Quote:
Originally Posted by TripletDaddy
I dont think the municipality is trying to force Methodists into allowing gay marriage. The municipality is saying, "hey, when we gave you this money, there were certain conditions with which you agreed. If you want to use our free money, you need to abide by the agreement."
|
I think that is a distinction without a difference. Don't you think I am right that this makes it less likely that private property owners will avail themselves of the this tax break and that as a consequence there will be less public land for everyone to use?
If, for example, the church sought out your counsel and told you it was thinking of availing itself of this tax benefit but was concerned about what kind of things they would have to allow in exchange, what would you advise them? I would tell them that the marginal pecuniary benefit is not worth the lawsuit they are potentially purchasing, not to mention the unfavorable press.
This is why I say it is short sighted for the municipality to proceed in this way, though perhaps under current law they have no choice. It is certainly short sighted on the part of whatever gay rights group is animating this.