Millionaire gay couple is suing to force a church to hold their wedding

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,978
Criminal Mexi Midget
DANBURY, U.K.–A wealthy gay couple has decided to launch a lawsuit to force their church to perform their wedding. The Drewitt-Barlows, a millionaire couple from the U.K, stated, “We’ve launched a challenge to the government’s decision to allow some religious groups to opt out of marrying same-sex couples.”

“It is a shame that we are forced to take Christians into a court to get them to recognize us. It upsets me because I want it so much—a big lavish ceremony, the whole works. I just don’t think it is going to happen straight away. While same-sex marriage is now legal in the U.K. after a bill cleared Parliament earlier this year, the legislation still protects the right of churches to opt out of performing gay weddings, specifically the Church of England.

Drewitt-Barlow is not pleased with the law, and said, “As much as people are saying this is a good thing, I am still not getting what I want.”



http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/millionaire-gay-couple-suing-force-church-hold-wedding/#ixzz2wLqeC4b4
Follow us: @LibRepublic on Twitter | LibertarianRepublic on Facebook
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10219802/First-couple-consider-legal-challenge-to-Churchs-gay-marriage-opt-out.html

there are a few links on this story, personally I think they should go pound sand.
 

Meister

Suspended
Oct 10, 2013
5,455
4,265
Just shows what a twisted perspective people have on religion.
Religion is a private thing and no church has to do anything.
 

Meister

Suspended
Oct 10, 2013
5,455
4,265
Agreed. People shouldn't expect religious folks to be tolerant...knowing their history.
They are not expecting them they are abusing the legal system to force them.
You cant force people to be tolerant. Tolerance has to come from within.
Everybody has the right to be intolerant as long as it is kept in privat. And religion is privat.
 

quagmire

macrumors 603
Apr 19, 2004
6,255
1,063
This isn't going to get far as other have mentioned. They have every right to have our government recognize their marriage, but a church is a religious institution and they do not believe in gay marriage in the religious sense of the term marriage. Within their rights to deny holding the ceremony there.
 
Last edited:

.Andy

macrumors 68030
Jul 18, 2004
2,946
583
The Mergui Archipelago
Just shows what a twisted perspective people have on religion.
Religion is a private thing and no church has to do anything.
Churches do have to allow gays in their congregation or else they face an even more rapid extinction. Their current bigoted attitudes are only going to alienate the next generations.

In a few short years when organisations like the church of england face complete destruction you can bet they'll be trying to distance themselves from issues like this as fast as they can and pretending it was all a misunderstanding and not their "real views".
 

oneMadRssn

macrumors 601
Sep 8, 2011
4,739
11,030
New England
indeed they should, except on donations.
No, they should pay taxes on donations received. Income is income. Otherwise, how else would they separate funds received for nothing and funds received for church services?

If the church makes a donation to some other charity, then that can be tax-deducible, like it is us for us regulars.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,978
Criminal Mexi Midget
No, they should pay taxes on donations received. Income is income. Otherwise, how else would they separate funds received for nothing and funds received for church services?

If the church makes a donation to some other charity, then that can be tax-deducible, like it is us for us regulars.
should we tax beggars on the streets as well?

money FREELY given to the church or ANYONE else has been taxed already.
 

AustinIllini

macrumors demi-goddess
Oct 20, 2011
10,810
7,422
Austin, TX
No, they should pay taxes on donations received. Income is income. Otherwise, how else would they separate funds received for nothing and funds received for church services?

If the church makes a donation to some other charity, then that can be tax-deducible, like it is us for us regulars.
Nonsense. That money has already been taxed, so now you think the government should be taking more money from the poor, too? Give it a rest, this argument is tired, senseless, and not the point of this thread.
 

dec.

Suspended
Apr 15, 2012
1,322
747
Toronto
I cannot relate to that. To stick to the mythological/fantasy theme: Why would Hobbits want to get married by Orcs (or vice versa)?

...although I always am surprised by how many Christian gays there are, I could see that they wouldn't want to be excluded even if they are in a place where others traditionally "believe" that they are "living in 'sin'"...:confused:
 

MattInOz

macrumors 68030
Jan 19, 2006
2,755
0
Sydney
I would say, except on donations they don't use to invest with.
Don't companies only pay tax on Profit not just revenue?

I see no reason the church shouldn't be held to the same standard.
If they really are a non-profit organization they aren't going to pay tax either way. I understand here in Australia the paper work for a non-profit is greater than a company that doesn't make profit, so it would be less work for the church that way too.

----------

They will not win. It's crossing the line, get married elsewhere.
Barrie Drewitt-Barlow said that he and his partner Tony, “feel we have the right as parishioners in our village to utilize the church we attend to get married.

“It is no reflection on our local church, who have been nothing but supportive towards us. We understand their hands are tied by a higher group of people within the church.”

If the church in question is the one they attend as a couple and are accepted and supported on any other day as a couple by that community who are willing for them to married there. Then to me that is a very different kettle of fish to a random couple wanting to get married there because they like the stone work.
 

iBlazed

macrumors 68000
Feb 27, 2014
1,593
1,224
New Jersey, United States
Barrie Drewitt-Barlow said that he and his partner Tony, “feel we have the right as parishioners in our village to utilize the church we attend to get married.

“It is no reflection on our local church, who have been nothing but supportive towards us. We understand their hands are tied by a higher group of people within the church.”

If the church in question is the one they attend as a couple and are accepted and supported on any other day as a couple by that community who are willing for them to married there. Then to me that is a very different kettle of fish to a random couple wanting to get married there because they like the stone work.
Their local church may be on their side, but they still choose to part take in a religion that is predominantly against them. They are entitled to have their marriage recognized by their government, but not by the church. The church has no power to harm them in any way by not recognizing their marriage. The government not recognizing it, on the other hand, can lead to serious issues. How can you legally force a cult to do something that goes against their cult belief because one of their members wants them to? That's like suing because you don't like the flavor of koolaid they're giving you.
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,832
Midlife, Midwest
Forgive me for pointing this out.

But the gay couple in question live in Britain. And they are suing over the Church of England's policy of not performing same-sex marriages.

Britain does not have a "separation of Church and State" amendment to its constitution. Heck, Britain doesn't even have a Constitution.

The discussion of the Church of England, its policy towards gay parishioners and priests, is one that is incredibly complex. In many way, the CofE is far, far more tolerant and welcoming of gay people than 99% of mainstream US religions are.

So I would really suggest people not make too many parallels, or draw too many conclusions as to what this does, or does not, mean as far as same-sex marriage in the United States.
 

LIVEFRMNYC

macrumors 604
Oct 27, 2009
7,433
8,605
Don't companies only pay tax on Profit not just revenue?

I see no reason the church shouldn't be held to the same standard.
If they really are a non-profit organization they aren't going to pay tax either way. I understand here in Australia the paper work for a non-profit is greater than a company that doesn't make profit, so it would be less work for the church that way too.
But non-profits also get audited and must show the IRS an itemized list yearly. Churches don't and are not subjected to any of that. And many churches as an entity invest a lot for it's own self gain, which doesn't fall under non-profit regulations. Best example would be Catholic church or churches as a whole.


Barrie Drewitt-Barlow said that he and his partner Tony, “feel we have the right as parishioners in our village to utilize the church we attend to get married.

“It is no reflection on our local church, who have been nothing but supportive towards us. We understand their hands are tied by a higher group of people within the church.”

If the church in question is the one they attend as a couple and are accepted and supported on any other day as a couple by that community who are willing for them to married there. Then to me that is a very different kettle of fish to a random couple wanting to get married there because they like the stone work.
Not really, cause by them getting married in the church, they are defying the the religious structure and those whom hold that structure dearly. It would be equivalent to congress not abiding to a president's veto.
 

yg17

macrumors G5
Aug 1, 2004
14,888
2,480
St. Louis, MO
Nonsense. That money has already been taxed, so now you think the government should be taking more money from the poor, too? Give it a rest, this argument is tired, senseless, and not the point of this thread.
Who are we calling poor? The Catholic Church, that's worth as much as Wal-Mart? Joel Osteen's megachurch, who, last week, had $600,000 in cash stolen from their safe? I'd be sympathetic if $600k wasn't one weekend of donations for that church. I'm sure he'll fleece his congregation for $1.2 million this weekend to make up for it so I'll save my sympathy for someone else. Then you have the Mormon church, which rakes in 7 billion, yes, that's a b, in yearly tithings. Oh, and don't forget, that the Church of Scientology enjoys tax exempt status in the US. Yes, that crazy cult that operates as a business and charges people to be members and charges them even more money to learn more about the religion hasn't paid a single penny in taxes.

So, who's poor again? I say tax the ****ers.
 

chrono1081

macrumors 604
Jan 26, 2008
7,432
1,401
Isla Nublar
I'm gay, I'm Christian, but I won't be getting married in the church because most modern churches are filled with filth and hate. If a church denies a wedding its not a church, its a thinly veiled hate group in a fancy building.

That being said I'm mixed on the suing. Personally I would just have a wedding elsewhere however since the church chooses to be a political force and donate to keep marriage out of the hands of gay people they deserve to be sued. They're not a church they're a political organization.