Is it possible for the US gov to mandate Catholic church to ordain woman?

  • Thread starter Thread starter joclucsylv
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Scott_Lafrance said:
Health insurance is a product and the federal government has the authority to ensure that all of the commerce applications between states are observed and are fair. There is nothing in the constitution that authorizes the federal government to establish WHAT is required, only that the products do not violate the Constitution.
Click to expand...
👍
 
royal_archer said:
I think it is only a matter of time before we see the government try to force female ordination claiming they are not trying to change the way we worship they are only forcing inclusion. The method of enforcement will likely be through the tax code by pulling the charitable tax status of any church that is not open and inclusive. they may even one day declare the church a hate group and attempt to label members of the church terrorist since they advocate a possition the left defines as hate (or in other words, dares to oppose the left). At that point you may see them using the patriot act or equivalent future legislation against us.
Click to expand...
You are correct. Here, the atheists and homosexual activists (who overlap in political positions, as well as membership) are already demanding that local governments withdraw exemptions on local taxes and property taxes on the grounds for those churches that don’t allow women or homosexual clergy or gay marriages, on the grounds that such churches are acting against social policy and are discriminatory. There is also pending legislation to declare that churches that invite members of the public to services, etc., are “public accommodations” and thus must allow same-sex ceremonies on their properties.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Health insurance is a product and the federal government has the authority to ensure that all of the commerce applications between states are observed and are fair. There is nothing in the constitution that authorizes the federal government to establish WHAT is required, only that the products do not violate the Constitution.
Click to expand...
You must not have gotten the memo that the government can regulate food you grow and consume yourself under interstate commerce, thanks FDR!
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Health insurance is a product and the federal government has the authority to ensure that all of the commerce applications between states are observed and are fair. There is nothing in the constitution that authorizes the federal government to establish WHAT is required, only that the products do not violate the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Elastic clause. 🤷
 
Geist said:
The Congress can do as it pleases clause. The only counterweight is the SC…and they aint batting a high average at striking down unconstitutional laws lately.
Click to expand...
The first time I read that I thought you were talking about South Carolina!:eek: You may be right; It may be time for a new nullification controversy.:rotfl:
 
Glen_Ellen said:
Here, the atheists and homosexual activists (who overlap in political positions, as well as membership) are already demanding that local governments withdraw exemptions on local taxes and property taxes on the grounds for those churches that don’t allow women or homosexual clergy or gay marriages, on the grounds that such churches are acting against social policy and are discriminatory.
Click to expand...
Could you provide a citation for this? I have never heard the argument made that discrimination was grounds for removal of religious tax exemptions.
There is also pending legislation to declare that churches that invite members of the public to services, etc., are “public accommodations” and thus must allow same-sex ceremonies on their properties.
Click to expand...
That’s just silly. Are you sure it’s not just a rumour?
 
Nicko said:
…
That’s just silly. Are you sure it’s not just a rumour?
Click to expand...
This is not that far-fetched. The ACLU tried to get the Boy Scouts declared a public accommodation because there is a law that prohibits “public accommodations” from discriminating against the usual protected groups, in this case, homosexuals. See Dale v. Boy Scouts. In fact, by my way of thinking, asking that churches be declared “public accommodations” is less unreasonable than asking that of the Boy Scouts.
 
Nicko said:
Could you provide a citation for this? I have never heard the argument made that discrimination was grounds for removal of religious tax exemptions.
Click to expand...
I don’t have anything right at hand. The argument is being made here, for example, in connection with the City getting rid of real property tax exemptions, which they are already inclined to do because of financial problems. The legal argument relates to what is known as the Bob Jones University case that was a number of years ago. Bob Jones University, a fundamentalist religious university, lost its IRS tax exemption because of its belief that there should not be dating or marriage between races, and that was in their student code of conduct. The IRS revoked their tax exempt status on the ground that its racially discriminatory policies disqualified it as a bona fide charity that should be given tax exempt treatment. Now that same argument is being made as to churches that will not allow gays as members, clergy or to have same sex ceremonies there. Here’s one website that you can go to that has a bunch of stuff on that Bob Jones case: oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_81_3 The U.S. Supreme Court held that the fundamental right not to have racial discrimination overrode the First Amendment protection of religion.

So you can see this coming down the pike in this area as well. The basic premise is that a tax exemption is a privilege given to religious institutions, not a right, and can be revoked by government if it chooses. For example, this is why churches also supposedly cannot engage in partisan political activities, because IRS can revoke their tax exempt status if they do so.
Nicko said:
That’s just silly. Are you sure it’s not just a rumour?
Click to expand...
No, we’re dealing with this right now in our State Legislature. Hawaii passed civil unions legislation last year, without a religious conscience clause for churches or individuals, other than ministers would not be forced to perform civil unions, but it said nothing about churches not having to open their facilities for such ceremonies. Efforts are being made to try to add such language in, but one disturbing thing is I understand that both the Attorney General’s office and the Civil Rights Commission in testimony have taken the position that churches are “public accommodations,” so therefore have to comply with non-discrimination laws.

In case you think this sounds crazy, there is ongoing litigation in New Jersey where the Methodist Church has now been compelled to allow gay marriages on one of their facilities, on two grounds: (1) they had made the facilities open to the public, and (2) had been given a real property tax exemption for the property. Google “Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association case” or for a taste, you can go here: aclu.org/lgbt-rights/judge-rules-favor-same-sex-couple-discrimination-case , or here, npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340

The strategy by the gay activists is two-fold. Either: (1) you must totally open churches to homosexuals, with “equal rights,” or (2) you can no longer make your properties open to the public, including inviting the public to attend your worship services.

This situation is a lot closer to being forced on the churches than people realize.
 
Glen_Ellen said:
I don’t have anything right at hand. The argument is being made here, for example, in connection with the City getting rid of real property tax exemptions, which they are already inclined to do because of financial problems. The legal argument relates to what is known as the Bob Jones University case that was a number of years ago. Bob Jones University, a fundamentalist religious university, lost its IRS tax exemption because of its belief that there should not be dating or marriage between races, and that was in their student code of conduct. The IRS revoked their tax exempt status on the ground that its racially discriminatory policies disqualified it as a bona fide charity that should be given tax exempt treatment. Now that same argument is being made as to churches that will not allow gays as members, clergy or to have same sex ceremonies there. Here’s one website that you can go to that has a bunch of stuff on that Bob Jones case: oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_81_3 The U.S. Supreme Court held that the fundamental right not to have racial discrimination overrode the First Amendment protection of religion.

So you can see this coming down the pike in this area as well. The basic premise is that a tax exemption is a privilege given to religious institutions, not a right, and can be revoked by government if it chooses. For example, this is why churches also supposedly cannot engage in partisan political activities, because IRS can revoke their tax exempt status if they do so.

No, we’re dealing with this right now in our State Legislature. Hawaii passed civil unions legislation last year, without a religious conscience clause for churches or individuals, other than ministers would not be forced to perform civil unions, but it said nothing about churches not having to open their facilities for such ceremonies. Efforts are being made to try to add such language in, but one disturbing thing is I understand that both the Attorney General’s office and the Civil Rights Commission in testimony have taken the position that churches are “public accommodations,” so therefore have to comply with non-discrimination laws.

In case you think this sounds crazy, there is ongoing litigation in New Jersey where the Methodist Church has now been compelled to allow gay marriages on one of their facilities, on two grounds: (1) they had made the facilities open to the public, and (2) had been given a real property tax exemption for the property. Google “Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association case” or for a taste, you can go here: aclu.org/lgbt-rights/judge-rules-favor-same-sex-couple-discrimination-case , or here, npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340

The strategy by the gay activists is two-fold. Either: (1) you must totally open churches to homosexuals, with “equal rights,” or (2) you can no longer make your properties open to the public, including inviting the public to attend your worship services.

This situation is a lot closer to being forced on the churches than people realize.
Click to expand...
There was a case a few years back that didn’t involve a church but an individual. A photographer was sued and had to pay a $5,000 fine because she would not photograph a homosexual “wedding”. scottfillmer.com/2008/07/06/christian-photographer-refused-gay-wedding
 
Yes, similar suits have been brought against florists, wedding cake makers, and also hotels and resorts that have objected to being used for same-sex ceremonies.
 
Glen_Ellen said:
Yes, similar suits have been brought against florists, wedding cake makers, and also hotels and resorts that have objected to being used for same-sex ceremonies.
Click to expand...
As well as the Knights of Columbus for use of their hall. :mad:
 
joclucsylv said:
This HHS mandate has me thinking. Could the government claim that the Catholic church is discriminating against women and make them ordain woman priests?:eek:
Click to expand...
I don’t worry about that as much as the government regulating “hate speech”, which has happened in Canada, or the mandating of Gay Marriage leading to forcing all churches to marry gays. I think this is the next logical step – after all if gays can legally marry, who’s this silly Pope guy to deny them a cathedieral? And if we shouldn’t hate on people, why should people be able to quote such a hateful book as the Bible?
 
=PumpkinSeed;9054313]It says youre a catholic, yet you think women should be able to be priests?
Click to expand...
Blessed John Paul the II is quoted as saying:

“We are NOT saying the Church ‘willnot’ Ordain women; NO; we are saying that the Church ‘CANNOT’ Ordain women.”

HERE’S WHY:
  1. ORDIANTION IS A SACRAMENT INSTITUTED BY JESUS CHRIST AND CANNOT BE OVER-TURNED
  2. PHYSIOLOGY: THE WORDS OF CONSECRATION PREVENT FEMALE GENDER. “THIS IS MY BODY AND THIS IS MY BLOOD” SPOKEN BY JESUS WHO IS MALE GENDER
3 SACRED TRADITION

AMEN!:cool:
 
PJM said:
Blessed John Paul the II is quoted as saying:

“We are NOT saying the Church ‘willnot’ Ordain women; NO; we are saying that the Church ‘CANNOT’ Ordain women.”

HERE’S WHY:
  1. ORDIANTION IS A SACRAMENT INSTITUTED BY JESUS CHRIST AND CANNOT BE OVER-TURNED
  2. PHYSIOLOGY: THE WORDS OF CONSECRATION PREVENT FEMALE GENDER. “THIS IS MY BODY AND THIS IS MY BLOOD” SPOKEN BY JESUS WHO IS MALE GENDER
3 SACRED TRADITION

AMEN!:cool:
Click to expand...
Before you go using that argument with people who disagree with you, I should like to point out that he said that regarding bread and wine which, insofar as i’m aware, are neuter.
😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top