|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 27 2015 05:14 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 05:09 Introvert wrote: Tax status is also in question. It was brought up in oral a argument and the government was less than clear on what changes or actions could take place. Marriage is equal, so is tax status. Don't tell me this is the next stupid thing to fight over lol They will find something stupid to fight over.
|
I meant for churches or other organizations that refuse to host these ceremonies or what have you. I'm out so I can't find it, but I'm pretty sure it was mentioned in arguments.
|
You'll find that where the money goes so do the churches.
|
On June 27 2015 05:24 Introvert wrote: I meant for churches or other organizations that refuse to host these ceremonies or what have you. I'm out so I can't find it, but I'm pretty sure it was mentioned in arguments. Ah well yes I agree a church should be able to refuse a service for a gay couple. But this fight by the gay community was for legal equality which they should now have.
|
On June 27 2015 05:31 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 05:24 Introvert wrote: I meant for churches or other organizations that refuse to host these ceremonies or what have you. I'm out so I can't find it, but I'm pretty sure it was mentioned in arguments. Ah well yes I agree a church should be able to refuse a service for a gay couple. But this fight by the gay community was for legal equality which they should now have.
The weird part was Republicans wanting the government in their churches telling them who they could and couldn't marry. Churches are a weird public/private hybrid though, so I wouldn't be surprised if they along with groups like the Conservative news site the church terrorist was into, end up not being able to both be bigots and tax exempt.
|
http://www.cc.com/events/month-of-zen/live.html?xrs=synd_facebook_062615_tds_57
Month of zen. If anythings related to Us politics its Jon Stewart.
People might think Minnesota an extremely conservative state from our jessie ventura and bachman's but we also elected the first muslum to congress that swore his oath on a koran so suck it. East central coast Represent!
Churches are always going to be in an constitutionally gray zone. It's always going to be able to dance around the constitution The only reason why they get tax exempt status is because the federal government doesn't want to touch them with a 50 foot pole.
|
On June 27 2015 05:54 Sermokala wrote: People might think Minnesota an extremely conservative state from our jessie ventura and bachman's but we also elected the first muslum to congress that swore his oath on a koran so suck it. East central coast Represent!
Jesse also had some decent thoughts and said some things most politicians wouldn't be caught dead saying to this day. I wouldn't rank him with Bachmanm by any stretch. He's not my favorite person and the conspiracy theories are a bit much but he held a few views that a lot of liberals hold.
|
On June 27 2015 05:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 05:31 Gorsameth wrote:On June 27 2015 05:24 Introvert wrote: I meant for churches or other organizations that refuse to host these ceremonies or what have you. I'm out so I can't find it, but I'm pretty sure it was mentioned in arguments. Ah well yes I agree a church should be able to refuse a service for a gay couple. But this fight by the gay community was for legal equality which they should now have. The weird part was Republicans wanting the government in their churches telling them who they could and couldn't marry. Churches are a weird public/private hybrid though, so I wouldn't be surprised if they along with groups like the Conservative news site the church terrorist was into, end up not being able to both be bigots and tax exempt.
I have been wondering about this for a while, how exactly does marriage work in the US? In Germany, it is basically a dual thing. You can have a marriage in church, but that is completely pointless and only for show. The legally binding marriage gets done by signing some paperwork in a state office. Is this also the case in the US, or do the churches (Or even only churches?) actually have the power to marry people?
|
On June 27 2015 06:31 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 05:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 27 2015 05:31 Gorsameth wrote:On June 27 2015 05:24 Introvert wrote: I meant for churches or other organizations that refuse to host these ceremonies or what have you. I'm out so I can't find it, but I'm pretty sure it was mentioned in arguments. Ah well yes I agree a church should be able to refuse a service for a gay couple. But this fight by the gay community was for legal equality which they should now have. The weird part was Republicans wanting the government in their churches telling them who they could and couldn't marry. Churches are a weird public/private hybrid though, so I wouldn't be surprised if they along with groups like the Conservative news site the church terrorist was into, end up not being able to both be bigots and tax exempt. I have been wondering about this for a while, how exactly does marriage work in the US? In Germany, it is basically a dual thing. You can have a marriage in church, but that is completely pointless and only for show. The legally binding marriage gets done by signing some paperwork in a state office. Is this also the case in the US, or do the churches (Or even only churches?) actually have the power to marry people? Its the same. You need a "license" which is you telling the state you are married.
|
On June 27 2015 06:31 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 05:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 27 2015 05:31 Gorsameth wrote:On June 27 2015 05:24 Introvert wrote: I meant for churches or other organizations that refuse to host these ceremonies or what have you. I'm out so I can't find it, but I'm pretty sure it was mentioned in arguments. Ah well yes I agree a church should be able to refuse a service for a gay couple. But this fight by the gay community was for legal equality which they should now have. The weird part was Republicans wanting the government in their churches telling them who they could and couldn't marry. Churches are a weird public/private hybrid though, so I wouldn't be surprised if they along with groups like the Conservative news site the church terrorist was into, end up not being able to both be bigots and tax exempt. I have been wondering about this for a while, how exactly does marriage work in the US? In Germany, it is basically a dual thing. You can have a marriage in church, but that is completely pointless and only for show. The legally binding marriage gets done by signing some paperwork in a state office. Is this also the case in the US, or do the churches (Or even only churches?) actually have the power to marry people? its basically the same. marriage license is what is necessary.
|
So, how are churches in any way relevant to a discussion regarding legal marriage, if churches don't actually have anything to do with legal marriage at all, and are basically a place people have a big and absurdly expensive party at after/before getting legally married?
|
On June 27 2015 06:36 Simberto wrote: So, how are churches in any way relevant to a discussion regarding legal marriage, if churches don't actually have anything to do with legal marriage at all, and are basically a place people have a big and absurdly expensive party at after/before getting legally married? question is whether a church can be forced to do a gay marriage if a gay couple insists.
|
On June 27 2015 06:36 Simberto wrote: So, how are churches in any way relevant to a discussion regarding legal marriage, if churches don't actually have anything to do with legal marriage at all, and are basically a place people have a big and absurdly expensive party at after/before getting legally married? Churches have tax exempt status in the US as non-profits and charge to have marriages preformed in them. At some point a church is going to refuse to have a marriage preformed in it because the couple is gay and law suits will get thrown around. To be fair, churches are still refusing to admit interracial couples too.
http://www.kentucky.com/2011/11/30/1977453/small-pike-county-church-votes.html
Bigots are always a threat and they like to hid in churches.
|
On June 27 2015 06:39 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 06:36 Simberto wrote: So, how are churches in any way relevant to a discussion regarding legal marriage, if churches don't actually have anything to do with legal marriage at all, and are basically a place people have a big and absurdly expensive party at after/before getting legally married? question is whether a church can be forced to do a gay marriage if a gay couple insists. Legally, churches exist as nonprofit entities subject to special provisions in the tax code (for instance, housing allowance/parsonage). The question is similar in form to the quoted--Whether a church can be forced to do a gay marriage if a gay couple insists under threat of losing nonprofit tax exemption. Aka why are they nonprofit if they discriminate against a class of marriage licenses the state would otherwise recognize?
The solicitor general said in oral arguments that the tax exemptions of some religious institutes would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage.On June 27 2015 05:31 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 05:24 Introvert wrote: I meant for churches or other organizations that refuse to host these ceremonies or what have you. I'm out so I can't find it, but I'm pretty sure it was mentioned in arguments. Ah well yes I agree a church should be able to refuse a service for a gay couple. But this fight by the gay community was for legal equality which they should now have. We'll see if people like Gorsameth will stand by tax exemptions for such churches along the lines of the exercise of religion. All kinds of discriminatory and malicious labels will be applied in public outcry in time. (You can even see the textbook language in the majority opinion itself, with words like demean and stigmatize)
Like Roberts also says, we'll see questions about religious college married student housing and religious adoption agencies come before the court in due time.
|
it will be interesting to see the fight over rights actually written into the constitution versus rights added by the Supreme Court.
|
On June 27 2015 06:36 Simberto wrote: So, how are churches in any way relevant to a discussion regarding legal marriage, if churches don't actually have anything to do with legal marriage at all, and are basically a place people have a big and absurdly expensive party at after/before getting legally married? Churches themselves are not relevant but a considerable part of the US is religious and they feel very strongly about such topics as we have seen in the past
|
On June 27 2015 06:51 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 05:31 Gorsameth wrote:On June 27 2015 05:24 Introvert wrote: I meant for churches or other organizations that refuse to host these ceremonies or what have you. I'm out so I can't find it, but I'm pretty sure it was mentioned in arguments. Ah well yes I agree a church should be able to refuse a service for a gay couple. But this fight by the gay community was for legal equality which they should now have. We'll see if people like Gorsameth will stand by tax exemptions for such churches along the lines of the exercise of religion. All kinds of discriminatory and malicious labels will be applied in public outcry in time. (You can even see the textbook language in the majority opinion itself, with words like demean and stigmatize) Like Roberts also says, we'll see questions about religious college married student housing and religious adoption agencies come before the court in due time. Since your asking. I don't necessarily think religious institutions should be tax exempt in the first place.
|
|
Actually, I think it's hard to argue that you can have freedom of religion with taxation
|
On June 27 2015 07:55 cLutZ wrote:Actually, I think it's hard to argue that you can have freedom of religion with taxation Please explain because I don't see how a church having to pay taxes limits your religious freedom.
|
|
|
|