I favor both gay marriage and religious institutions losing their non-profit designation.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921622&forum_id=2#28215912)

BAM IN YOUR FACE

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921622&forum_id=2#28216267)

The same logic applies to churches which are essentially government funded (charitable donation deduction + tax exempt). You can do almost anything you want without losing your tax status. But discriminating against a protected class isn't one of those things. I'll cite the code provision if you want.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921622&forum_id=2#28215984)

You can create a church, be tax exempt and refuse to perform non-WGWAG marriages. All you need is a sincere and deeply held religious belief that wgwag is holy.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921622&forum_id=2#28216676)

The problem is though that you are performing a state action when you actually officiate a wedding. It has a legal effect outside of any religious significance. I agree that currently under 1A law they won't force a church to do it. I just don't think that can possibly last.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921622&forum_id=2#28216119)

http://www.amazon.com/Asperger-Syndrome-Explained-Communicate-Relationships-ebook/dp/B00KON0GBQ/

You're caught up in some "in the moment" case law pissing match, and I'm talking about the social and legal trends that overthrow precedent over the course of decades.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921622&forum_id=2#28216179)

Stop trying to predict political and ideological change on shit that hasn't happened based on past occurences with new twists of the same bullshit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921622&forum_id=2#28216294)

> Stop trying to predict political and ideological change on shit that hasn't happened based on past occurences with new twists of the same bullshit.

Sorry to break this to you, but you just described a very fucking robust prediction model since the civil rights movement.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921622&forum_id=2#28216322)

But surely you get that this is a bad law. That's another one that will go down. There is no logic to that whatsoever. There can't be a "Catholic" hospital. The entity itself that doesn't pay taxes doesn't give a shit about Catholicism.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921622&forum_id=2#28216142)

But those rights are rock fucking solid and will be when we die. The more likely eventual scenario is that we someday decide to amend the constitution to outlaw religion. But even that isn't happening in our lifetimes unless the world devolves into all out religious war.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921622&forum_id=2#28216638)

So fucking what?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921622&forum_id=2#28216731)

What's next? They could go after criminalizing traditional definitions of consensual sex. They could take down religious institutions. They could attack corporate America.

And the best way to go about taking down religions is to put them at a severe competitive disadvantage by restricting access to federal subsidies.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921622&forum_id=2#28216833)

That's not how shit happens.

Keep it up and it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921622&forum_id=2#28216841)

lol.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921622&forum_id=2#28216175)

2) You have the option of converting.

3) These practices will be threatened. Again, I think the progressive ideas are right so I don't mind it as much, but libs definitely lie to the public about the consequences and directions of their actions.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921622&forum_id=2#28216168)

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-556q1_6k47.pdf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921622&forum_id=2#28222133)

I would be shocked if, in our lifetimes, the Supreme Court of the United States of America legally forced mainstream religious denominations in the United States to perform SSM marriage ceremonies (including by indirect but practically effective measures such as denying churches tax exempt status if they don't toe that line).

Having said that, I would also be shocked if a bunch of wishy-washy liberalish Protestant and Jewish denominations *didn't* voluntarily choose to do so, and these defections will only make the hardline holdouts look even more out of touch to young people in the country, further contributing to a steady erosion in faith across the board. Hardcore Evangelicals will probably survive, because they're all nuts to begin with, but the tenets of Catholicism will not change (they can't--there would be mass revolts throughout the third-world, which is where the real future of the Catholic Church lies), and as a result Catholicism will eventually more-or-less die out in America. That will present problems when Catholic-run hospitals, shelters, and schools begin to close. I think the most interesting question is how Mormonism will deal with this issue in the long run.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921622&forum_id=2#28216436)

The biggest change is going to be to the gays that have to now go through the real challenge of divorce.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921622&forum_id=2#28216516)

Sorry, when I talk about "Catholics," I'm referring to people who actually go to mass at least once every few weeks, go to confession at least once a year, give a shit on some level about stuff that is actually related to the doctrines of Catholicism (other than celebrating Christmas and, perhaps, Easter), and possibly even donate meaningful amounts of money to the Church. I would wager that right now, in 2015, a huge plurality of American "Catholics" fail that very basic test.

A country filled with C&E 'Catholics' who never even bother to go to mass = Catholicism is dead.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921622&forum_id=2#28216527)

That's bullshit. Vatican II was actually a BFD in many American communities back in the 60s. A lot of churches maintained Latin masses for the substantial number of hold outs who thought the Pope had gone soft and refused to even attend a mass celebrated in English. That's true dogmatism right there.

Try to imagine 90% of American Catholics even giving a fuck about anything like that today, let alone being actively pissed about it. Times really have changed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921622&forum_id=2#28216556)

So you're now agreeing with me that the nature of American Catholicism has changed radically over the course of the last 70 years (which necessarily means, e.g., that it wasn't already "dead" 70 years ago)?

Here's a protip from one catty querrulous internet fag to another: figure out your position is before you start debating, and then try to stick with it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921622&forum_id=2#28216628)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921622&forum_id=2#28216639)

And as usual, you strike me as a genuinely unintelligent human being.

But thanks, I'll still take that as a compliment coming from you.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921622&forum_id=2#28216648)

I don't deny the charge.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921622&forum_id=2#28216719)

That's kind of what I imagine. They're also a young, America-centered religion. I think in the long run they'll even go full shitlib if need be.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921622&forum_id=2#28216546)

Right, when it comes to doctrinal matters, SCOTUS gets to decide what is "constitutional," and for Catholics, the Pope gets to decide what is "Christian."

SCOTUS says that sodomy and gay marriage are both constitutional, and the Pope says that neither is a legitimate Christian practice that can be recognized by Catholic institutions.

You: Some loser on the internet with no power to decide shit for anyone, whining impotently about the Pope's definition of Christianity.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921622&forum_id=2#28216612)

Do you ever respond intelligently to anything? What the fuck does this have to do with this subthread?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921622&forum_id=2#28216690)

Let me give you a hint: we're talking about the policies governing the operation of Catholic institutions in this subthread, not the Catholic Church's position on the status of individual Catholics who sin in God's eyes.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921622&forum_id=2#28216729)

Thanks, this was responsive.

(Let me save you the trouble of posting: "I'm not going to waste my time responding to retards.")

OK, we can end the conversation here.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921622&forum_id=2#28216805)

You are correct though, the pope is definitely more influential than me

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921622&forum_id=2#28216672)

Jesus would have found it "abhorrent" for a Church to refuse to perform same-sex religious marriage services?

Jesus would have found it "abhorrent" for a Church-run hospital to refuse to kill 8-month-old babies in utero?

Jesus would have found it "abhorrent" for a Church to shut down the public houses of worship and hospitals that it ran before capitulating to the demand of a secular government that it take the aforementioned actions?

You seem to have a solid grasp on the Christian Bible. Thanks for clarifying Jesus's position on these issues for me.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921622&forum_id=2#28216711)

So let me get this straight--you're envisioning a world where the U.S. government is simultaneously trying to force gay marriage ceremonies in Catholic Churches using the power of the state while *not* demanding that Catholic-run hospitals provide abortion and birth control? Serious question. Because I'm pretty sure that as of Friday, SSM, abortion access, and reproductive rights have all been declared "fundamental rights" under the DPC of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by the highest court in the land. So I'm trying to understand how you're envisioning this hypothetical playing out.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921622&forum_id=2#28216750)

I'm clearly stupid, so please break this down for me like I'm five. Seriously.

1. You are positing a future world where the Catholic Church loses its tax-exempt status because it refuses to perform SSM marriage ceremonies in Catholic facilities. Am I on the right track so far?

2. Simultaneously, in this same future world, Catholic-run hospitals across the country nevertheless retain their tax-exempt status--despite a stalwart refusal to provide birth control and/or abortion access to patients--because, uh, something. Is this correct?

I think we may be talking past each other, because I cannot conceive of a world where both of those conditions coexist for any meaningful amount of time together.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921622&forum_id=2#28216795)

Gotcha, thanks.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921622&forum_id=2#28216814)