Log in

No account? Create an account
The Argument Clinic

Doppleganger posting in The Argument Clinic
User: argument_clinic (posted by evilgrins)
Date: October 8th, 2008
Subject: smarmy bastards
Security: Public
Media:740 AM radio news
Tags:gay marriage, legal action, proposition 8, the church
xposted to a laugh for your soulNaughty·lil·Devils, Crazy AmericansPower·to·the·People, & I'm right and you're wrongThe·Argument·Clinic

10:30 AM 10/8/08 · One of the arguments for Proposition 8 is that if it doesn't pass then churches run the risk of being taxed and due to their discrimination against homosexuality they, and their officilas, run the risk of being sued. In the first, I've never understood why they were never taxed in the first place...and certainly now with the economy being such a mess I can certainly see benefits for their vast funds being directed to help others rather than largely horded.

Yeah, sure, churches use their income to help others. I don't doubt that entirely but when was the last time you were in a church that didn't look all shiny and beautiful and lovely inside? They seem to be spending much more on themselves than the people they're supposed to serve.

As to the 2nd worry, good. Being a Black American I'm well aware of the discrimination my own have had to suffer through both for being what we are as well as when we engaged in mixed marriages, both early on and to this day in some places. I don't believe, certainly can't recall, any cases where those couples even tried to bring legal action into the mix for any number of reasons...so if gay couples wanted to sue for churches refusing to do as they'd do for anyone else than I think they deserve their day in court.

You will note that unlike a lot of businesses, churches do not have a sign inside them that states "reserve the right to refuse service to any we choose to". That would be counterproductive to the purpose churches are supposed to serve.
Post A Comment | 2 Comments Link

Pretty eyes, pirate smile: Ewan Glitter
User: prokrstn8r
Date: October 8th, 2008 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Keyword:Ewan Glitter
I've never been in a church that was all shiny and beautiful and lovely inside. My current church is in a trailer.

And even when i went to a church that had its own building, they were never rolling in money. Churches are nonprofit in every sense of the word. Anytime I've seen renovations of a church space, it was because the size of hte congregation warranted it...We'd sit on metal folding chairs for years before we had the funds to build pews.

And my current church takes all its extra money every week and buys food for the homeless with it.

If a church is not behaving within the definition of a nonprofit organization, then it should be subject to tax. If it is behaving within the definition of nonprofit, it shouldn't be.

I also have a real hard time believing that there would be any precident for such legal action against churches that refuse to marry same sex couples. Churches discriminate ALL THE TIME. Have you ever tried to marry a Catholic? If you do not jump through hoops X, Y, and Z (which are sometimes very invasive), they refuse to marry you. I also wouldn't expect to have a Jewish wedding if I hadn't first converted. Churches discriminate against marrying people because of their own religious doctrines all the time...I fail to see why this case would be any different.

Though, I'm pretty sure our gay pastor wouldn't discriminate against marrying same sex couples, so there wouldn't be any legal issues with us anyway. :)
Reply | Thread Link

User: kitwench
Date: October 9th, 2008 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I agree that churches should be taxed, I don't agree that every single entity should agree with every single person.

Churches are religions, and they are not PUBLIC entities, contrary to popular belief.

They are private entities, and as such reserve the right to believe and act as they choose in greater freedom than a truly public entity must do.

A church can be held liable for refusing to hire a janitor simply because that person does not hold the church's same religious beliefs. This is already the law.

The church can NOT be held liable for refusing to hire a pastor who does not share the church's beliefs because such would interfere with the Church's right to assemble with whom they please.

Nor is the church liable for refusing to hold a religious ceremony.
A marriage is NOT a religious ceremony - it is a civil ceremony.
If you choose, and if the church you select agrees with you, having a religious ceremony is permitted, and I would not change that.

But even if you get a religious ceremony, your marriage is STILL not valid if you don't do the CIVIL paperwork - get the license, the blood work (yes, many states still require certain blood tests) etc.

Who performs the ceremony is a matter of personal choice both on the part of the participants and the person performing the ceremony- unless the person you choose is a civil servant, and then no one within the law can be turned away.

I would happily change the laws for marriage to permit any consenting adults to marry any other consenting adults - as many as they damn well please, of whatever gender/s.
Reply | Thread Link

my journal
January 2015