Posted on 06/27/2015 6:32:59 PM PDT by VinL
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz on Saturday said county clerks in Texas should "absolutely" be able to opt out of issuing same-sex marriage licenses if they have religious objections.
"Ours is a country that was built by men and women fleeing religious oppression," Cruz said in an interview with The Texas Tribune, "and you look at the foundation of this country — it was to seek out a new land where anyone of us could worship the Lord God Almighty with all of our hearts, minds and souls, without government getting in the way."
The interview followed a major speech here in which he eviscerated the U.S. Supreme Court for its decision Friday to legalize gay marriage in all 50 states.
"We should respect diversity and tolerance," Cruz added. "There is this liberal intolerance and fascism that seeks to force Bible-believing Christians to violate their faith, and I think it makes no sense."
Cruz's comments came a day after Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick asked Attorney General Ken Paxton for an opinion on whether county clerks and justices of the peace can refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses or perform same-sex weddings. Texas already has a law in effect that protects clergy members who refuse to perform gay weddings due to their religious beliefs.
"There’s no right in society to force a Jewish rabbi to perform a Christian wedding ceremony," Cruz said Saturday. "There’s no right in society to force a Muslim imam to perform a Jewish wedding ceremony."
Cruz, like many Republicans, has reacted to the Supreme Court ruling by raising potential consequences for religious freedom, such as whether a baker should be forced to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple if he has religious objections. On Saturday, Cruz declined to say whether the issues of religious liberty were urgent enough to warrant a special session of the Texas Legislature, a demand of some social conservatives.
“Look, I’m going to leave questions of state law and governance to our elected leaders there," Cruz said. "The last thing they need is a federal officeholder sticking his nose into matters of state legislation."
If you are talking about paying taxes on donations to God, then you are correct that there is no ‘income’ tax on it. That is because it has become part of that church and their worship of God.
This is not, BTW, the ‘loss of tax free status’ that is meant when that expression is used. It has always been recognized that the government can’t make any laws about establishing a state religion or preventing entirely free exercise of religion. It’s always been a simple case: “If the government ‘charges’ religion, then it isn’t free.” In other words, if I give 100 dollars to God, religion free of government means all of that goes to God and none of that goes to government.
No, that is not what is meant by churches’ tax free status. Some bring up the idea of property tax, but the same thing applies. People gave money to God to build a church. The state can’t charge for that and still pretend it is ‘free’.
Think of this. Let’s say you have an estate of 2 million dollars. You have already paid all the taxes on that. You leave it to your child in your will, but the state comes and takes 50% of what you already had paid all the taxes on.
What is wrong with that in your opinion?
The State ought to prosecute Blackmail and Extortion
Agree with this. Private business rights is very different from government employee personal rights.
Do you really want a Quaker state employee refusing to grant gun permit or a vegan to deny hunting license or a bicyclist to deny drivers licenses?
ping to 41
Did Cruz say that?
Prosecuted(hanged by the neck until dead).
Yes. At Drake Univ. today. Here’s the link to his speech...it’s long... and he speaks from a podium this time-
It’s not his regular stump speech. I think he was trying to formally set out the foundation for his campaign- going really hard on his anti-dc (”cartel”) message.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBUMGoLAg_g
You may have something there. If churches were to first require the presentation of a civil marriage license before they would perform the religious blessing of Holy Matrimony .... the church could require any number of conditions prior to administering it’s blessing. At least if one abides by the current law.
The real question then is, could the gay couple sue for a church that did not provide it’s blessing? Words and law used to have meaning. After the recent SCOTUS rulings, I am not sure anymore.
Lets clarify some terms here.
Churches are normally organized as a non-profit corporation (501c3 of the tax code). This means that there is a corporate body with a president, treasurer, secretary, etc. and it also means that any money received by the church (regardless of source) is not disbursed to the benefit of the owners or officers of the company. An exception is made for fair and normal salaries and expenses.
All non profits, regardless of the purpose (religious, cultural, educational, etc) are not taxed on the monies received. That is the “benefit” of being a non-profit. However some non-profits allow donations to be tax deductible, others do not.
The government historically has recognized that non-profits are beneficial to society and provide “good works” that the government would otherwise be expected to provide. Also recognizing that these non-profits need money to operate, the government has encouraged people to donate to non-profits by making such donations deductible from the individual’s taxes. This is true for 501(c)(3) corporations. It is different for 501(c)(4) Social welfare organizations and for 501(c)(5) labor unions.
Disclaimer - I am not a lawyer nor tax accountant. I have assisted several churches with their constitutions and bylaws. And as apart of those efforts, have met with a number of lawyers and tax accountants for the purpose of establishing new churches.
The bakery case did nothing of the kind. That bakery is still in business, bigger and stronger than ever, with at least 500,000 in the bank. The homosexual attempt to kill religious freedom.failed.
The bakery in Oregon went out of business; bankrupt trying to fight the case. They still are facing judgement on a possible $150,000 fine.
Oh -and I believe these are the people that tried to raise money on go-fund-me; but it was yanked as the website wasn’t going to allow raising money for homophopic reasons.
Factoid:
Rat Romney (GOP, carpetbagger) began this entire thing
by FORCING Clerks to obey him and start gay marriage.
“And lose tax exempt status. We’ll see who is willing to do that.”
In the short term, I don’t see it happening. In order to solemnize “marriage” licenses the church or pastor has to actually ask permission from caesar to do so. So not only are churches the unpaid agent of caesar, they have to ask for the “privilege.” There is an easy way to avoid doing that: don’t ask permission, or return the permission if already granted. There may be a few unwise churches who get caught out, but once that starts, you’ll see churches simply refuse to solemnize “marriage” licenses at all.
Long term of course the objective is to have all churches answer to caesar regarding doctrine, etc. Those who do not will be persecuted. There are plenty of churches flying the rainbow flag already. I don’t see the overt persecution happening for awhile.
You’re already open to civil litigation for pretty much anything. Welcome to lawyer nation. The question is whether you can be successfully sued and what the cost will be. Failure to bake a cake due to happenstance is unlikely to result in significant damages being assessed. Its a small claims court issue.
“A neighbor and I were talking about going black market as a means of choosing who to do business with.”
Another of those unintended consequences that will bite caesar in the posterior. Caesar relies on businesses being out in the open so they can more easily taxed, regulated, etc.
I think the big, huge, enormous unintended consequence here is the untimely demise of social (in)security. Now that everyone can “marry” everyone else, it won’t be long until family members are strategically “marrying” one another to take full advantage of the benefits to which they are entitled. Grandmothers “marrying” grandchildren to provide and extend survivor benefits. Friends “marrying” friends to increase their benefits. The actuaries never took that into account.
They have their decision, now let them live with it. :-)
You sir are correct...
Churches no longer preform marriage ceremonies...
Churches NOW join a man and woman in HOLY MATRIMONY...
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.