Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (112067)	5/27/2009 7:13:19 PM
From: cosmicforce	Respond to of 541625

>> churches can be as biased as they like<< I'm sure a church could be based upon a religious belief that proclaimed people of color were neither admitted to heaven nor allowed to be members of the clergy. The very worst thing that could happen is that such a church would not be treated as a "real church" and lose their tax exemptions... I've always had a problem with the government deciding who and what is or isn't a church e.g., Branch Davidians, Scientology, Moonies, Hare Krishnas, Rajneeshis, etc. As I said, I don't think any of them should be tax exempt. Their charities, maybe, but the church itself, IMO, should be regulated like any money-gathering enterprise with full disclosure. If they don't disclose, clearly they shouldn't be tax exempt now. JMO. There have been churches that wanted religious protection of drug use - as far as I know only native Americans have pulled this one off and they are not allowed their sacraments off the reservation. Santeria and other religious viewpoints that are not standard have also run into "equal protection" issues.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (112067)	5/27/2009 7:44:25 PM
From: Katelew	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541625

Personally, I'm not fearful or anxious about any of it although I definitely prefer that adoptible children be placed with married heterosexual couples. I was actually responding to Allen's comment about there being no logical basis for denying equal marital status to gay couples and pointed out the precedent established in MA regarding adoptions that followed the legalization of gay marriage. And the fear that existed then in the clergy that other litigation would follow. Most states have circumvented future litigation, for now anyway, with their own ballot initiatives. Either by denying gay marriage and allowing civil unions and/or by making it illegal for adoptions to be placed with single people or unmarried couples. Arkansas did the latter last November. It really is black-letter law unless you can show otherwise. I don't know that there's actual law one way or the other. I assume there's no precedent of individuals forcing themselves onto churches, lol. I think it's always been churches trying to rope in more members, get people to have religious marriage ceremonies, and so on.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (112067)	5/27/2009 8:23:58 PM
From: Katelew	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541625

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Christian Camp Loses Tax-Exempt Status over Same-Sex Civil-Union Ceremony By John Jalsevac OCEAN GROVE, N.J., September 19, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) announced on Monday that it was stripping the Methodist Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of its tax-exempt status for part of its property. The Methodist camp made the news earlier this year after it refused, for religious reasons, to allow a lesbian couple to hold a "civil-union" ceremony at a pavilion on the camp's property. The pavilion, said Scott Hoffman, the camp's chief administrative officer to LifeSiteNews, "is a facility we have used exclusively for our camp meeting mission and worship celebrations since 1869." Until recently the camp held tax-exempt status on its entire boardwalk property under a New Jersey program that gives tax-breaks to organizations that open up their property to the general public. In June, however, Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Pester, a lesbian, filed a complaint with the state attorney general's office on the basis of sexual orientation discrimination, after Ocean Grove refused to allow them to hold their "civil-union" ceremony at the camp's pavilion. A second lesbian couple has also sued Ocean Grove. New Jersey's anti-discrimination laws currently forbid those who "offer goods, services, and facilities to the general public" from "directly or indirectly denying or withholding any accommodation, service, benefit, or privilege to an individual" on the basis of sexual orientation. "It is clear that the pavilion is not open to all persons on an equal basis," DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson, wrote to the camp on Monday, in announcing the DEP's decision to revoke the camp's tax-exempt status. "When people hear the words 'open space,' we want them to think not just of open air and land, but that it is open to all people," Jackson continued. "And when the public subsidizes it with tax breaks, it goes with the expectation that it is not going to be parsed out, whether it be by activity or any particular beliefs." Currently, however, there is some confusion over just how much of the camp's property no longer has tax-exempt status. As such, one homosexual advocacy group is threatening to appeal the DEP's decision, saying that it doesn't go far enough, reports the AP. "We're looking for a bigger victory here," said Steve Goldstein, the chairman of Garden State Equality. "We have the symbolic victory of the state telling Ocean Grove they're wrong, but there is a bigger victory to be had by having the entire tax-exemption removed. We're happy, but there's a lot more happiness to be had." According to the Neptune Township tax assessor, the revocation of the tax-exempt status on the pavilion will only cost Ocean Grove about $175/year, although Scott Hoffman has reportedly issued a statement claiming that the DEP's decision in fact appears to revoke tax-exempt status for "over 99 percent of the land." Hoffman said that Ocean Grove's lawyers are currently reviewing the decision. In August, the Christian camp preempted the complaints currently pending against it by itself suing New Jersey state officials. According to the Alliance Defense fund, which is representing the camp, the attorney general's office is violating First Amendment protections by investigating Ocean Grove. "Religious groups have the right to make their own decisions without government interference," said Brian Raum, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund. "The government can't force a private Christian organization to use its property in a way that would violate its own religious beliefs." See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage: Methodist Camp Meeting Association Sues New Jersey for Civil Union Investigation lifesitenews.com Lesbian Couple Files Complaint against Church for Refusing Civil Union Ceremony lifesitenews.com