Gay advocates fight churches' charity status

[Jo Canadian]

:lol: :lol: Here's a topic that should get some fur flying! :lol: :lol:

Gay advocates fight churches' charity status
Institutions fear losing tax breaks if they oppose same-sex unions; Rightly so, gay-rights group says

Alex Hutchinson
The Ottawa Citizen

June 12, 2005

Churches that oppose same-sex marriage legislation have good reason to fear for their charitable status, a leading gay-rights advocate is warning.

"If you are at the public trough, if you are collecting taxpayers' money, you should be following taxpayers' laws. And that means adhering to the Charter," says Kevin Bourassa, who in 2001 married Joe Varnell in one of Canada's first gay weddings, and is behind www.equalmarriage.ca.

"We have no problem with the Catholic Church or any other faith group promoting bigotry," he said. "We have a problem with the Canadian government funding that bigotry."

Several Liberal backbenchers have been pressuring Prime Minister Paul Martin to amend the controversial gay-marriage bill, which is now before the House, to protect the tax status of churches that refuse to perform such marriages.

Under current rules, donations to religious groups are tax-privileged as long as the church refrains from partisan political activity.

"They can't connect their views with any political candidate," said Peter Broder, the director of regulatory affairs at Imagine Canada, an umbrella organization for charities and non-profit groups.

But the role of the Catholic Church in public debate is legitimate and legal, according to Bede Hubbard, the associate secretary general of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.

"Right from the very beginning, the representatives of the government have called on Canadians to express their opinions," he said. "And certainly, Canadian churches are among Canadian citizens."

Even if the churches are in compliance with tax laws --with or without an amendment to the marriage bill -- they could still be subject to a challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But this is unlikely to succeed, Mr. Broder said.

"It's hard to see how that would happen," he said. "For example, I'm not aware of any religious group having been challenged on their refusal to marry divorced people."

Churches rely heavily on their charitable status to encourage more frequent and more generous donations, according to Janet Epp Buckingham, the director of law and public policy for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.

"The loss the charitable tax status would really affect the ability of these ministries to carry out their functions," she said. "That includes a lot of things that are beneficial to society, like homeless ministries, outreach to the poor, and international development."

As a result, the Evangelical Fellowship favours an amendment to the bill guaranteeing that charitable status will not be challenged-- even though the group opposes the bill as a whole.

"If they're going to redefine marriage anyway, we would like to see these kinds of amendments in the bill," Ms. Buckingham said.

Bonnie Greene, a retired United Church official who specialized in tax issues, said the charitable status of churches is not under any immediate threat.

However, the regulations governing charities are greatly in need of updating, she said.

"In Canadian law, the definition of charitable activity is over 400 years old, based on a legal case in England," Ms. Greene said. "This is not good for democracy in Canada."

 

[bluealberta]

:lol: :lol: Here's a topic that should get some fur flying! :lol: :lol:

Gay advocates fight churches' charity status
Institutions fear losing tax breaks if they oppose same-sex unions; Rightly so, gay-rights group says

Alex Hutchinson
The Ottawa Citizen

June 12, 2005

Churches that oppose same-sex marriage legislation have good reason to fear for their charitable status, a leading gay-rights advocate is warning.

"If you are at the public trough, if you are collecting taxpayers' money, you should be following taxpayers' laws. And that means adhering to the Charter," says Kevin Bourassa, who in 2001 married Joe Varnell in one of Canada's first gay weddings, and is behind www.equalmarriage.ca.

"We have no problem with the Catholic Church or any other faith group promoting bigotry," he said. "We have a problem with the Canadian government funding that bigotry."

Several Liberal backbenchers have been pressuring Prime Minister Paul Martin to amend the controversial gay-marriage bill, which is now before the House, to protect the tax status of churches that refuse to perform such marriages.

Under current rules, donations to religious groups are tax-privileged as long as the church refrains from partisan political activity.

"They can't connect their views with any political candidate," said Peter Broder, the director of regulatory affairs at Imagine Canada, an umbrella organization for charities and non-profit groups.

But the role of the Catholic Church in public debate is legitimate and legal, according to Bede Hubbard, the associate secretary general of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.

"Right from the very beginning, the representatives of the government have called on Canadians to express their opinions," he said. "And certainly, Canadian churches are among Canadian citizens."

Even if the churches are in compliance with tax laws --with or without an amendment to the marriage bill -- they could still be subject to a challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But this is unlikely to succeed, Mr. Broder said.

"It's hard to see how that would happen," he said. "For example, I'm not aware of any religious group having been challenged on their refusal to marry divorced people."

Churches rely heavily on their charitable status to encourage more frequent and more generous donations, according to Janet Epp Buckingham, the director of law and public policy for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.

"The loss the charitable tax status would really affect the ability of these ministries to carry out their functions," she said. "That includes a lot of things that are beneficial to society, like homeless ministries, outreach to the poor, and international development."

As a result, the Evangelical Fellowship favours an amendment to the bill guaranteeing that charitable status will not be challenged-- even though the group opposes the bill as a whole.

"If they're going to redefine marriage anyway, we would like to see these kinds of amendments in the bill," Ms. Buckingham said.

Bonnie Greene, a retired United Church official who specialized in tax issues, said the charitable status of churches is not under any immediate threat.

However, the regulations governing charities are greatly in need of updating, she said.

"In Canadian law, the definition of charitable activity is over 400 years old, based on a legal case in England," Ms. Greene said. "This is not good for democracy in Canada."

Exactly as I have been saying for some time. Until the Gay Lobby and the feds come out and say that the tax exempt status of churches will not be affected, there is always the possibilty of the hidden agenda the libs have beeing implemented. I know that the response will be from some to have tax exempt status eliminated, but that is an unrealistic viewpoint that is designed to deflect from the real issue. Why will not the government commit to no change in the tax exempt status of churches who refuse to perform SS religious marriages?

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Gay advocates fight c

And yet if you've been watching the committee meetings on this (CPAC is carrying them) every time anything similar to this comes up, it is made clear that will not happen because freedom of religion is protected elsewhere in the charter.

It isn't something the government has to commit to. It is something they have no choice in. If they are going to remove tax exempt status, they cannot discriminate on the basis of relgious belief and practice.

 

[no1important]

RE: Gay advocates fight c

I always believed Churches should not have and never have tax exempt status. I applaud the "Gay Lobby" for doing this.

Why should churches who are a bunch of people who discriminate against others under the disguise of religion get any breaks?

So some marriage commissioners got fired for not marrying same sex couples, so what? Its their job, and nothing to do with religion. If I don't do my job, I won't be working at my place of employment very long. In this enlightened modern era, if those marriage commissioners feel they can't do their job (which they are paid to do by tax payers) maybe they should find another form of employment.

Gay marriage is another step to bring equality to non "straight people". Just like "gay bashing" was made a hate crime a few years ago.

Churches will not be forced to marry same sex couples, you know that Blue, so why do you continue with your conservative brainwashing and fear mongering?

Your unfounded fear is yet another reason why people do not vote for the cons..... you guys show how intolerant you really are.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Re: RE: Gay advocates fight c

So some marriage commissioners got fired for not marrying same sex couples, so what? Its their job, and nothing to do with religion. If I don't do my job, I won't be working at my place of employment very long. In this enlightened modern era, if those marriage commissioners feel they can't do their job (which they are paid to do by tax payers) maybe they should find another form of employment.

This is because the Canadian Human Rights Act specifically states that services cannot be denied to a person based upon discriminatory criteria, including sexual orientation.

 

[Knightman]

Exactly as I have been saying for some time. Until the Gay Lobby and the feds come out and say that the tax exempt status of churches will not be affected, there is always the possibilty of the hidden agenda the libs have beeing implemented. I know that the response will be from some to have tax exempt status eliminated, but that is an unrealistic viewpoint that is designed to deflect from the real issue. Why will not the government commit to no change in the tax exempt status of churches who refuse to perform SS religious marriages?

Actually to threaten to remove that tax exempt status of church organizations should really be no threat at all and they still do not have to go against their doctrine and perform ceremonies if they do not wish to, that is violating the rights of the churches. The same evil act in reverse as the gays are complaining about. Why will the governemnt not set this to legislation.? Probably somthing to do with a looming election. Wait till we have a real government, no rush, we have been waiting forty years now.

And yet if you've been watching the committee meetings on this (CPAC is carrying them) every time anything similar to this comes up, it is made clear that will not happen because freedom of religion is protected elsewhere in the charter.

It isn't something the government has to commit to. It is something they have no choice in. If they are going to remove tax exempt status, they cannot discriminate on the basis of relgious belief and practice.

Your correct and they should simply bite the bullet and get it done. Unpopular yes. It will cause many to go kicking and screaming off into the sunset, yes. So be it. I am very suspect of some of the actions of church organizations to begin with and do not believe that they deserve special treatment. That may cut down on the good NGO work that many do, that may be the only real drawback to eliminating tax exempt status.

I always believed Churches should not have and never have tax exempt status. I applaud the "Gay Lobby" for doing this.
Why should churches who are a bunch of people who discriminate against others under the disguise of religion get any breaks? .

I agree with you on this point completely.

So some marriage commissioners got fired for not marrying same sex couples, so what? Its their job, and nothing to do with religion. If I don't do my job, I won't be working at my place of employment very long. In this enlightened modern era, if those marriage commissioners feel they can't do their job (which they are paid to do by tax payers) maybe they should find another form of employment.

If the marriage is a civil venue then that is under the current laws and the ceremony should be done.

Gay marriage is another step to bring equality to non "straight people". Just like "gay bashing" was made a hate crime a few years ago.
Churches will not be forced to marry same sex couples, you know that Blue, so why do you continue with your conservative brainwashing and fear mongering?
Your unfounded fear is yet another reason why people do not vote for the cons..... you guys show how intolerant you really are.

We do not have the right to force a religious group to agree to do anything they do not wish to do, that is massively oversteping the bounds of rights, period. Rights works in both directions, the gay community has the right to marriage, religious groups have the right to not believe in gay marriage and do not have to perform the ceremonies in their buildings. The gays should respect their beliefs and the churches should respect the beliefs of others. For example if a gay couple who attends a catholic church wish to be married they already knew that the catholic church does not support gay marriage and they will have to go to a civil ceremony or change religions/churches. it should not even be a question.

This is because the Canadian Human Rights Act specifically states that services cannot be denied to a person based upon discriminatory criteria, including sexual orientation.

This part of the charter is wrong. Rights work in two directions. It discriminates against the rights of the religious organizations...............

 

[peapod]

yup! you know how to stir the pot Jo canadian :lol:

 

[Vanni Fucci]

This part of the charter is wrong. Rights work in two directions. It discriminates against the rights of the religious organizations...............

Section 1 of the Charter was devised to address this inequity...

If a situation arose where a religious organization has discriminated against a minority group, the Charter would clearly side with the minority group, and the religious organization, in that instance, would have its rights suspended.

Why? Because in allowing the religious organization to descriminate there is a clear victim...the courts would not rule in favour of the religious organization to protect their right to discriminate...

 

[bluealberta]

This part of the charter is wrong. Rights work in two directions. It discriminates against the rights of the religious organizations...............

Section 1 of the Charter was devised to address this inequity...

If a situation arose where a religious organization has discriminated against a minority group, the Charter would clearly side with the minority group, and the religious organization, in that instance, would have its rights suspended.

Why? Because in allowing the religious organization to descriminate there is a clear victim...the courts would not rule in favour of the religious organization to protect their right to discriminate...

But then you are denying the religious groups, any religion, to practice their beliefs without fear of persecution or prosecution. That is also discrimination, and would by your argument not be allowed to exist either.

The point is that churches enjoy a tax free status because of all the charitable work they do, both in Canada and in the world. This was originally done, I believe, because if the churches were taxable, they would have enough documentation of the charitable work they do to reduce their taxes to nothing anyway, so they were given tax exempt status.

Whether anyone thinks churches should be tax exempt is another issue altogether, and really has nothing to do with the threat to have the exemption revoked if they do not perform SSM in their church, even though that SSM would be against their teachings and beliefs. This threat is part of the liberal and left wing hidden agenda to eventually outlaw or destroy religion in Canada. What they will find, however, is this will be the point where citizens will fight back with everything they have, including civil unrest to stop this destructive agenda from being implemented.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

This part of the charter is wrong. Rights work in two directions. It discriminates against the rights of the religious organizations...............

Section 1 of the Charter was devised to address this inequity...

If a situation arose where a religious organization has discriminated against a minority group, the Charter would clearly side with the minority group, and the religious organization, in that instance, would have its rights suspended.

Why? Because in allowing the religious organization to descriminate there is a clear victim...the courts would not rule in favour of the religious organization to protect their right to discriminate...

But then you are denying the religious groups, any religion, to practice their beliefs without fear of persecution or prosecution. That is also discrimination, and would by your argument not be allowed to exist either.

Obviously you're not paying attention...

To deny the religious organizations' their religious freedoms to protect a minorities rights would be a victimless gesture...will the church really try to defend their right to discriminate? Well, come to think of it they probably would, but they would lose...

 

[Reverend Blair]

What they will find, however, is this will be the point where citizens will fight back with everything they have, including civil unrest to stop this destructive agenda from being implemented.

What, are we going to be attacked by the radical fringe of religious groups? What are they going to do, beat us with their crosses? :roll:

 

[Vanni Fucci]

 

[I think not]

No fair, how come we don't have access to these smilies Vanni?

 

[Vanni Fucci]

 

[Knightman]

This part of the charter is wrong. Rights work in two directions. It discriminates against the rights of the religious organizations...............

Section 1 of the Charter was devised to address this inequity...

If a situation arose where a religious organization has discriminated against a minority group, the Charter would clearly side with the minority group, and the religious organization, in that instance, would have its rights suspended.

Why? Because in allowing the religious organization to descriminate there is a clear victim...the courts would not rule in favour of the religious organization to protect their right to discriminate...

It has absolutely nothing to do with the charter. Regardless of what was written as someones idea of a true and just law is still incorrect. We all do have the right to our convictions and do expect all others to respect and uphold those rights as we do ourselves. The gays have rights and the churches have rights as do all other minorities and no one should have the arrogance to expect that they may infringe opon those rights to further their own cause. The gays that are advocating that the churches MUST perform their wedding ceremonies in their churches are dead wrong. and if some piece of legislation upholds that view then it is ill-conceived and misguided.

Freedoms are just that freedoms, radicals can co-exist with the moderates and so on, we may not like someones point of view, practices or faiths but we have no right to forcibly remove those rights or attempt to change their ways so long as they are not directly affecting us or we may forfeit them ourselves..........

 

[Vanni Fucci]

It has absolutely nothing to do with the charter. Regardless of what was written as someones idea of a true and just law is still incorrect. We all do have the right to our convictions and do expect all others to respect and uphold those rights as we do ourselves. The gays have rights and the churches have rights as do all other minorities and no one should have the arrogance to expect that they may infringe opon those rights to further their own cause. The gays that are advocating that the churches MUST perform their wedding ceremonies in their churches are dead wrong. and if some piece of legislation upholds that view then it is ill-conceived and misguided.

It has everything to do with the Charter and the Human Rights Act...there will come a time when society will have to answer for the inadaquacies of religion...but it won't be because a church refused to marry a gay couple...

Human Rights transcends religion, and while an individual will be protected from religious persecution, a religious organization cannot, and should not be able to claim the same freedoms...that was never the intent of the Charter or the Human Rights Act, and even the weak-minded Conservatives know that...

There will come a time...

 

[Knightman]

It has absolutely nothing to do with the charter. Regardless of what was written as someones idea of a true and just law is still incorrect. We all do have the right to our convictions and do expect all others to respect and uphold those rights as we do ourselves. The gays have rights and the churches have rights as do all other minorities and no one should have the arrogance to expect that they may infringe opon those rights to further their own cause. The gays that are advocating that the churches MUST perform their wedding ceremonies in their churches are dead wrong. and if some piece of legislation upholds that view then it is ill-conceived and misguided.

It has everything to do with the Charter and the Human Rights Act...there will come a time when society will have to answer for the inadaquacies of religion...but it won't be because a church refused to marry a gay couple...

Human Rights transcends religion, and while an individual will be protected from religious persecution, a religious organization cannot, and should not be able to claim the same freedoms...that was never the intent of the Charter or the Human Rights Act, and even the weak-minded Conservatives know that...

There will come a time...

I will not argue about the inadequacies of religion/religions/the religious. I am in total agreement that it has caused much more damage to society in general than almost any other human activity. Not being a believer of any sort myself I have little use for the book pounders and all the baggage that come with them. The question is simply about human rights, everyones rights regardless of what they may believe in, their lifestyle choices or whatever it may be. It is about respecting others rights to act and do as they wish without fear. To allow people to carry on thier lives in the way they wish so long as their actions fo not impose itself on others who may not wish to follow that paticular lifestyle choice.

If the Charter and the Human Rights act has within it the ability to allow some to impose their brand of lifechoice on others then it is incorrectly written and needs to be revised. Not used as a shield to force others to conform..................

 

[bluealberta]

So are some of you suggesting that religion be banned in Canada? Why are you not so quick to defend their rights? Or do some of you think that religious organizations should not have any rights?

 

[Jo Canadian]

 

[TenPenny]

One thing you can be sure of: this plays directly into the hands of all of those who fear that allowing same sex marriage is the same as forcing churches to perform same sex marriages.

I can only assume that this whole thing was planted by someone against same sex marriage; only a really, really politically inept person would think this is a good idea.