Posted on 05/27/2004 6:36:54 PM PDT by tuckrdout
Gay rights group: Church broke law By ALLISON FARRELL Gazette State Bureau
HELENA - Gay rights advocates filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Political Practices against the Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church Wednesday, saying the church inappropriately held an event to support a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage.
Montanans for Families and Fairness, a coalition that includes InterMountain Planned Parenthood, PRIDE and the Montana Human Rights Network, said in the complaint that the church failed to report to the state commissioner it used its "in-kind" resources to support the proposed constitutional ban.
Petitions supporting the proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage in Montana were circulated at a church event Sunday night. The initiative will be placed on the November ballot if 41,000 voters sign a petition in favor of the measure.
"They made an expense on behalf of this thing," said Rob Hill, campaign director for the coalition that filed the complaint. "We believe they have to file with the commissioner's office. They haven't done that."
The Rev. B.G. Stumberg, who leads the church, was surprised to hear from a reporter Wednesday that someone filed a complaint against his parish.
"I don't know what they're talking about," Stumberg said, after hearing the details of the complaint. "We haven't given a cent. The only thing we've done is we've spoken out for marriage."
The Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church opened its doors Sunday night for a broadcast event that piped in leading national evangelical leaders, including James Dobson of Focus on the Family and Chuck Colson of the Prison Fellowship, who promoted traditional marriage.
Petitions supporting the constitutional ban against gay marriage were circulated, and signed, Stumberg said. He said the church did nothing wrong.
"If they want to go to court about it, I guess I'll get me a lawyer," Stumberg said.
(Excerpt) Read more at billingsgazette.com ...
"This church used its resources to plan the event, gather the audience, provide a multimedia event and then petition its congregation, all in support of the discrimination amendment," said Karl Olson, chairman of the coalition.
Olson said churches that "engage in this type of activity" must file the appropriate paperwork with the state.
In addition to incurring fines, the church could be in danger of losing its nonprofit status with the IRS if it engages in political advocacy, he said."
I guess this is as good as any of a test of what churches may do regarding free speech and their tax exemptions. Just be glad its happening in Montana and not Massachusetts.
But I think the issue here is whether a church supporting a nonpartisan issue such as a gay-marriage ban is running afoul of this rule, or whether the rule only covers political activity of a partisan sort (supporting a Republican candidate over a Democratic candidate, for example). Perhaps FR lawyers might chime in here.
The church I've been attending lately, one of the largest mega-churches in the country (#6, I think), reminds its congregants to support the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage at every service. If this somehow cost them their tax-exempt status, that would be a train wreck -- they receive six or seven hundred thousand dollars a week in offerings.
Homosexual Agenda Ping - Coming to a theater near you - HATESPEECH LAWS! The homosexual radicals (and how many disagree with these radicals?) want to shut up everyone who disagrees with their plans to turn the world into their own bath house.
Makes me very, very sick and angry. They can villify God, the Bible, Jesus Christ (remember some horrible play in which Jesus was portrayed as a homosexual?), Judaism and its tenets, and in Australia a couple of years ago they blasphemed Hinduism with disgusting porno pictures. All that is fine, just fine.
But for a church to say anything about homosexuality other than to have "gay marriages"? Can't have that.
These people are sick and dangerous and must be stopped.
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this (very busy) pinglist.
Huh?? "Fairness, "rights," "families," and parenthood"??
Yeah, right...
You know - the Second Amendment protects the First. Do we need a reminder? Open Christianity is now tolerated. That's the last step before persecution - first in the courts, then in the streets.
Why is it better that this is happening in Montana and not Massachusetts?
This is clearly an attempt to silence free speech. An attack on our American Values. An attempt to intimidate and silence those opposed to the groups agenda. When it suits them, they openly break laws, and advocate breaking them. Yet for their opposition they are nit picking, in a sad attempt to stop others from meeting and discussing this issue.
(uh, this is the way the post was suppose to read...sorry, I mixed up two postings!)
The church answers to a higher law! D**m fruit fairies!
Oh, I agree!
sems to me to be an open-shut case of proper exercise of first amendment rights, and any case based on this complaint ought to be thrown out of court with a fine tacked on to the plaintiff
It works one way I suppose? If liberal churches support homosexuality it is OK?
Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act
Part of a church's duty is to guide and instruct its members to righteous participation in society, including political participation. They should not be taxed for doing their job.
1.) Is the church a 501(c)(3)? That would answer any questions.
2.) The church should claim that they are a black church, then no rules will apply.
This is just a wild guess, but the judges in Montana may just be a LITTLE less liberal than those in Mass. ;->
Seems to only work for liberals & their pets. If this were Kerry, or Gore, or Hillary, speaking about the Liberal agenda during a service in a black church it would be perfectly legal, don't ya know?
It's that a hoot! From the very people who have tried to co-opt every church in America for THEIR agenda!
BTW, your #2 is DEAD ON!
Walter Jones is my favorite Congresscritter. I still wish that he ran for the Senate. He would have smacked down Bowles and Edwards.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.