Are churches really entitled to tax exemption and...?

Charitable organizations do not have to pay taxes on the money that is donated to them. One of the conditions of this exeption is that they are not allowed to spend their donated money in an attempt to influence legislation.

While church MEMBERS can donate all they like, the church itself is not allowed to participate in any way according to the IRS tax code 503(c). Several Catholic churches, and the Mormon church donated a few thousand dollars (the Mormon MEMBERS donated millions, but the tax exempt church itself DID donate too).

So, some people are calling for these churches to lose their tax exempt status since they weren't allowed to do donate.

As far as denying marraiges, I heard that same rumor that a church in Mass was denied tax exemption because it refused to perform a gay wedding. I'm not sure I believe it though, it may be similar to the "if gays can get married they'll teach sodomy in schools" arguement.

What about the other Religious organizations that supported Proposition 8? They include the Roman Catholic Church, Knights of Columbus, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, a group of Evangelical Christians led by Jim Garlow and Miles McPherson, American Family Association, Focus on the Family and the National Organization for Marriage. Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church, California's largest, also endorsed the measure. The Bishops of the California Catholic Conference, the Grossmont Union High School District in San Diego County, California, and the Asian Heritage Coalition. There is nothing banning church's from petitioning propositions. It is petitioning for individuals who are campaigning for an office that a church may not do. When it is a moral issue, a church has the right to petition for, or against, it. Plus the LDS church did not get up in the meetings and rail against the idea, it just suggested following the Church standards, but each individual was able to decide for themselves how to vote. And, believe it or not, there were members who supported the 'no' side, donated to it and voted no. And, the 'no' side actually took in more money than the 'yes' side did. Taking the tax exemption away from the Church opens it to individual campaigns. How would you like it if the church dictated who would be congressman, senator or even president? That is what you would have if the churches were taxed. And you know that the majority of the members would probably vote in a like manner that their churchs endorsed.

Since refusal of certain behaviors does not take away an organizations 501(c) nonprofit status, you cannot remove their tax exempt status based on this. There are many other organizations that are tax exempt, any that carries a 501(c) nonprofit, and guess what they can be for men or women only, animals, people of a specific ethnic background etc. This does not even have anything to do with the supposed separation of Church and state. It seems as though people will think up anything to attempt to argue their cause no matter how unfounded the argument.

No, it is not a valid concern. There are ways in which a church can lose its tax exempt status, but none of them include refusing to preform a wedding ceremony - no matter what its reasons for doing so are. The only way the government could claim that a church would be obliged to observe an "equal opportunity policy" is if the church were receiving Federal funding -- which in itself is prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Freedom of religion is a tricky thing because freedom of religion doesn't allow a group to break the laws of the country.

It doesn't really apply to this situation because they wouldn't be forced to marry gays. It would just be the government marrying gays. People saying that it would are just people lying to get you to be against homosexuality, making you believe that it actually poses a threat to the church. The government would by no means force the church to marry gays. As an exclusive club, the church is free to be as bigoted as they want, as long as they don't break any laws.

But basically, if a religious belief goes against the law, it is no longer protected by the government. For example, if your religion says it's ok to go around killing infidels, that is not protected by the government, or if your religion says that polygamy is ok, that is not protected by the government.

I think the tax exemption should end. Religion rakes in Billions and Billions of dollars every year. Those TV preachers are millionaires. Many have 3-4-5 houses, drive the best cars money can buy. They cry poverty and live like rich kings.

That is a false argument used by people who are already bigoted against gay people.

Right now, a priest or pastor of any church can deny marriage to any couple. If gay people were allowed to get married, this would not change.

It's one more scare tactic by the radical conservatives and evangelicals who seem to be willing to commit any false witness necessary to preven gay people from having the same rights as heterosexuals.

yes they do have tax exemptions they do not have to pay property taxes either and they still ask for money and then they go as far as to put their rules in our government that we the PEOPLE pay for even the gays and they have to live with the fact that in order to marry the one they love they have to move away from family and our country did you also know in florida gays can not adopt either so they cant get married and if a kid wants to get adopted and have a family and a gay man wants to adopt a kid he can not we need to get them out of our government im cool if we do that and they can keep the tax exemptions

I do not believe that the government should force the churches to do anything as long as they stay out of the government (and no, I do not think that refusing to allow people to do things in their church that go against their beliefs is interfering in the government).

If they provide a social service without getting involved in politics, they are allowed tax exemption. However, if they get involved in politics, they should be taxed, like all other political action committees (PACs).