Are religious colleges at risk if Supreme Court approves same-sex marriage?

[dozerman5676]

From Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/07/are-religious-colleges-at-risk-if-supreme-court-approves-same-sex-marriage/

In part:

"They point to an exchange between Justice Samuel Alito and the administration's top lawyer, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. Alito asked if, in the event the Supreme Court holds that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, would religious colleges risk losing their tax-exempt status if they continued to advocate for traditional marriage only.

Verrilli responded, "I don't deny that ... It is going to be an issue."

Travis Weber, director of the Family Research Council's Center for Religious Liberty, said he believed Verrilli's logic would eventually extend to churches and just about "anyone holding a traditional view of marriage."

Weber warned that if the current trend continues, those who refuse to endorse same-sex marriage could face "fines, potentially imprisonment."

So what it looks like what they are saying is: Religion, accept same-sex marriage or lose your tax exempt status.

[trottigy]

It will be interesting to see how the court writes its final decision to ensure that doesn't happen.

[Áine]

The voting is taking place in Ireland next week, already our children in school are being labled as homoephobic

[seasonedWithsalt]

Good, nice find. Strip the assets, seize the bank accounts! Repossess they're land. Christendom the first to go- legally, by due process through the courts. In the most shameful manner possible.

Revelation 18:6- 6 Repay her in the way she treated others, yes, pay her back double for the things she has done; in the cup she has mixed, mix a double portion for her.

What she did to the anointed brothers in the early years 1914, -framing trouble by decree of law-, christendom must face double! Wait for it, it's definitely going to come.

[pnutts]

We may be painted with the same brush. However, since active homosexuals are not part of our organization, that maybe an out for us. Both parties must be in an approved standing for a wedding at a hall, or for a brother being a 'marrying sam'

Disfellowshipping wrong doers may benefit us in ways we never imagined.

[MizPeg]

I keep waiting for someone to define the term "married". Yes, we look on that state as man, and woman., and we have a bunch of judicial do-gooders who want to put things in a neat little package.  In Russia they have civil unions, why not here? Why hasn't that been spoken of? Bet Satan is in the mess. He would love nothing better than to poke Jehovah in the nose, so to speak. Jehovah instituted the state of marriage, and Satan loves getting things drug through the dirt.

And while I'm on a roll, I ABSOLUTELY hate them mentioned as "gay"! Those people are miserable because they think they are right, about their gender, but there is always that little voice behind them, saying differently. ( I have a family member who is a homosexual)

[Stavro]

In Russia they have civil unions, why not here? Why hasn't that been spoken of?

 

It has, often. And it's been shot down by both sides, because that's a workable compromise that doesn't fit with either side's true agenda.

 

The anti-gay-marriage political side wants homosexuality criminalized. And the pro-gay political side wants ALL religions to be forced to perform marriages for any and all who ask, regardless of their religious beliefs, with criminal charges for non-compliance.

 

This has never been about "equality" nor "protecting the institution of marriage", it's only about punishing the other side for having different beliefs, just like nearly every other "equality" political movement going on right now.