Beto O'Rourke: Churches That Oppose Same-Sex Marriage Should Lose Tax-Exempt Status

Same sex marriage is not a political issue it's a religious issue. Refusing to do a same sex marriage is not a political position it's standing on religious principles which is absolutely a constitutional right.

Every time mr o'crook opens his mouth it's to vow to crap on the constitution.

It is impossible to be his supporter and be pro constitution.

 

Total crackpottery!!! You can get married by a justice of the peace - no religion needed. And marriage is a legal contract.

Churches just provide the frills. They have no legal role other than the minister being sanctioned BY THE STATE, not by God. Without approval from the State, a church can't marry anyone.

 

it's like prayer in a school, you can do it on your own, the school can not sponsor it - simple

 

The Congregation can do whatever it wants, but the one ministering shouldn't be politicking. They're a Church for heaven's sake.

 

You can also recite a prayer in school, but you can't be told to do it by the teacher or a school authority.

 

I agree. Actually, I think all churches should lose tax exempt status.

They won't though. The social engineers in establishment thinktanks would never let go of the pulpit-power they buy from churches with tax exemption. If churches stop preaching 'pay your taxes', 'obey the govt,' and 'just peacefully wait for the rapture', church-goers would be revolting against authoritarian progressivism in a much bigger way. The political establishment it never going to endanger religious 501c3.

 

is that not what I said... same would apply in a church about political issues, no church funded events or political movements unless they pay to play... IE pay their taxes

 

So punish the religion that doesn't hold the proper belief? Must be a democrat !

Authoritarian bastard.

 

whether churches should get tax exempt status in the first place is one debate we should have. What sorts of political involvement precludes them from access to the status is another. I give due deference to the role clerics play in speaking to issues of morality from a religious perspective. If a pastor wants to take an active stance on homosexuality, pornography, abortion, gambling, environmental or social issues or being churlish with respect to giving to charity. I am fine with that. If a church wants to help fund political campaigns to target these same issues, such as an initiative on the ballot on abortion or same sex marriage, or an ordinance restricting the zoning of adult shops or legalized prostitution I am comfortable with those as extension of their perceived duty to 'teach the flock'.

I get more nervous when they get in the business of endorsing specific candidates or political parties. That seems to cross a line from acting like a cleric in the roll of a cleric, to overt political activity. If Father 'O'Leary has something to say about same sex marriage on his syndicated Sunday morning show, I see that as a logical extension of his roll. If Father O' Leary endorses John McCain over Barak Obama or outlines reasons why catholics should vote republican, I think he has gone over the line from educating about Christian values and principles to acting like a partisan political operative.

But I would describe myself as rather fluid on this question. I could have my mind changed either direction. Maybe my line is too arbitrary, or not arbitrary enough.

 

Churches shouldn't be tax exempt period. But Beto is wrong to want to selectively target churches he doesn't agree with.

 

That's not simple at all when dealing with a church. When is a church event not a church event?

 

That's your opinion..actually if you want to get technical marriage predates both government and church and happens automatically when a man andvwoman have sex.


But my earlier comments were in the context of churches choosing which weddinds they will allow to be performed using their staff and facilities.

Quite frankly your concept of an all powerful government scared the crap out of me..

 

Why not make all religious organizations pay taxes? They can deduct and actual charitable donations just like everyone else.

 

Learn the difference between opinions and facts before trying to argue. What I stated is a fact. Marriage is a legal contract. That's the law.

Your fanatical lack of logic scares the crap out of me. I never said anything about an all-powerful government. Just the opposite. So learn how to assemble basic information before trying to make a point.

https://theweek.com/articles/528746/origins-marriage

So as we see, religion simply declared marriage as a religious institution almost 6000 years after it first came to be. Hardly a religious institution.

 

Nope.. unless all thoes other non for profit organizations who do voting related work lose their tsx free status.. or do you just want to pick on churches, yeah thats what i thought.

 

he is an idiot and no Religious bone in his body. That would be akin to the Federal Government interfering and basically "collusion" against church and various religions. Applying the law unequally. That's called discrimination.

And same sex marriage is not a principle most religions adopt. However it should be up to each churches Congregations whether or not to recognize same sex marriage. But they should not be able to ban people in a same sex marriage from attending services.

Just my opinion. I don't care one way or another. And I think it is an individual's right. That is why I don't like the Federal government intruding into my life.
power to the State.

 

What you stated is a fact. It is also a fact that government isn't the be all end all.
The religious implications of marriage are vastly more important than the legal ones. That also is a fact.

Wanting government to be in charge of who has to marry who is a far overreaching tyrannical government.

I hearby give Beta O"crook and his evil followers all the respect they deserves, none at all.

 

they do not get a tax break if they do political work, that is why under Obama groups with tea party in their names were denied at first as they needed to be verified they were not political in nature as just the name alone indicated they were political - I do not want any group playing politics if they have a tax free status - you want to play.. pay your taxes

 

the government doesn't control who marries, people choose to get married, religion should not dictate who can get married, we are not a theocracy, religious law means nothing legally - the rules of marriage should apply to every adult equally without gender or racial descrimination

 

How dare you!!!

We all know most muslims are brown skinned. Therefore they cannot be criticized etc.

On the other hand in America Evangelicals are often associated with Whites. Therefore they are to be critized and attacked endlessly...

 

He should stick to playing band in drag or writing novels about running over children. I have as much chance as becoming POTUS as he does. When he opens his mouth, he makes dems look even worse.

 

You know he is a homosexual. His whole demeanor says it. #Disgusting.

 

This gets into some murky territory. Territories that involves the First Amendment.

If we can deny tax-exempt status to a church that applies its own morality to its own congregation, what is to stop the state from being able to dictate morality through church?

If a church decides to excommunicate a member for having an affair outside of their marriage, what stops the government from removing their tax-exempt status for that?

The only way this can work is either they all have tax-exempt status or none of them do.

 

I'm beginning to think that it's in purpose

 

you don't get to say what religion is or isn't. If Scientology gets to be a religion then Peter popoff gets to be a religion. Yes these people are scumbags. Scumbags have been exploiting religion in my estimate for about 4,000 years. The problem is the First Amendment it limits the state's ability to define what a religion is. And we like it that way.

So if you take down this so-called preacher what happens to his followers do they just all the sudden get smarter? Or do they fall for some other scam?

As long as there are gullible people there will be people to take advantage of them. Regardless of whether we call those people pastors or not.