Posted on 06/27/2015 11:13:03 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
FULL TITLE: Churches Could Lose Tax-Exempt Status For Refusing To Accommodate Gay Marriage, Warn Dissenting Supreme Court Justices
Dissenting Supreme Court justices in Friday's same-sex marriage decision raised concerns that conservative churches, schools and other institutions could lose their tax-exempt status with the IRS if they refuse to recognize the high court's decision.
Chief Justice John Roberts warned in his dissenting opinion: "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."
Some churches fear that by refusing to allow same-sex couples to marry in their sanctuaries, the IRS could take away their tax-exempt status by citing a violation of a "fundamental national public policy," explains The New York Times.
The 1983 Supreme Court decision in Bob Jones University v. the United States allowed the IRS to revoke tax-exempt status of schools that barred interracial relationships.
Religiously affiliated universities could be denied tax-exempt status for providing married heterosexual students housing but refusing to accommodate married gay and lesbian students.
"Indeed," writes Roberts, "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."
Justice Samuel Alito raised similar concerns during oral arguments, citing the 1983 Bob Jones decision: "In the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax-exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?" he asked.
Arguing on behalf of the Obama administration, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. said, "You know, I don't think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it's certainly going to be an issue. I don't deny that. I don't deny that Justice Alito. It is - it is going to be an issue."
Alito wrote in his dissenting opinion: "The majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected. We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools."
All the doors to our church open out. Sure would be a shame if there were a parking lot full of cars, trucks, tractors etc some of which were parked an inch from all the doors when they showed up. Just sayin....
Exemptions are always abused.
And if churches have skin in the game, they may not be for every tax that comes down the pike.
Yeah but will the separation of church and state people be okay with it? I’m betting that the reason why there was the separation of church and state cluas was because of the influence of church on the government in Europe and religious persecution.
(Like some churches we know right now...)
In 2003, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the Vatican department responsible for, well, doctrine) wrote this:
There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”.
In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.
(Read the whole document here.)
A lot of voting Latinos and a large percentage of the world population are Catholic. A huge voting block and A LOT of power.
Now if we could only figure out a way to get them to vote according to their faith ...
From the article:
Some churches fear that by refusing to allow same-sex couples to marry in their sanctuaries, the IRS could take away their tax-exempt status by citing a violation of a “fundamental national public policy,” explains The New York Times.
The 1983 Supreme Court decision in Bob Jones University v. the United States allowed the IRS to revoke tax-exempt status of schools that barred interracial relationships.
Religiously affiliated universities could be denied tax-exempt status for providing married heterosexual students housing but refusing to accommodate married gay and lesbian students.
Christian Churches will cease to exist if we do nothing.
Tyrants will stop at NOTHING.
The only club the freedom-from-religion crowd have is tax-exempt status.
Once that's gone, the will be cordially invited to STFU.
I am in leadership at my local church. We are already working on this.
Thanks. :)
Thanks.
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.