Did you read the article? It was because these temples are NOT public houses of worship (only a few select members can get it) that they were judged to not be exempt from the local property taxes (they still get 80% discount).
If their temples were public houses of worship it wouldn’t be an issue.
“Did you read the article? It was because these temples are NOT public houses of worship (only a few select members can get it)...”
Yes, I read the article. By its definition, the Holy of Holies in Jerusalem should have been taxed because only the High Priest entered there.
A public house of worship is not where every citizen gets equal treatment. Non-christians are asked to skip the Lord’s Supper in our church. Many churches refuse to marry someone who is not a member or part of a member’s family.
A church is not a public accommodation, as used in the Civil Rights Act. It is not required to give equal access to anyone who wants.
Religious freedom requires allowing a religion to determine what is or is not acceptable behavior. As long as that rule does not endanger someone or violate an important law (don’t cut puppies throats on an altar, for example), it should be allowed.
“It was because these temples are NOT public houses of worship(only a few select members can get it)”
Yea like some mosques we know who don’t let women in!!