(06-26-2015 02:52 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Don't know of any churches that turn away sinners. Kind of goes against their business model.

I Know of multiple churches that have denied someone membership based on their sexual orientation. It all goes down to belief. Some see homosexuality as an egregious or heinous violation of God's law, and refuse to accept them on that belief.

The thing is, just based on their own beliefs, you would rarely see a homosexual person attempt to join such a church because they know what that church believes.

Sadly, I still know of churches who would not marry an interracial couple, and those bans were struck down 50 plus years ago.

(06-26-2015 02:36 PM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  From Roberts dissent:

“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. Indeed, 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.”

That part is troubling.

Not to me, since I strongly believe that all churches should pay taxes.

(06-26-2015 03:03 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 02:36 PM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  From Roberts dissent:

“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. Indeed, 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.”

That part is troubling.

Not to me, since I strongly believe that all churches should pay taxes.

And its not like churches are going to have INCOME either. So were just talking about property taxes.

(06-26-2015 02:55 PM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 02:49 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 02:46 PM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 02:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 02:36 PM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  From Roberts dissent:

“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. Indeed, 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.”

That part is troubling.

Why should the Country Club or a private church receive tax abatements? How does society benefit from a taxfree Lear Jet for Creflo Dollar? Or taxfree treatment for a 25 million dollar mansion for Joel Osteen? Or taxfree treatment of Commercial shopping center owned by Second Baptist Church? Or free property taxes on a 100 million dollar property held by the Houston Polo Club?

Want a private club or a private church? Fine. But don't ask the taxpayers to help you purchase or maintain it.

Don't use Creflo Dollar and Joel Osteen to paint all religious institutions. Budgets are tight among churches since 2008, mine included.

Then lets start by putting limits on parsonage exceptions to preacher property taxes.

Not sure where to begin on that. I have zero experience with lavish parsonages or outrages purchases (airplanes). Where do you draw the line though?

Preacher property taxes?

Look, I'm opposed to the lavish actions exhibited by those mentioned previously, but they represent such a small # of actual churches.

Then put limits on the exemptions.

(06-26-2015 10:35 AM)Ole Blue Wrote:  If conservatives are so focused on states rights and church marriage, why is it that they are opposed to allowing churches to determine who they want to marry for themselves and instead feel the need to ban it for everybody?

Another question, what kind of idea is it for GOP candidates to argue for constitutional amendments against SSM ? I've heard several saying they say it's necessary -- but 62% or more of US general public supports total SSM.

I'm actually not opposed to that at all. In fact, that would shed a lot of light on false teachers.

(06-26-2015 02:33 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Don't lie to yourselves. Suits are being readied against churches.

Everyone should wear a suit to church.

(06-26-2015 03:00 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 02:52 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Don't know of any churches that turn away sinners. Kind of goes against their business model.

I Know of multiple churches that have denied someone membership based on their sexual orientation. It all goes down to belief. Some see homosexuality as an egregious or heinous violation of God's law, and refuse to accept them on that belief.

The thing is, just based on their own beliefs, you would rarely see a homosexual person attempt to join such a church because they know what that church believes.

Sadly, I still know of churches who would not marry an interracial couple, and those bans were struck down 50 plus years ago.

Denying membership is fine. Lot of reasons for doing that. Turning someone away at the door is different. Everyone inside is another sinner.

(06-26-2015 03:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 02:33 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Don't lie to yourselves. Suits are being readied against churches.

Everyone should wear a suit to church.

So you wouldn't like Jesus showing up at yours?

(06-26-2015 03:12 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 03:00 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 02:52 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Don't know of any churches that turn away sinners. Kind of goes against their business model.

I Know of multiple churches that have denied someone membership based on their sexual orientation. It all goes down to belief. Some see homosexuality as an egregious or heinous violation of God's law, and refuse to accept them on that belief.

The thing is, just based on their own beliefs, you would rarely see a homosexual person attempt to join such a church because they know what that church believes.

Sadly, I still know of churches who would not marry an interracial couple, and those bans were struck down 50 plus years ago.

Denying membership is fine. Lot of reasons for doing that. Turning someone away at the door is different. Everyone inside is another sinner.

Denying membership in some churches is the equivalent of turning them away at the door because of the requirements to stay in the church would be that they were working to overcome their "issues"

Some churches follow the "You're free to come here and repent, but don't bother if you don't plan on repenting" practice.

(06-26-2015 03:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 02:33 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Don't lie to yourselves. Suits are being readied against churches.

Everyone should wear a suit to church.

I don't see lawsuits off this yet. I do agree that this issue is going to come up in multiple state legislatures very quickly to make sure churches have the right to decline the use of their building. Clergy can't be sued if I remember the law correctly, so that shouldn't be an issue.

(06-26-2015 03:03 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 02:36 PM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  From Roberts dissent:

“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. Indeed, 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.”

That part is troubling.

Not to me, since I strongly believe that all churches should pay taxes.

Tax and spender, huh? This is my shocked face...

(06-26-2015 03:19 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 03:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 02:33 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Don't lie to yourselves. Suits are being readied against churches.

Everyone should wear a suit to church.

I don't see lawsuits off this yet. I do agree that this issue is going to come up in multiple state legislatures very quickly to make sure churches have the right to decline the use of their building. Clergy can't be sued if I remember the law correctly, so that shouldn't be an issue.

You're clearly not lookin very hard. Or, did those wedding cake and photographer stories just magically appear out of thin air?

(06-26-2015 03:14 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 03:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 02:33 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Don't lie to yourselves. Suits are being readied against churches.

Everyone should wear a suit to church.

So you wouldn't like Jesus showing up at yours?

Jesus isn't gay

(06-26-2015 03:44 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 03:14 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 03:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 02:33 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Don't lie to yourselves. Suits are being readied against churches.

Everyone should wear a suit to church.

So you wouldn't like Jesus showing up at yours?

Jesus isn't gay