Posted on 06/28/2015 9:13:06 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Add the following to the "you will be made to care" stories Erick Erickson at RedState began to recognize several years ago.
Those who think that legalizing same-sex "marriage" won't affect them should have received a wake-up call on Tuesday during arguments at the Supreme Court over inventing a constitutional right for two people of the same sex to have such an arrangement. Most of them didn't get it, because, with only one exception I could find, the establishment press covering the proceedings perfectly understood the gravity of the discussion and its implications — and refused to report it, because doing so would give away the Obama administration's, and the left's, ultimate game plan.
The exception was at the Washington Post, via Sarah Pulliam Bailey at the paper's Acts of Faith blog. Even then, Get Religion's Terry Mattingly reports that Bailey's work didn't make the "ink on paper" edition.
Here's Bailey's coverage of what was arguably the most important question of the day:
Could religious institutions lose tax-exempt status over Supreme Court’s gay marriage case?
uring oral arguments, Justice Samuel Alito compared the case to that of Bob Jones University, a fundamentalist Christian university in South Carolina. The Supreme Court ruled in 1983 the school was not entitled to a tax-exempt status if it barred interracial marriage.
Here is an exchange between Alito and Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., arguing for the same-sex couples on behalf of the Obama administration.
Justice Alito: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to taxexempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a 10 university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?
General Verrilli: 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.
... Justice Antonin Scalia asked attorney Mary L. Bonauto, who is representing gay couples in the case, whether it is it conceivable that a minister could decline to marry two men if indeed the Supreme Court holds that they have a constitutional right to marry.
“No clergy is forced to marry any couple that they don’t want to marry,” Bonauto said. “We have those protections.”
The first point is that the Obama administration's lawyer has admitted that if the "right" to same-sex "marriage" is deemed to be in the Constitution, any institution whose religious belief flouts the Constitution as interpreted will see their tax-exempt status placed in jeopardy, subject to loss at the hands of anyone who chooses to litigate the matter.
The tax-exempt status of dissenting churches won't be an "issue" for long. The tax-exempt status of churches which stick with their traditional beliefs on marriage in the wake of such a ruling won't be an "issue" for the left. Instead, their elimination will become a goal.
I predict you are correct. Most churchs have been slowly doing this for years anyway.
I work at a large company that is probably 98% minority and all of them do NOT support homos, but they all still defend obama every chance they get.
You figure it out for me.
Money, or at least the prospect of it.
This is why the 16th amendment and incomes taxes were evil from the start. People wanted way back then in 1913 that this was not a good idea, but idiot Americans didn’t listen. They just wanted to “soak the rich”. They did, and got soaked themselves. You can’t play with fire and not burn yourself.
Very good point. Liberals often confuse, perhaps deliberately so, cause and effect. They think if they can force someone at the point a gun to say what they want to hear that their views will be sanctioned. At its core, modern day "liberalism" is the worship of the null.
The supremes ruled gays have a constitutional right to marry. Since this was a right granted by the government, not a religious right, the church won't have to marry gays. The church is a private institution, with membership, and won't be forced to marry gays. Even if they did, if I were the pastor, I would simply quote scripture regarding homosexuality and take it to the nth degree. How many homos would want their wedding presided over by a ceremony filled with condemnation. It would be the church's right to provide that type of ceremony. Any takers?
Btt
Next is an attempt to use the state to silence first, then force action in support of their sins, then finally persecution.
Furthermore, First Amentment religious and speech freedom will be drastically reduced by "politically correct" restrictions of what "they" consider "hate speech," which is scriptural TRUTH SPEECH!!!
Genesis 19:23
By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. 24 Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens. 25 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land.
Would that include mosques?
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.