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.
And when they go “for profit” expect a gay focused ‘jiza tax’/’sin tax’ to be levied on these independent churches.
Just a steady consumption tax. No real IRS. No paperwork for consumers. States collect from businesses, and states feed the US treasury.
I have long wanted the Fair Tax. If Obama wants to end tax exemptions for churches, then I say push through that and get closer to abolishing the 16th amendment and find a new way to pay for government.
If they overplay their hand and go after the churches, no doubt there will be another Supreme Court case and who knows what might happen with one or more new Justices if the Republicans win in 2016.
Personally I wish the churches would just volunteer to go tax exempt. That exemption has stifled their voice in far too many way’s.
The GAYstapo clearly said the gay marriage would be not the end.
they’re all going to min e into the most conservative churches coast to coast, asking to be married in the hopes that they will be declined so that they can sue.
basically the entire church system in the USA will be on trial.
It will be the ADA times 1000
RE: who knows what might happen with one or more new Justices if the Republicans win in 2016.
1) Who knows which Justice will be gone after that?
2) What if Hillary (with nearly a billion in her war chest and with a score of Republicans vying to be the candidate), wins?
Golly gee Gomer. We didnt see that one coming!
Yep.. render unto Caesar and stop being luke warm.
Seems to me a very simple solution: Churches just bestow the sacrament of MATRIMONY upon those who qualify under church precepts for such a sacrament, or rite in churches that do not consider MATRIMONY a sacrament. Whether the state recognizes such rites as marriages is a matter between the church and that state for the state to decide.
Recalling the rending advice about Caesar and God, the Churches are NOT marrying anyone under the civil law. (In a similar fashion, the State cannot demand that churches allow women to be priests.) It has nothing to do with tax exempt status IMO and I see no potential for any church losing it as long as they do not REQUIRE their rite to be acknowleged by the state. If a state considers the church rite to be a legal marriage, as they do in common law situations with no church or civil ceremony, so be it.
They feel guilty and want to stamp out their sin by removing this from all religions.
They think when the power of the state forces everyone to accept them, they will finally not feel guilty anymore.
We will be around long after you and minions are a footnote in history.
New revenue!
**Tax-Exempt Status of Churches at Stake in Supremes’ Gay ‘Marriage Case**
Just as I predicted the day it passed.
BTTT!
Tax-Exempt Status of Churches at Stake in Supremes' Gay 'Marriage CaseAt least one good thing could come from it.
Yep a lot can happen. Most of what has been happening recently has been pretty bad so being optimistic probably is unrealistic. The US has entered into an era of decadence and hedonism. It will not recover with one election.
If the separation of Church and State is absolute, as the LibProgs claim, then on what basis can the State tax the Church?
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.