Catholic Church gives D.C. ultimatum

[Intense]

It's comments like that which make me prejudiced against Humans. There is hope yet.

You'll excuse her racism though won't you hypocrite.

What are You Talking about now? You accuse Me of being a Hypocrite. Show Me Who, Where, When , Why.

 

[Intense]

Catholics must lose their tax except status now!

So You are Declaring War on The Constitution?

Reduce Us further into third world status, Ass for brains. The more of the Founding Principles You Deny and defecate on, the more You will pay. Statist Piece of Shit.

No, you misunderstand the poster. It is, apparently, individual Catholics who have exemption from paying tax. 'Catholics' not the 'Catholic Church'. I do hope that terminal stupidity is included under Obama's healthcare policy. Otherwise, there is no hope - the OP will remain stupid for the rest of his/her life.

You are so right. Though considering the big bang We get for Our Buck, We should consider a tax boycott, or charging the Government interest on what We paid for so many times over, and it failed to produce.

Lets get Union out of Government, Government out of the Banks, Give the Rights to People, not Fictitious Entities. I think we should change the rules of Monopoly, just because we can.

 

[Ravi]

I imagine he meant the tax exempt status all churches seem to enjoy.

 

[Smartt33]

Catholic Church gives D.C. ultimatum on same-sex marriage issue - washingtonpost.com

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.

Oh, but it gets more fucked up as to why they are not supporting it:

Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

Catholic Charities, the church's social services arm, is one of dozens of nonprofit organizations that partner with the District. It serves 68,000 people in the city, including the one-third of Washington's homeless people who go to city-owned shelters managed by the church. City leaders said the church is not the dominant provider of any particular social service, but the church pointed out that it supplements funding for city programs with $10 million from its own coffers.

So, What Would Jesus Do?

Discuss.

And my own personal question:

Is The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington returning to the days of old by trying to strong arm people into believing what they say?

While I totally disagree with any bill that wold not allow the church to approve whomever they want to be come members, I also believe the services a church offers should not stop based on such a law. In the community, there cannot be any discrimination given as to who gets help, etc, so serving gays is just as important as serving anyone else.

If the highlighted part, " . But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians" means "they" as the church, and membership etc, I believe that would be unconstitutional. If it means that gays must be included in the community services offered by the Catholic church, then I think the Catholic church should honor that. Equal services.

 

[JenyEliza]

Why worry, they did not recognize the screaming arse ripped children either.

Yeah, they did. They even baptiized them, gave them first communion and soon....will confirm them.

 

[JenyEliza]

Catholic Church gives D.C. ultimatum on same-sex marriage issue - washingtonpost.com

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.

Oh, but it gets more fucked up as to why they are not supporting it:

Catholic Charities, the church's social services arm, is one of dozens of nonprofit organizations that partner with the District. It serves 68,000 people in the city, including the one-third of Washington's homeless people who go to city-owned shelters managed by the church. City leaders said the church is not the dominant provider of any particular social service, but the church pointed out that it supplements funding for city programs with $10 million from its own coffers.

So, What Would Jesus Do?

Discuss.

And my own personal question:

Is The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington returning to the days of old by trying to strong arm people into believing what they say?

While I totally disagree with any bill that wold not allow the church to approve whomever they want to be come members, I also believe the services a church offers should not stop based on such a law. In the community, there cannot be any discrimination given as to who gets help, etc, so serving gays is just as important as serving anyone else.

If the highlighted part, " . But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians" means "they" as the church, and membership etc, I believe that would be unconstitutional. If it means that gays must be included in the community services offered by the Catholic church, then I think the Catholic church should honor that. Equal services.

"Equal services".

Under *what* obligation should the RCC provide "Equal Services"?

The RCC Church is not government. As a religious organization, it is separate from the government (ie, that whole church and state thing the libbies love so much).

Since the RCC is a privately funded religious institution (ie, not funded by taxpayer dollars and not run by elected officials), the RCC is not under the obligation to provide "equal access" or "equal services".

In fact, the Roman Catholic Church it is not required to provide ANY SERVICES to ANYONE. So I'm not sure what you mean by "equal services".

 

[Intense]

Catholic Church gives D.C. ultimatum on same-sex marriage issue - washingtonpost.com

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.

Oh, but it gets more fucked up as to why they are not supporting it:

Catholic Charities, the church's social services arm, is one of dozens of nonprofit organizations that partner with the District. It serves 68,000 people in the city, including the one-third of Washington's homeless people who go to city-owned shelters managed by the church. City leaders said the church is not the dominant provider of any particular social service, but the church pointed out that it supplements funding for city programs with $10 million from its own coffers.

So, What Would Jesus Do?

Discuss.

And my own personal question:

Is The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington returning to the days of old by trying to strong arm people into believing what they say?

While I totally disagree with any bill that wold not allow the church to approve whomever they want to be come members, I also believe the services a church offers should not stop based on such a law. In the community, there cannot be any discrimination given as to who gets help, etc, so serving gays is just as important as serving anyone else.

If the highlighted part, " . But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians" means "they" as the church, and membership etc, I believe that would be unconstitutional. If it means that gays must be included in the community services offered by the Catholic church, then I think the Catholic church should honor that. Equal services.

You are misinformed if You believe that the Catholic Church is discriminating against and refusing Charitable Services to Any Individual or Group based on Prejudice. That is not the case.

 

[JenyEliza]

I imagine he meant the tax exempt status all churches seem to enjoy.

Well, that's *not* what he said is it?

Catholics must lose their tax except status now!

I can't read minds---and you shouldn't either!

 

[JenyEliza]

Catholics must lose their tax except status now!

Only a total idiot would believe that Catholics have tax exemption. That would be you, apparently.

Apparently!

 

[Polk]

Then you aren't much of a Catholic

Question my faith? Take a hike Sunni. We all know you'll agree with the ladies here, especially with your stances towards Gays. I'm sure you would still love to see them all killed.

If you're a Catholic then you accept the teachings of the Catholic Church. I suspect your 'Catholism' is little more than a baptisimal certificate and not based on any real understanding of the doctrines of the Church.

If you are a Catholic, you should know about how much the Church does for the poor across the world.

There is absolutely zero scriptural basis for what the church is doing.

 

[Polk]

I imagine he meant the tax exempt status all churches seem to enjoy.

Well, that's *not* what he said is it?

Catholics must lose their tax except status now!

I can't read minds---and you shouldn't either!

It's called common sense. Use it sometime.

 

[Ravi]

I imagine he meant the tax exempt status all churches seem to enjoy.

Well, that's *not* what he said is it?

Catholics must lose their tax except status now!

I can't read minds---and you shouldn't either!

No...but you're an idiot so I'm not surprised.

 

[Smartt33]

Catholic Church gives D.C. ultimatum on same-sex marriage issue - washingtonpost.com



Oh, but it gets more fucked up as to why they are not supporting it:





So, What Would Jesus Do?

Discuss.

And my own personal question:

Is The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington returning to the days of old by trying to strong arm people into believing what they say?

While I totally disagree with any bill that wold not allow the church to approve whomever they want to be come members, I also believe the services a church offers should not stop based on such a law. In the community, there cannot be any discrimination given as to who gets help, etc, so serving gays is just as important as serving anyone else.

If the highlighted part, " . But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians" means "they" as the church, and membership etc, I believe that would be unconstitutional. If it means that gays must be included in the community services offered by the Catholic church, then I think the Catholic church should honor that. Equal services.

"Equal services".

Under *what* obligation should the RCC provide "Equal Services"?

The RCC Church is not government. As a religious organization, it is separate from the government (ie, that whole church and state thing the libbies love so much).

Since the RCC is a privately funded religious institution (ie, not funded by taxpayer dollars and not run by elected officials), the RCC is not under the obligation to provide "equal access" or "equal services".

In fact, the Roman Catholic Church it is not required to provide ANY SERVICES to ANYONE. So I'm not sure what you mean by "equal services".

I agree that the church is not obligated. What I was trying to get across was that if the church is truly going to serve the community with humanitarian services, they need to be doing it without regard to things like sexual orientation. In other words, if they serve food for the "community" or "needy" they should not withhold it from gays just because they are gay. Same with clothing, health care, shelter, or whatever community services they offer.

That is, of course, not the case where the services are given to members in the church. There are qualifications for membership, and ministry.

I hope that clears it up a little.

 

[Smartt33]

Catholic Church gives D.C. ultimatum on same-sex marriage issue - washingtonpost.com



Oh, but it gets more fucked up as to why they are not supporting it:





So, What Would Jesus Do?

Discuss.

And my own personal question:

Is The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington returning to the days of old by trying to strong arm people into believing what they say?

While I totally disagree with any bill that wold not allow the church to approve whomever they want to be come members, I also believe the services a church offers should not stop based on such a law. In the community, there cannot be any discrimination given as to who gets help, etc, so serving gays is just as important as serving anyone else.

If the highlighted part, " . But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians" means "they" as the church, and membership etc, I believe that would be unconstitutional. If it means that gays must be included in the community services offered by the Catholic church, then I think the Catholic church should honor that. Equal services.

You are misinformed if You believe that the Catholic Church is discriminating against and refusing Charitable Services to Any Individual or Group based on Prejudice. That is not the case.

I am only going by what the original post said. It indicated that the Catholic church will end their services if they have to accomodate gays. I am not saying that is true, I am addressing what I believe should be the case if that were true. I have no idea what the RCC is doing.

 

[Immanuel]

While I totally disagree with any bill that wold not allow the church to approve whomever they want to be come members, I also believe the services a church offers should not stop based on such a law. In the community, there cannot be any discrimination given as to who gets help, etc, so serving gays is just as important as serving anyone else.

If the highlighted part, " . But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians" means "they" as the church, and membership etc, I believe that would be unconstitutional. If it means that gays must be included in the community services offered by the Catholic church, then I think the Catholic church should honor that. Equal services.

You are misinformed if You believe that the Catholic Church is discriminating against and refusing Charitable Services to Any Individual or Group based on Prejudice. That is not the case.

I am only going by what the original post said. It indicated that the Catholic church will end their services if they have to accomodate gays. I am not saying that is true, I am addressing what I believe should be the case if that were true. I have no idea what the RCC is doing.

One would think from reading the OP that it means that they are refusing to serve food and provide other services to gays and lesbians but that is not what I am getting from this. It seems more that what they are balking on is employment discrimination. In other words, the district requiring them to hire gays and lesbians as employees.

Immie

 

[Smartt33]

You are misinformed if You believe that the Catholic Church is discriminating against and refusing Charitable Services to Any Individual or Group based on Prejudice. That is not the case.

I am only going by what the original post said. It indicated that the Catholic church will end their services if they have to accomodate gays. I am not saying that is true, I am addressing what I believe should be the case if that were true. I have no idea what the RCC is doing.

One would think from reading the OP that it means that they are refusing to serve food and provide other services to gays and lesbians but that is not what I am getting from this. It seems more that what they are balking on is employment discrimination. In other words, the district requiring them to hire gays and lesbians as employees.

Immie

If that is the case, I think there are still some pieces of information needed to make a worthy comment. Are we talking about employees who are serving food, clothing, etc., for these community programs, or are we talking about requiring the church to hire gays who will work in the church. If the church believes it is immoral to luive the gay lifestyle, I don't believe the church should be required to hire them. If the church is getting funded by the government, and they don't want to hire gays who live the gay lifestyle, then the church should withdraw from the govrnmrnt funding and do the church ministry themselves without government interruption.

Once again, I do believe the church needs to continue it's ministry to the needy, and just be the church without having to hire whomever the government says they have to.

 

[Immanuel]

I am only going by what the original post said. It indicated that the Catholic church will end their services if they have to accomodate gays. I am not saying that is true, I am addressing what I believe should be the case if that were true. I have no idea what the RCC is doing.

One would think from reading the OP that it means that they are refusing to serve food and provide other services to gays and lesbians but that is not what I am getting from this. It seems more that what they are balking on is employment discrimination. In other words, the district requiring them to hire gays and lesbians as employees.

Immie

If that is the case, I think there are still some pieces of information needed to make a worthy comment. Are we talking about employees who are serving food, clothing, etc., for these community programs, or are we talking about requiring the church to hire gays who will work in the church. If the church believes it is immoral to luive the gay lifestyle, I don't believe the church should be required to hire them. If the church is getting funded by the government, and they don't want to hire gays who live the gay lifestyle, then the church should withdraw from the govrnmrnt funding and do the church ministry themselves without government interruption.

Once again, I do believe the church needs to continue it's ministry to the needy, and just be the church without having to hire whomever the government says they have to.

Don't expect an argument from me because I agree with you.

Immie

 

[Ravi]

Except...the church already hires gays and lesbians. What they don't want to do is extend benefits to their families.

But officials from the archdiocese said they feared the law might require them to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples.

 

[del]

Except...the church already hires gays and lesbians. What they don't want to do is extend benefits to their families.

But officials from the archdiocese said they feared the law might require them to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples.

as a matter of doctrine, they don't recognize same sex marriages, so why should they extend benefits? at least they're consistent.

 

[Ravi]

Do anti-discrimination laws only apply to employers that accept tax payer money and/or tax funded contracts?