Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Churches Could Lose Tax-Exempt Status For Refusing To Accommodate Gay Marriage, Warn...
HNGN.com ^ | June 27, 2015 | Taylor Tyler

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."


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 next last
To: JimSEA

They said this?


21 posted on 06/27/2015 11:31:18 AM PDT by nikos1121 ("The enemy of your enemy is your enemy!" B. Netanyahu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
A governmental decision about whether to tax or not tax of one religious over another is in itself discrimination and a violation of the separation of church and state. The government has NO constitutional authority to regulate religion.
22 posted on 06/27/2015 11:32:48 AM PDT by Bobby_Taxpayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheStickman

What is a “tax-exempt status?”

They have this already by default, without any sort of “registration” or law.


23 posted on 06/27/2015 11:33:06 AM PDT by fwdude (The last time the GOP ran an "extremist," Reagan won 44 states.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

It’s going to happen. And headchopper religious bodies will enjoy a different set of rules from normal people.


24 posted on 06/27/2015 11:44:22 AM PDT by I want the USA back (Media: completely irresponsible. Complicit in the destruction of this country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cherry

I agree....


25 posted on 06/27/2015 11:47:27 AM PDT by HarleyLady27 (Send 'slob boy of the oval office' back to Kenya ASAP, and save America...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Bobby_Taxpayer
The government has NO constitutional authority to regulate religion.

Or healthcare, but they did it.

My worry is the runaway trend of government passing laws where they do not have Constitutional Authority.

26 posted on 06/27/2015 11:47:53 AM PDT by GregoTX (Remember the Alamo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

If anyone wants to know where this leads, look at the civil rights era. The constitutional distortions used to drive racism from the public sphere—a worthy cause—will be used to push the homosexual agenda. We’ve allowed the government to seize nearly unlimited powers in regards to eliminating discrimination, to include even no proven discrimination at all, i.e. disparate impact. If you dare express the view that homosexuality is unnatural or evil, prepare to be ostracized, fined, or worse. It’s coming.


27 posted on 06/27/2015 11:48:45 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (Proverbs 14:34 Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GregoTX

It’s simple...ok we will marry them...our policy is they are members for 1 year and go through a series of marriage courses there are 20 meetings. Surround them with Gods word, with love.

O no we wont marry them because of religious freedom.

To live is Christ, to die gain. Dont forget who our master is ;)


28 posted on 06/27/2015 12:02:12 PM PDT by Texas4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

So what? They should be paying taxes on their profits anyway. A church should not be in “business” to make money. Think how much the reverends Al and Jesse and their ilk have bamboozled out of the system. Better yet, end all tax exempt organizations. Why should the local United Way directors and executives be wearing expensive suits and jewelry and driving expensive cars?


29 posted on 06/27/2015 12:02:54 PM PDT by AmusedBystander (The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas4ever

I meant to type

Or no...we wont marry them

there are only two choices. Either way should lead to what we feel what Christ would do.


30 posted on 06/27/2015 12:03:27 PM PDT by Texas4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: All

The pastor of a church I used to attend in Georgia is conveniently “on sabbatical” for a while. You KNOW he knew this ruling was going to be announced so he ran for the hills.


31 posted on 06/27/2015 12:11:08 PM PDT by VerySadAmerican (I'll vote for a democrat before I'll vote for a rino.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Texas4ever
It’s simple...ok we will marry them...our policy is they are members for 1 year and go through a series of marriage courses there are 20 meetings. Surround them with Gods word, with love.

Well my hope is that it all shakes out say basically something along the lines of this...
You can get married, the State will not deny you that and there are both civil and religious avenues for this. If any Church denies you a ceremony for Holy Matrimony they have that right to do so. If a Church agrees to perform the ceremony that is their decision as well, but they will not be compelled by law.

The government pushed this ruling through so they certainly can not deny a civil ceremony. I am just hoping faith institutions can remain free to observe their beliefs in the rules of Holy Matrimony.

In other words homosexual basic marriage was ruled on, not marriage by Holy Matrimony performed a Minister.

But I know the liberal courts will not be happy with that, and it is unrealistic to think so.

32 posted on 06/27/2015 12:26:59 PM PDT by GregoTX (Remember the Alamo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: AmusedBystander
Why should the local United Way directors and executives be wearing expensive suits and jewelry and driving expensive cars?

Because the local "charities" pay huge salaries to the directors and executives. Just like the "non-profit" hospital in Chicago who paid Michelle Obama $340,000 to be a lawyer on their payroll while Baraq was a state senator.

33 posted on 06/27/2015 12:30:11 PM PDT by Bernard (The Road To Hell is not paved with good results.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GregoTX

This ruling doesnt change our faith.

This ruling changes the tapestry of where we live.

We are to be in the world, but not of it. Cliche I know but honestly What would Christ do?

I think he would in love invite them to worship and keep consistant to the words of God.

To hate is hypocrytical. So on one hand we will not bow, which is understandable because it breaks our vow to uphold Gods word, but on the other hand we cannot write such things as “homos” and other awful remarks.

We cannot oppose one sin more than another because social media has it on the radar. Our vigilance should be to all sin. Even the sin we commit daily. Read all of Romans not just Romans 1.

My fear is a lot of people are not standing up for religious conviction or the church...they are just apposed to homosexuals. They hate them. They are being bunched with the true believer.

There should be a distinction made by clergy.

I did enjoy your post. My remarks are general, not just to you. good day


34 posted on 06/27/2015 12:40:58 PM PDT by Texas4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MUDDOG

BTW, what is the Catholic Churches opinion on gay marriage? This is a serious question.

A lot of voting Latinos and a large percentage of the world population are Catholic. A huge voting block and A LOT of power.

Even evangelical African American church leaders have come out against the ruling.


35 posted on 06/27/2015 12:42:54 PM PDT by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Mosques also, I’m assuming. Fair is fair!


36 posted on 06/27/2015 12:44:16 PM PDT by jughandle (Big words anger me, keep talking.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
If individuals and companies must pay taxes on their transactions, churches and any other organizations should have to pay them, too.

There shouldn't have been any exceptions in the first place. Government shouldn't have favorites in a free society but ought to leave the free the market to sort it all out.

37 posted on 06/27/2015 12:47:18 PM PDT by nightlight7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dhs12345
a large percentage of the world population are Catholic. A huge voting block and A LOT of power.

I don't know if that matters.

E.g., a few years ago in NC we overwhelmingly passed an anti-gay-marriage const. amendment, with a lot of black support.

But they keep voting 99% Democrat.

38 posted on 06/27/2015 12:49:16 PM PDT by MUDDOG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

How does the fact that churches are forced to start paying taxes reconcile with the separation of church and state clause?

I am not referring to the small churches but the large, powerful churches like the Catholic church. And wouldn’t be in their rights to try to influence the Federal and State governments like any other tax paying business? After all, they have that right since they are paying taxes.


39 posted on 06/27/2015 12:50:36 PM PDT by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MUDDOG

Ya, good point.


40 posted on 06/27/2015 12:51:16 PM PDT by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson