Okay - I see where you were going with that, then.
But the state having an interest in promoting marriage as a means to reproduction and cultural unity is not the same as having a right to usurp the religious sacrament of marriage vows and blessings. That's what the Church is supposed to be about in this respect. The Church should never have bowed to the state's desire to license marriage. We the People should never have submitted to manipulation through the tax code. The fact that these things are already in place does not excuse it as right or just. This goes back to something I posted early in this thread - to the effect that The Church should never have participated in this joint-ownership of the marriage rite.
I agree that govt taxes (licenses) for getting married should be abolished, as those are impediments to beneficial behavior rather than encouragements.
However, we
do have taxes and they aren't going away anytime soon. Therefore the tax code, along with the legal code, should incentivize real marriage (not the homo unions).
And - just to get back to the OP - Two preachers and a building doing weddings for hire does not constitute a Church.
Since when does marriage have to be held in a church to be religious? Can it not be sacred outside of those walls?
And we aren't talking about "church" here. We are talking about religious beliefs. Why should an act have to be performed within the walls of a church to be religious? Should we all leave our beliefs at the door when we leave a church?
Also, you get into the profit/non-profit thing. That is only a legal distinction and not a factual one. Just ask the president of United Way what difference it makes to them.
Even if the chapel is "for profit" you get into the Goldilocks conundrum. What is "profit"? Is it the salary of the pres of United Way? Is it a modest house, car and food for a couple that runs a small business? Or could it even be the money that buys simple meals and a few clothes for a cloistered monk? Or can it only be profit if it appears on the income statement of a business registered as "for profit"?
Of course, there is no wrong or right answer to that because it's all your opinion. All could be construed as "profit".
So, it's a BS argument.
What this story really boils down to is whether or not the Gov't can force you to betray your God and worship at their alter instead.
Yes or no.
