I think perhaps you should read my comment more carefully. But the gist is that churches generally do not get any tax breaks that are denied to, say, the Gay and Lesbian Center.

As for the details, I’d gladly discuss with you how the tax code treats transactions of non-profits, including churches, if you have specific questions. Otherwise, I don’t think this thread is the appropriate place for a comprehensive essay on the subject.

It’s probably sufficient to simply state that the rest of us do not pay more tax so that churches don’t have to.

Your post is confusing. First you say churches don’t pay taxes, but then you say they do pay some taxes. CONTRADICTION. Kindly research this further and clarify.

An association of Catholic restuarant owners – if operated, supervised or controlled by the Church – would be exempt.

The individual restaurants would not.

TRiG.

I don’t know enough about Connecticut law. Does the organization have to act on its own as the society, or can independent businesses join the association? How specifically does the mission and actual activity of the organization have to be religious?

This clearly exempts Catholic hospitals, adoption agencies and such, and presumably Catholic schools and such. (and their non-Catholic religious equivalents.)

But what makes a Catholic hospital exempt and a Catholic association of restaurant owners non-exempt? After all, if you can make a tenuous connection between Christianity and “healing the sick”, you should be able to make the same one between Christianity and feeding the hungry. Don’t tell me hospitals don’t make money.

Would it be only that the actual employees at the offices of the Christian Restaurant Owners Association would be exempt and the individual restaurants aren’t?

Or is someone going to open the Christian Business Owners’ Association and for a nominal fee, grant any secular employer in the state the right to discriminate against gay people as employees and clients?

Cheering also increases the chances that you’ll get more next time by pointing out how “the CT legislature accepted our suggestions”, ignoring that they dropped the most important one for Maggie, the “marriage validity” language.

Maggie is also cheering because winning this accommodation means she’ll be able to earn a living fighting for them for another good decade or so.

Actually, she can. The NJ church was denied a *secular* tax exemption based on their lack of equal access to a non-church property. The church itself did not lose its tax exemption… but the beach pavilion did, because the only reason it had a tax exception was because they agreed to allow equal access to the public. They reneged on their agreement, so lost their exemption.