It's Getting DARK...U.S. Churces being forced to allow use for homosexuals

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Um. Brittain already talked about this one...He exaplained why they won their case; they took public funds, claimed they were a public space and then tried to bar same sex couples despite taking public funds.

...instead of listening to Brittain, you should read the article he posted - they did NOT take public funds.  Rather, as part of being tax exempt, the state of New Jersey required them to abide by New Jersey's equality laws and drop their religious objects to having homosexual couples from uses their property:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.aclu-nj.org/news/2012/01/13/judge-rules-in-favor-of-same-sex-couple-in-discrimination-case

---

as has been stated many times - church teachings against homosexuality will be attacked based on their tax exempt status.  Brittain, not only doesn't understand the articles he himself posts, he also made my case for me!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

This is somehow dark?

No, this is not dark, this is rule of law.
A dark day would be granting institutions carte blanche to some action with no recourse to the courts.

Sorry about that, "it's getting dark" was a scriptural reference and also is a reference to a thread on the Religion Board.  In fact, I intended to post this thread on that board.  When I make such mistakes, I usually delete the thread and start over on the intended board, but didn't notice my mistake until some people had responded to this thread, so I decided to leave it here.  And I didn't want to ask the extraordinary polite Mods of this board (who, BTW, have been so kind to me in this thread) to move it because I hate those "MOVED' tags and I was already running out of characters in my title.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So you think that religious organisations should be allowed to be excempt from paying income tax

>95% of church's don't have an "income" to speak of...the tax exempt status is really for the benefit of those who give to the church.

But I am more than willing to lose my tax exempt status in order to keep the doors open so that people can come and hear the truth.

---

and exempt from following state and federal equality legislation?  Why should religious choice be valued over equality?

because the founders of this great country considered religious freedom to be the greatest right of all.

That's why the Bill of Rights begins with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

because the founders of this great country considered religious freedom to be the greatest right of all.

That's why the Bill of Rights begins with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

But freedom to what exactly?

I know religion has never been one of your strong points, but it means freedom to believe, to practice, and to preach.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Yes, there is no Constiutional right to tax exempt status, and in my world, churches would have no such exemption actually. But this does not involve religious activity in any event, but rather recreational activity.

regardless, 1) there is legal precendent for homosexuals suing a church for refusing to cater to homosexuals, and 2) there have been cases where the state came after the church for refusing to allow church property to be used for homosexual purposes, and 3) these "gay rights" have been used as a trogan horse to go after churches...basically, everything I have been saying.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Absolutely. That is why I'm working with the Faith in Marriage group to allow the law here in Scotland to recognise gay marriage; these churches and faith groups are being disallowed from paracticing their belief, and their desire to solemnise gay marriages because of the law. The same is true for churches in the USA I am sure.

actually, there are NO LAWS forbidding homosexual marriage services in the USA.  It's just that the majority of states wont recognize these marriages.  But there are no cops standing in the shadows to arrest anyone attempting to "marry" a person of the same sex.

This is NOT a question of practice of gays, but of recognition.

---

How does having the state recognise gay marriage restrict the ability of religion to 'believe, practice, preach';?

does the NJ church in question have the right to stand on their own property during this homosexual service and preach against homosexuality?  Of course they don't, the state has declared they lost that right due to their 501c tax exemption.

---

does having easy divorce restrict the Catholic Church?

as I have pointed out several times in this thread - some groups have respect for the freedom of religion.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

And all of which has been addressed more than once by myself and others. So we as per usual will just have to agree to disagree. Life will go on. Having said that, the notion that gay rights is a "trojan horse" to F with churches is just way, way out there. I would think most gays would think that forcing churches to host gay weddings and your host of horribles is simply bizarre, and certainly not what they want or desire. I bet if you put up a poll on this admittedly very gay friendly site, you would find almost unanimous agreement that churches should not be forced to host gay weddings. Really. Put it up and find out if you want.

doesn't matter what "most gays" think, as it has been clearly demonstrated that it only takes a few arseholes to dump on the freedom of religion through a lawsuit...but you, as a lawyer, seem to ignore that rulings are made based on INDIVUAL cases and the invisible "cases" of the majority of people who don't sue.

you, as a lawyer, seem to be arguing that nothing legally happens unless a majority of a group sue, and therefore you're asking me to whistle past the graveyard.  Then, when it does happen, you'll at first simply say, "Well, they didn't deserve tax exempt status in the first place"...then, when the lawsuits continue even after the 501c exemption has been revoked, you'll change your story and claim, "Well, they had no right to preach that to begin with."  And so you will be fine to have the state dictate what churches can believe, for you already believe the state's version of morality yourself.  

And you yourself will see no problem in denying the freedom of religion, the very pillar of this nation.

"...all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

yo jmf, why do you enjoy doing this for hours on end?

I am beginning to think that he is as stubborn as Bushie, and that's stubborn!  

Then you'll find this fascinating...  (but, comparing me to Bushie is like comparing...)

Reviewing what we know, already from this thread:

1) gay right laws come into effect, being sold to the public on the assump ting they are seaking equality

2) suits have been brought based upon gay rights, against church rights and church property rights, that state gay rights TRUMP the rights of churches...this is the standing federal case law

3) Case law has already declared that the 501c tax exemption places churches 1st and 5th amendment rights BELOW gay rights

now, take a look at the law written in Hawaii:

1) it explicitly exempts members of the clergy from this law.  Why are clergy exempt?  Because members of the clergy do NOT have a 501c tax exemption, rather they pay taxes like any individual.  Therefore members of the clergy can take full use of their 1st amendment rights.

2) the law does NOT exempt churches , rather churches must follow the law.  Why are churches NOT exempt? Because churches are 501c entities, therefore, as has been stating in the standing federal case law, churches' 1st and 5th amendment rights can be trumped.

so, you can see the law in Hawaii iis ALREADY written with the knowledge that federal case law states that churches are NOT exempt due to their rights being weakened by their tax exemption...hence the title of this thread - this law seeks to force churches to conduct homosexual services.

This isn't the jmfcst going off half cocked.  Rather, this is a done deal.  The are LEGIONS of lawyers all over the country preparing for this battle, and the battle lines have already been drawn and the victor has already been declared.  Both sides know EXACTLY how this is going to be fought.

Those familiar with how the battle is to be fought, understand point blank the language of this bill in Hawaii.

---

And now, here's the part you'll find interesting...churches which preach against homosexuality have been repeatedly warned by legal advisors to prepare to survive without their 501c tax exemption.   Churches in debt have been warned to get out of debt, ASAP.

In the case of my church, we issued bonds last summer to church members in order to raise funds to pay off the church's bank note.  The bank note was paid off and the bonds were secured, not by church property, but by the signature of a single trustee - the jmfcst.

So, as of the middle of last year, our church owns it's property free and clear and is totally without collateralized debt - the jmfcst has assumed all responsibility for the churches debt in case the church defaults on its bonds, which will be paid off by the Summer of 2015.  This will allow our church, when the time comes when gay rights are enacted or declared in force by the courts, to be able to survive without a 501c tax exemption.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

why not just accept the gays in your church jmfcst, life would be so much simpler.

this life?

1Cor 15:19 "If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied."


---

This isn't the jmfcst going off half cocked.  Rather, this is a done deal.  The are LEGIONS of lawyers all over the country preparing for this battle, and the battle lines have already been drawn and the victor has already been declared.  Both sides know EXACTLY how this is going to be fought.

to clarify - the church will lose this court battle.  we will be shut down and be forced to go underground.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

jmfcst, please listen to me. What I said was hardly what your describe,

The jmfcst does not wish to listen to you, as that would imply the jmfcst values your opinions and perspectives. The jmfcst is above that. The jmfcst feels that it is far better to set up straw men and preach the jmfcst's paranoid delusions at them.

Dibble, you really need to go back and reread this thread.  You’ll find I understood this case from the beginning.  In fact, I’ll even give you a little inside baseball insight into the NJ case that Brittian brought up but misrepresented…

This rather huge NJ church owned a large piece of land, but not all of it was improved, so the local authorities made them pay property tax on the unimproved portions of the property, only allowing the church to take advantage of their tax exemption for the immediate segment of land their facilities were built on.

So this NJ church, being led by a rather unsophisticated bunch, thought they’d get cute and decided to cut a deal with the gov – they opened a wedding chapel which they would rent out to the public (like a lot of churches do).  Now that this portion of their land was improved, they were eligible to apply their tax exemption to that portion of the property, and thus avoided paying property taxes on it.  But, being unsophisticated, little did they realize that renting it out to the public would open them up to lawsuits charging discrimination, once gay rights became law.

A similar thing happened to our church last year – half of the land we own isn’t improved, and the local authorities attempted to start charging us property tax on the unimproved portion.  But, being a sophisticated bunch and having IQs a whole lot higher than the government, we put our heads together and had our pastor, who just so happens to be the longest tenured pastor in the city, informed the tax agent that he would be organizing a meeting of the pastors of all the local churches (many of which also had unimproved portions of property that could potentially be taxed) to “discuss” the matter.  After we relayed our intentions to summon the political clout of the local Christian community, the gov tax office backed off and reversed its decision – they continued to allow our tax exemption to cover the unimproved portions of our church property.

So, again, you should reread this thread.  You might even learn something from the jmfcst.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You guaranteed your church's finances because you anticipate it being sued into oblivion by gays?

not sure I would describe it that way...rather we made internal arrangements to pay off our bank note for at least two primary reasons:

1) we did NOT want financial obligations to an entity (the bank) backed by the government (FDIC), because once homosexual rights are mandated (either by the legislature or the courts) banks will be required to call in loans made to organizations that "discriminate" against homosexual activities.

2) to get completely out of debt in order to lower our operating costs so that we could remain financially viable when we have to eventually forgo our 501c tax exemption. 

---

So, as you can no see, this is NOT the jmfcst spouting his own fantasies, rather this is a legal battle that has been raging for years, and both sides are organizing financially for the coming legal battle.

In the end, 501c or no 501c, 1st and 5th amendment or no 1st and 5th amendment, we realize this is going to be a losing political and legal battle.  We’re simply trying to prolong the day when we have no church building to meet in.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So you used mob rule to not pay taxes you rightfully owe?

No, we ALWAYS pay the required tax, and it had never been required of us to pay taxes on those properties.  The tax law hadn't changed, rather the tax officials interpretation of the law is what had changed.  So, we announced, in so many tactfully chosen words, our intention to use our constitutional rights to organize politically in order to unseat this tax collector and force him into another line of work...which managed to persuade the tax collector to renounce his newly formed interpretation of the tax code.

See, we actually know the scripture.  We read from it and learn from it.  And just as Paul exercised his rights as a Roman citizen, we also exercise our rights as citizens:

Acts 16: 35 When it was daylight, the magistrates sent their officers to the jailer with the order: “Release those men.” 36 The jailer told Paul, “The magistrates have ordered that you and Silas be released. Now you can leave. Go in peace.” 37 But Paul said to the officers: “They beat us publicly without a trial, even though we are Roman citizens, and threw us into prison. And now do they want to get rid of us quietly? No! Let them come themselves and escort us out.”  38 The officers reported this to the magistrates, and when they heard that Paul and Silas were Roman citizens, they were alarmed. 39 They came to appease them and escorted them from the prison…

As in the case of Paul – a lot of Christians are a lot smarter than you think.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Surely it is clear that jmfcst has a lot of psychological energy invested in believing what he has a need to believe. He needs to believe that persons of faith are under siege, and the barbarians are at the gate. Nothing will dissuade him, not a legal analysis, not a political analysis, not anything.

why do you refuse to acknowledge the handwriting on the wall?  for example, the SCOTUS just heard a case where the lawyers of the Federal Government joined with the ACLU and AUSCS in arguing (though unsuccessfully) that individuals rights against discrimination trump the church’s first amendment rights to choose leaders who agree with church positions.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/hosanna-tabor-evangelical-lutheran-church-and-school-v-eeoc/

The Obama administration actually wanted to force churches to employ whomever the government stated the church should employ, with Obama’s solicitor general filing a brief in this case against the church rights as expressed in the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, and the brief argued that there is no general ministerial exception and that religious organizations are limited to the right to freedom of association that labor unions and social clubs enjoy.

http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2011/3mer/2mer/2010-0553.mer.aa.pdf

This is NOT me being crazy, rather this is well known recent history of the craziness of the Obama administration.  The fact that the ACLU and AUSCS are slime in nothing new, but to think we are actually at the point in time where the sitting POTUS and DOJ would attempt to take away the rights of a church to choose its leaders would have been unbelievable just a few short years ago.

Luckily, in this case,  the lower court’s decision was reversed 9-0. So, regardless of your willful ignorance, the church is being probed in every legal facet in order to take away its right to practice and teach what it believes is the truth.  We are really at that point in time.  And within 10-20 years, maybe sooner, these rights will disappear.

---

I wonder if that extra piece of land is a separate legal parcel. If it is, it clearly is not being used for religious purposes. Land banking does not meet the test. And the Church used its political influence to get out of paying probably some pathetically small amount of property taxes, maybe what, 2 or 3 grand a year?  I would be embarrassed myself.

actually, it is being used for religious purposes as we have youth group activities in that field year around.  And the amount was less than $10k, but it was the principle that was most important.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The first case was a case of first impression, where there was a claim that the ADA laws were violated, and the teacher spent most of her time performing teaching rather than ministerial duties, so the issue was whether or not she was a "minister" given her mixed duties. That suggests to me a rather close case, yet SCOTUS ruled unanimously in the church's favor. On that one, the legal trail should give you comfort rather than feed your paranoia.

oh yeah, I am really comforted by the fact it took the SCOTUS to reverse the ruling and thereby perserve freedom of religion.  I am really comforted by the fact the Executive Branch's DOJ argued that churches should have no more discrimination rights than unions or social clubs.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So jmf, wouldn't it be easier to allow gays to get married in the church than engage in tax dodging?

tax dodging is perfectly legal, you do it every time you check an exemption on your tax return

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/tax-dodge

tax dodge - definition

"a legal way of paying less tax"

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I rest my case as to my little armchair "diagnosis" of you. You see what you want to see...

yep, all of the case law I've mentioned is simply me hallucinating.  People that are against freedom of religion aren't really probing every legal avenue to force churches to accept someone else's version of truth and morality.  In fact, there aren't any people opposed to freedom of religion.

And, don't tell anyone, but I myself wrote the Obama Administrations DOJ brief in order to make Obama look like an enemy of freedom of religion.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So jmf, wouldn't it be easier to allow gays to get married in the church than engage in tax dodging?

tax dodging is perfectly legal, you do it every time you check an exemption on your tax return

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/tax-dodge

tax dodge - definition

"a legal way of paying less tax"

My best advice (yes, I know, your world would be a more perfect place without my advice), is that you use the term "tax avoidance," rather than "tax dodge," which at a minimum has a negative connotation, and according to that certain Ivory Tower known as Cambridge, a negative (aka illegal) denotation.

tax dodge is not a legal term, Seatown may not know that.

also, is that Cambridge Univerisity in England, as in "on the other side of the pond"?...the British definition of "tax dodge" may actually be illegal, but the way it is used in the US press, it isn't, it simply means tax avoidance (legal), as opposed to tax evasion (illegal)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

come to think of it, the example sentence doesn't even have illegal connotations in America:

"Stakeholders pensions have unintentionally provided the wealthy with a useful tax dodge." 

If such a sentence were stated in American press, it would simply mean:

"the laws governing the pensions unintentionally provided the wealthy will a useful tax loophole".

but, you and I seem to be on the same page here, so no worries.  it was just interesting.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Why should the tax code encourage religious organizations to hold unimproved land, tax-free?

Here is a pic to help you understand the situation in our case:



The area I outlined in red is the extent of the entire church property.  As you can see, the building is located on the front (Eastern) portion of the property with the front of the building facing the main road (the other “road” running East and West down the South side of the property is actually unpaved and belongs the adjacent property).

The back (Western) portion of the church grounds I have shaded in the pic, and this is the portion the tax official wanted us to start paying property taxes on.  It is totally inaccessible to the public and is not even adjacent to a public road, and we use it all the time for outdoor church functions.

So, obviously, we laughed at the tax collector’s new interpretation of the tax exemption law and basically told him his interpretation was so idiotic, we were willing to bring the political power of the Christian community together and let the chips fall were they may.

Of course, he backed down.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I like how you concede the 'political power of the Christian community' when it doesn't benefit you to play the victim.

I've never stated the Christian community in the area of Tomball Texas doesn't have political power - a good chunk of the people in the area still go to church regularly. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

whoever advised your church that homosexual rights were going to lead to loans being called in on churches was either dishonest or very naive.

you've obviously never attempted to take out a bank loan for a church...bank loans to churches are NOT easy to come by, to say the least.  most banks don't do them, and the ones that do just do it on the side as a service to the community.

---

Nothing you've said in the past has disturbed me, but knowing that you and your congregation have convinced yourself that because I'm married, I'm going to knock down your church and seize the land for the state, and therefore it's ok to war against me as the enemy, is just poor.

we're simply taking steps to get into a position where our freedom of religion rights are not watered down by present and future 501c and FDIC regulations.  It's not like we're preparing to sue in order to gain usage of property owned by the gay community, nor are we going to sue for the right to work in a gay organization.

we're simply taking steps to make sure we can continue to have the freedom to believe what we want, to preach what we want, control the practices on our church property, and to choose who we want doing church work. 

Heck, even now the board of trusties (myself and two others) have the legal authority to fire our pastor in the event he falls off the turnip truck, though we don't expect we'll ever need to fire him, he's been the pastor of our church since 1979.  But we have the power to replace him, if necessary.  And the other two trusties have the legal authority to kick me off the board if needed.   We have checks and balances throughout our system. That doesn't make us unstable, rather the intent of the checks and balances is to keep a single individual from having the power to control our church.

Likewise, the steps we've taken so that we won't have to rely on 501c and/or a loan from an FDIC bank, are aimed at protecting our rights in order to keep outside groups from taking control of our church.

There's nothing disturbing or scary about it.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Which is probably because most small churches are not big money makers and so it isn't a sound investment for the bank to make and not having anything to do with homosexuality or any other particular religious belief.

If you are worried about churches being denied loans or having their loans called in because of anti-discrimination laws, you should also note that anti-discrimination laws prevent religious discrimination at well. Or do you have some evidence suggesting that those anti-discrimination laws are going to be repealed?

most church loans are a weird thing...they have to be renewed every five years and the church has to go through the process all over again.  So any changes to the law and/or a banks willingness to continue to make church loans, may impact renewal of said loans.  We simply took a completely defensive move to eliminate any of those possibilities. 

And I find it ironic some of you call our moves to cut ties with the FDIC and 501c "extreme" and "disturbing", when many of you are the same ones who complain about church "privilege".  You don't want the government favoring the freedom of religion, let you're disturbed when a church takes purely defensive moves not to have its freedom waterdowned by government strings.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I'm disturbed because you're attributing nefarious motives and intent to me to come destroy your lives when nothing like that has any relation to what I have as a goal in my life.

You're casting me as the villain in your story. I don't care if that's the case in scripture, that's for you and other Christians to work out. I'm disturbed that you're casting me in that role in our secular world.

how did you pull yourself into this picture?  are you also personally offended by the totally defensive nature of the locks on the doors of my house?