I guess then I don't really understand your point. Books have been written and courses been taught on this one sentence in the constitution, but as I understand it, the conflict of he First Amendment is balancing "establishment" vs. "free exercise." Establishment meaning the government shouldn't favor one individual faith and free exercise meaning the government can't limit how individuals practice.

 

As I understand your argument, the bolded above completely counters it. You seem to be saying that down the road the government can withhold tax exempt status or impose a tax in order to indirectly force churches to do whatever they wish. By attempting to move pieces, the legislature would essentially be establishing he church of the US which isn't allowed, and violates the free exercise by telling individuals what they have to do.

 

I am asking you if free exercise means/includes the "Church" gets tax exempt status and that, that tax exempt status is an absolute right of the Church under the 1st Amendment?

And that's the fault of churches how? So your argument for non-tax exempt status is because the nation spends more than it takes in so churches should be taxed?:no:

 

Not at all Big, you are way off course.

I am asking you if free exercise means/includes the "Church" gets tax exempt status and that, that tax exempt status is an absolute right of the Church under the 1st Amendment?

 

Yes because then the Church could influence religion through the tax code and in turn create a state religion.

Yes because then the Church could influence religion through the tax code and in turn create a state religion.

 

I am not being confrontational but that sounds like an opinion.

 

Would you please point (link) me to the legal basis for your belief?

I am asking you if free exercise means/includes the "Church" gets tax exempt status and that, that tax exempt status is an absolute right of the Church under the 1st Amendment?

 

I don't know the answer to that, but I'm sure you could find law review articles arguing each way. I'm on my phone and hope to give you a better answer later.

 

Essentially, I think you're looking at the wrong prong of 1st Amendment analysis. By not taxing churches, the government stays out because any decision they make aside from that they run the risk of violating the Establishment Clause by either directly or indirectly forcing a church how to act. That seems to me to be a first line of defense for churches.

 

To stretch out the hypothetical to deal with free exercise to tax a church and stay compliant with the Establishment Clause, I would guess there would have to be a some sort of tax applicable to all churches, because any sort of tax break, loophole, or special circumstance would go back and violate the Establishment Clause. This would then open up a can of worms if individual churches would have to shut down or insist on compulsory collections.

 

Regardless, if churches lost their tax exempt status per se, wouldn't they they be considered non profit or not for profit?

 

All of this considered, Congress would have to pass a bill to get this ball rolling so the chances of that getting through while simultaneously being able to pass muster with the Supreme Court are in my opinion as slim as it gets.

I will wait for more from you or anyone else that wants to weigh in.

 

Thanks.

As to the original subject. I never cared one way or the other.

 

I believe I voted for it, when it was on the ballot, here. I've always considered a marriage license as a legal contract, registered with the government. I keep the religious aspect separate. For me to believe otherwise would make me a hypocrite, because I was not married in a church or by a member of the clergy.

 

I'm available for stoning on request.