Unintended consequences of gay marriage?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I dont think the municipality is trying to force Methodists into allowing gay marriage. The municipality is saying, "hey, when we gave you this money, there were certain conditions with which you agreed. If you want to use our free money, you need to abide by the agreement."

I think that is a distinction without a difference. Don't you think I am right that this makes it less likely that private property owners will avail themselves of the this tax break and that as a consequence there will be less public land for everyone to use?

If, for example, the church sought out your counsel and told you it was thinking of availing itself of this tax benefit but was concerned about what kind of things they would have to allow in exchange, what would you advise them? I would tell them that the marginal pecuniary benefit is not worth the lawsuit they are potentially purchasing, not to mention the unfavorable press.

This is why I say it is short sighted for the municipality to proceed in this way, though perhaps under current law they have no choice. It is certainly short sighted on the part of whatever gay rights group is animating this.

[bluegoose]

Originally Posted by exUte

So direct me to the legal code that specifically exempts church's from 'discriminatory' activity.

Originally Posted by exUte

You just said a privately owned piece of property. They were forcing them to conduct something on that private property that the owner did not want to perform.

How about you do your own research on this one. At the very least, read the article that Tex posted.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I think that is a distinction without a difference. Don't you think I am right that this makes it less likely that private property owners will avail themselves of the this tax break and that as a consequence there will be less public land for everyone to use?

If, for example, the church sought out your counsel and told you it was thinking of availing itself of this tax benefit but was concerned about what kind of things they would have to allow in exchange, what would you advise them? I would tell them that the marginal pecuniary benefit is not worth the lawsuit they are potentially purchasing, not to mention the unfavorable press.

This is why I say it is short sighted for the municipality to proceed in this way, though perhaps under current law they have no choice. It is certainly short sighted on the part of whatever gay rights group is animating this.

I agree that it may result in some groups foregoing the tax exemption. It will do little to affect the availability of public land. Where are these private land owners going to get the hundreds of millions of dollars needed to develop their own property?

I would tell the Church to skip the federal money. It doesnt need it and is not part of the Church's current business model. Also, skipping the federal money keeps the Church safely under the First Amendment umbrella. The Church develops all its own land. It doesnt need federal funds. As such, the Church is free and clear from this issue.

I went to the groups website.....i didnt see that it was officially affiliated with the Methodist Church at all. It is run by Methodists, but that is no nexus.