Your arguments come down to numbers: How many people are enough? How far away can you tell? Do you have a principle that defines the point that you are trying to make?

Do you believe that a church should be exempt from the building codes, or fire marshal codes? Do you believe that churches should pay taxes? Should a church in a city be allowed to set up a firearms range in their parking lot? Should a church bus be required to have turn signals and headlights? The question is this: should churches obey the law? You seem to believe that churches (mosques, synagogues, temples) have some special status that puts them beyond the law.

I agree that just changing the law will not prevent the crimes. By definition, criminals are those who break the law. But we still have laws. They are public announcements of expected behaviors.

You are very insightful in (b). Yes, that is a logical inference and a historical fact. It was a truth that Ayn Rand had a hard time getting across, the unity of reality in human action. Your statement was keen on that.

As for kicking people off your property, it is a basic political right. A man's home is his castle. But as you point out, the church is a social organization. And they rent it out to other groups, as well.

It is not always clear who speaks for whom. I attended a Methodist church for about six months. My wife went a couple of times, but did not like the minister. One of the leaders said to me, "We hire ministers for a two-year contract." So, who speaks for the church? I mean, the person who signs the checks is not necessarily the person who interprets doctrine.

Your fallacy is picking one particular sin - if it is a sin - and saying that if you do this, you cannot be a member of a church. You seem not to understand that (1) we are all sinners and (2) salvation is through Christ.

Those are not my personal beliefs. But they are Christian doctrine. In fact, every religion that I know of teaches some form of the same thing: we are all less than perfect and we all strive for perfection. Being imperfect does not disqualify you from membership.

In baseball, we count errors, but you really have to go a ways to get kicked off the team for one.

I know what the Bible says about men not laying down as women and all that, but the Bible also condemns clothing of two threads, so no cotton-polyester blends for you, I guess... In any case, Jesus said, "I am the Law." In other words following all of those rules will not save you.

As for the rules, if stealing is a sin, then tax collectors should not be allowed in church, right? Do you socialize with the government employees in your congregation or do you demand that they leave the church as being unworthy of redemption?

in a indirect, consequential and incidental way, yes I agree Objectivists aid society, so do I as a Conservative. A church is hardly an individual and unlike an individual has opportunity to things on a great scale. On that basis I can see churches getting their tax break whereas you or I do not (unless we take deductions for charitable contributions (food, clothing, time, money etc). If a Objectivist wants to meet society int he same way he/she/they are more than welcome to apply for tax exempt status.

Objectivists benefit society by spreading our philosophy, don't you agree? So shouldn't we get the same tax breaks that churches do?

"Benefit to society" is not an especially useful concept upon which to base tax policy.

"Churches are the medicine that negate the druggies, the hookers, the gang violence, the hungry, those without clothes, offer daycare for working parents, and reduce the necessity for police IF they function properly. "
Yes. People pay taxes to have gov't try to deal with those social problems and clean up the mess. Unlike most people here, I think citizens have a responsibility to help the poor for the same reason we have a responsibility to pay for policing. I would much rather have private organizations doing that work. I don't want gov't handing money to my church b/c strings are usually attached with money. The tax-exempt status is a nice way to compensate them, as you say. I think help given to people through churches, at least mine, is much better than gov't programs. People in a church community know who's really getting their life together and who helping would just be enabling and hurting them in the long-run. It's hard for gov't to do that.

I see your point. We'll have to agree to disagree. I see the breath of the good work many churches do, usually quietly and without fan fare or strings attached. Those things, and the lessons they teach, are what we need in our societies, not necessarily the doctrine but the willful act to help just because you choose to and are able to. Churches are the medicine that negate the druggies, the hookers, the gang violence, the hungry, those without clothes, offer daycare for working parents, and reduce the necessity for police IF they function properly. These things are, in my opinion, valid compensation for lost property tax, police tax, etc.

I do not attend and haven't in many years. Still, I see the benefit to their role in society.

Churches are private organizations, and they should have the same legal rights and responsibilities as any other private organizations, not the privileged status they have today. I agree that voluntary contributions to churches (or any other organizations) should not be taxed, but most churches are also exempt from property taxes, which means they get a free ride when it comes to such services as street maintenance, crime prevention, fire protection and access to the courts. Liability is a separate issue that affects all individuals and organizations, and legal reforms are definitely needed, but any government policies that pertain to liability should apply to churches and other organizations equally.

Actually, the money taken from them in taxes would cripple their ability to do (consider 30+% of ten of thousands a month (gift tax).) I have no issue with churches being tax exempt provided they are doing what they are supposed to locally.

I know these things because I've networked several churches in Phoenix - small to huge. I've spoken to pastors, priests and office managers and have openly asked about why they don't do more here at home. It always comes back to liability. Even should they give up their exception they'd still be subject to the same liability.

Sad because some had rec centers with full kitchens, bathrooms and shower facilities that sat mostly empty all week, and transportation an d food pantry's. Space that should be being used to help their community.

This is another instance of government needing to get out of the way.

Nobody forces churches to keep their tax exempt status. From your comment, it appears that not paying for the government services they receive is more important to them than what you describe as their local mission.

Completely disagree with you. Government regulation FORCES many churches, in order to keep their tax exempt status, to do much more of their works overseas. I was told by a church once that they didn't open their chapel to the homeless to sleep on pews because of their liability. Another told me they'd get in trouble with the State if they provided anything more than canned food that the homeless could eat AWAY from their property.

Churches should be doing much more locally for their exempt status, what they were TOLD to do by their doctrine. If all would we would have zero homeless and a lot less welfare.

I would have sympathy for the churches if they were willing to give up their tax exemptions and their myriad government-enforced special privileges (example, no liquor store allowed with xxx feet of a church). As far as I'm concerned, this is karma. Or, remembering from my religious childhood, "What you sow, so shall you reap."

Gents this topic has wandered. Regardless of morality or legality the fact remains, this is a huge transgression into the First Amendment infringing on peoples ability to worship freely and speak freely.

I've been here long enough for most everyone to know my stance on homosexuals. My concern here is the attack on the Bill Of Rights and many championing it as a victory for freedom and equality.

If it could only be that simple.

Physical animosity is required for a simple dislike to be classified as Hate and it would seem that left leaning individuals intend harm against anyone that chooses differently than them.

I don't harbor hate for the left...although I do wonder if a bop upside their heads would cause a reboot of their brain.

I am not sure I understand your comment, however The government does not have the authority to tell anyone how to run their business as long as their business is not harming anyone.

Funny the people that scream about the words we use are the people that use them themselves...it's like they blame everyone else for something they themselves do or think. That's evidence that they are thinking only in the brain...thinking You or the Devil made them do it.

"Is a business bigoted by not employing a drunk, a drug addict or a thief?"
I guess I would call that "responsible".

I realize people are sensitive about using the right words. If there is a PC word for this, I would certainly use it.

Is a business bigoted by not employing a drunk, a drug addict or a thief?

There is a difference between not liking a behavior or someone's character versus hating that person; but most do not apply that dislike with "physical animosity" or would not otherwise help that person if in need.
That's been my observation anyway...I don't hang out with professional democrats as a rule...Laughing.

If the religion is not sacrificing humans, or forcing others to believe their religion, then the government has no authority to tell them what to do or to control their ideals whether you believe in their religion or not.

I really don't know the PC word for people would need special bathroom accommodations in this scenario. "Those in opposition to the LGBT agenda" is too long. Anti-LGBT could work.

Building codes are a town, city or state issue. I agree that if government itself injures a person due to any negligence, then the people involved would be liable.
But the issue has nothing to do with whether or not I will do business with someone of poor character or behavior.

Does a restaurant have the right to reject a person that is drunk or high on drugs...is it not in their best interest to protect their patrons.

Do I not have the right and maybe the responsibility to not tempt others by endorsing, encouraging or participating in aberrant behavior?

So those in opposition to the LGBT agenda are bigots?

"I question whether a church is truly open to the public as there is first an assumption of similar beliefs or at least an interest. "
My church rents space for meetings and events and rents out the sunday school rooms to a preschool. So it's more public than a private club but less public than a gov't building.

When I took the class to become a full member long ago, I remember them saying we're welcoming but to people who would violate the UU principles. So clearly, you're not supposed to come and condemn people for their gender identity.

I try to imagine if the anti-LGBT people were running things and said we weren't up to code as a public building because we allow people to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with. I'm sure people would protest and publicly ignore the law and invite the gov't to arrest them. I guess according to MM's system, if we provided single-occupant "family" bathrooms, in this scenario, for people changing babies and for people who are anti-transgender, we would meet code that way.

It really rubs me the wrong way though. People who want to have meetings or events open to bigots shouldn't host their events at a UU meeting house.