So When Did YOU Come Around on Same-Sex Marriage?

[bookgirl]

Churches could lose tax exemption over gay marriage
By Daniel John Sobieski


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...xemption_over_gay_marriage.html#ixzz3efvgMpMz

Did you realize you posted the same thing twice.

While the author may have published some actual articles with news outlets in the past this is just an opinion he wrote and published on a blog. And it's all based on the fact that one guy said DISCRIMINATION would be an issue to look at, that they would have to look at the issues of recognizing the marriage, and whether or not THAT would be an issue. You can think that interracial marriage is against the laws of god but you're not allowed to discriminate against a couple who is. Same with same sex marriage. You don't have to agree with it, but if you discriminate against people who are than yeah, that's an issue.

 

[TeresaNJ]

I don't consider President Obama's Solicitor General "one guy".

 

[SirDuff]

I don't consider President Obama's Solicitor General "one guy".

The question he was responding to involved a SCHOOL not a CHURCH. And that example has already been raised here (as something that could, potentially, affect other schools and non-church religious places). Not sure how that quote could be turned into him saying that churches are at risk?

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

My response to the author of the quoted article appears in red.

Churches could lose tax exemption over gay marriage
By Daniel John Sobieski
Lost in the celebrations over universal gay marriage, like abortion, being deemed a right found in the “penumbras and emanations” of the Constitution is the chilling effect the ruling has on religious liberty. In a telling exchange between the Obama administration’s Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. and Justice Samuel Alito, detailed by Tom Blumer at Newsbusters.com, in which Verrilli admitted that churches could lose their tax exemptions if they refuse to perform gay weddings:

Hogwash!!!!! He admitted no such thing as we shall see below.

Justice Alito: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to taxexempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-*** marriage?

General Verrilli: You know, I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is it is going to be an issue.

Bob jones university is a university, not a church. Alito's hypothetical question specifically references a college not a church.

So the administration admits that the tax exemption of institutions could be at risk if they refuse to acquiesce in the acceptance of gay marriages. There is no reason to assume that this mandate would not apply to institutions such as the Catholic Church.

There is no reason to assume it would either. And the author has the burden of proof. All he offers up is a non-sequitur. Therefore Contrary to what was stated earlier the solicitor General did not admit that it would apply to the church. He admitted it might apply to a college.

 

[disneyfantotheend]

I was never against it, but I did feel slightly uncomfortable around gay people when I was younger. But then we had a very dear friend who came out, so to speak. I know how much her and her now wife love each other and seeing them together makes me smile. I am very happy to say that my kids were young when this happened, so they have always been accepting.

 

[sk!mom]

If we're going to start quoting random bloggers as truth and fact, here's some internet reviews of American Thinker...

From Huffington Post: "American Thinker is your garden-variety right-wing site for people who believe Jesus personally hand-delivered the Constitution to the founding fathers."

From RationalWiki: "
American Thinker (affectionately nicknamed "American Stinker" by its fans) is an online wingnut publication that's more or less the poor man's WND or Newsmax. They've published articles by such conservative luminaries as Noel Sheppard (NewsBusters) and Pamela Geller and such climate experts as S. Fred Singer and Christopher Monckton, as well as an interview with (and hagiography of) white nationalist Jared Taylor.[2]

The magazine, of course, is chock-full of right-wing conspiracy theories, woo, and pseudoscience. On the conspiracy side, they promote birtherism, "creeping sharia," red-baiting, and still occasionally prattle on about Vince Foster. On the science side, they concentrate on creationism and global warming denialism."

From Babble on, Babylon:
American Thinker, Ready-made Propaganda For The Ditto Head Conservative

So, yeah...consider the source. Lots of fear mongering going on among conservatives with this Supreme Court decision.

 

[ashley0139]

The problem is it's impossible to argue with such non-logic. When people have been indoctrinated with this kind of thinking and fear mongering, it's very hard to overcome.

 

[TeresaNJ]

So you're all calling Solicitor General Verrilli a ditto head right wing conspirator?

 

[SirDuff]

So you're all calling Solicitor General Verrilli a ditto head right wing conspirator?

Who said that? Or even implied it?

Are you going to acknowledge that what he said had nothing to do with churches?

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

So you're all calling Solicitor General Verrilli a ditto head right wing conspirator?

I never said anything of the sort. What I said is the Solicitor General never said churches could lose their tax exemption over Gay Marriage. And I proved it.

To quote it again.

Justice Alito: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to taxexempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-*** marriage?

General Verrilli: You know, I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is it is going to be an issue.

Bob Jones is a university, not a church. Alito's hypothetical specifically referenced universities, not churches.
Thus, the solicitor general never said that churches could lose their tax exemption over Gay Marriage.

 

[ZephyrHawk]

Wow, that's an interesting thing on the internet which seems unlikely to me. I shall google the source!

Oh, it's not a legitimate news source, its a right-wing propaganda site. Look! It's even got a funny nickname! How cute!

Now, that being said, I will confirm that the quoted language does appear to be legit. A search of respectable news sources will bring up the following:

During oral arguments in March, Justice Samuel Alito compared the case to that of Bob Jones University, a fundamentalist Christian university in South Carolina. The Supreme Court ruled in 1983 the school was not entitled to a tax-exempt status if it barred interracial marriage.

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., arguing for the same-sex couples on behalf of the Obama administration, said,”You know, I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is –it is going to be an issue.” Here are the key excerpts on religious liberty from the Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage, The Washington Post, June 26, 2015, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-the-supreme-courts-decision-on-gay-marriage/.​

So, there you go. That's how you cite a reputable source. Now we can discuss the merits of what was being said. But I'd rather discuss a related question (provided the thread remains open and everyone remains civil): Why do churches deserve tax exempt status?

 

[bcla]

General Verrilli: You know, I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is it is going to be an issue.

Bob jones university is a university, not a church. Alito's hypothetical question specifically references a college not a church.

So the administration admits that the tax exemption of institutions could be at risk if they refuse to acquiesce in the acceptance of gay marriages. There is no reason to assume that this mandate would not apply to institutions such as the Catholic Church.

There is no reason to assume it would either. And the author has the burden of proof. All he offers up is a non-sequitur. Therefore Contrary to what was stated earlier the solicitor General did not admit that it would apply to the church. He admitted it might apply to a college.

I've brought up Bob Jones University in these threads on SSM. Of course their issue with their tax exempt status was that as a nonprofit educational institution, they simply weren't allowed to penalize a student or graduate for interracial dating or marriage. They are of course a religious affiliated school, but the federal regs on tax status weren't specifically about religion but about education. They are not specifically a church.

It's wild speculation to believe that churches will be penalized for not performing SSM. Churches have a ton of leeway to do what they believe without losing their tax exempt status. The Westboro Baptist Church somehow manages to keep its tax exempt status.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

It's wild speculation to believe that churches will be penalized for not performing SSM. .

Welcome to the Dis. Where wild speculation is king.

 

[1001 Ghosts]

So you're all calling Solicitor General Verrilli a ditto head right wing conspirator?

That's a straw-man argument if there ever was one.

On the other hand, I'm unambiguously calling Newsbusters (the source of your 'argument') a ditto head right wing organization if there ever was one, and moderates from both sides of the political aisle politely laugh and snicker when an extremist tries to cite them as credible.

 

[Maleficent Dragon]

The problem is it's impossible to argue with such non-logic. When people have been indoctrinated with this kind of thinking and fear mongering, it's very hard to overcome.

 

[Hisgirl]

Fascinating read from Canada: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14899/

 

[bcla]

Fascinating read from Canada: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14899/

Published by the Witherspoon Institute. No more needs to be said.

 

[Missy1961]

So you're all calling Solicitor General Verrilli a ditto head right wing conspirator?

No, but the source you quoted is.

 

[aristocatz]

Fascinating read from Canada: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14899/

Fascinating in what way? I would say "predictable" would be a better adjective. This is an anti-gay marriage organization with alot of skepticism in the accuracy of their data. I think if you are looking for a fascinating study on the subject, your best bet would be to seek a reputable peer reviewed journal, who does not have any blatant biased motives.

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

One day people will read this new decision and wonder what all the fuss was about. Looking back at some of the landmark decisions made by our Supreme Court over the years can certainly bring those emotions. I have no doubt it will be the same for them in years to come.