000 more than you would have had. You're actually trying to rationalize this. Let's say that I have $50,000 and the government takes $20,000 from me. Originally I had $50,000 before the government took $20,000 at gunpoint. Then they "give" me $10,000. It was mine in the first place before they took it. You're calling that a "benefit" to me?? 1
Analytics Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 You're actually trying to rationalize this. Let's say that I have $50,000 and the government takes $20,000 from me. Originally I had $50,000 before the government took $20,000 at gunpoint. Then they "give" me $10,000. It was mine in the first place before they took it. You're calling that a "benefit" to me?? It depends upon your perspective. If you are an anarchist who believes the government has no legitimate authority and that taxes are literally a form of robbery, then sure, there is a difference. In that case, all taxes are theft, and receiving a rebate from the thief doesn’t change the fact that they did in fact rob you. On the other hand, if you believe that we live in a legitimate republic governed by a valid social contract and Constitution, then taxes aren’t theft—they are simply the way that we the people have collectively and legitimately decided to fund our government. In that case, Gray is exactly correct. 2
tagriffy Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 We already have examples. Where same-sex marriage has been legalized in some states, for instance in Idaho and New Jersey, gay rights advocates have brought lawsuits and administrative proceedings in an attempt to force religious denominations to make their religious properties and facilities available to celebrate same-sex weddings. Freedom of religion does not protect you from being sued. The issue is going to come down to whether those churches have become public accommodations. If the churches in question had been letting their facilities to celebrate weddings to the general public, it will be argued they become a public accommodation and subject to anti-discrimination laws. If churches don't want to let their facilities to celebrate same-sex weddings, they're just going have to refrain from letting those facilities to the general public. Such restrictions are already happening. California judges will soon be banned from joining the Boy Scouts or any other nonreligious youth group that espouses traditional morality. The accreditation of Gordon College is being challenged because its honor code prohibits “sexual relations outside of marriage and homosexual practice.” A counseling student in Michigan was expelled from her program when she respectfully requested that a gay client be referred to one of numerous other counselors in the nearby area. A pluralistic society that shows true respect and fairness for everyone would not compel or coerce these individuals and entities to betray their religious beliefs and conscience. No one is forced to be a judge in California, so if one does become a judge, one follows the rules set by the California Supreme Court; and mind you, that decision was based on a standing policy that forbade judges from joining the KKK as much as it forbade joining the BSA. The Gordon College episode has already been discussed in this threat, so you're a little late here. That issue was settled to the satisfaction of both the college and the accreditation agency--with Gordon not having to change its policy. In the Julea Ward, a federal court ruled the the University was within its authority to expel her and it did not impair her religious rights. Again, she chose to be in the program, and therefore she chose to accept the requirements of the program. The parties ultimately settled out of court, and officially Ward voluntarily left the program. And now educational institutions are now under the threat of litigation if they don't give special privileges to religious students. So who is really being forced to betray their standards?
Recommended Posts