Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Silhouette]

Well on Tuesday, the Southern Baptists announced that no matter what law was passed, they will not be performing gay weddings or having anything to do with them.

I think that's called "throwing down the gauntlet"..

And you have to wonder if the LGBTs will do some type of kneejerk act in kind?

 

[Silhouette]

Just sayin'...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

THE LGBT Cult is entirely reactive. "Knee-Jerk" defined them and their vacuous cause.

 

[Silhouette]

THE LGBT Cult is entirely reactive. "Knee-Jerk" defined them and their vacuous cause.

I take it you've seen the killer's social media photos beginning to circulate from the S. Carolina incident at the church there?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

THE LGBT Cult is entirely reactive. "Knee-Jerk" defined them and their vacuous cause.

I take it you've seen the killer's social media photos beginning to circulate from the S. Carolina incident at the church there?

Well I saw a pencil neck oddball squatting in a God's Gym wifebeater... with a ' I'm crazy as a shit-house rat' expression glued to his mug.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.

Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?

Of course not! I voted NO, this is America. Having said that though, let me be clear about the fact that I am a staunch supporter of marriage equality. However to impose that on religion is a violation of the first amendment's prohibition on "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" when it comes to religion. The moment we do that, we can no longer complain about religion's attempts at imposing itself on secular society and government.

I find it hard to believe that this question keeps coming up. Aside from the first amendment issue, who in their right mind would want to get married in a place that is hostile to them and does not think that they should be married? Ya think that it might jinx the marriage or at best be unpleasant?

This issue is used, all too often, as an appeal to fear and ignorance and to frame the same sex marriage debate as some sort of epic battle between gays and religion-most often Christians which is ridiculous.

 

[Silhouette]

Of course not! I voted NO, this is America. Having said that though, let me be clear about the fact that I am a staunch supporter of marriage equality. However to impose that on religion is a violation of the first amendment's prohibition on "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" when it comes to religion. The moment we do that, we can no longer complain about religion's attempts at imposing itself on secular society and government.

I find it hard to believe that this question keeps coming up..

The discussion keeps coming up because LGBTs keep suing Christians and punishing them for not abdicating their faith in order to cater to "gay weddings".

You'd better run over the LGBT lawyer-pool who is suing individual Christians as fast as their paralegals can file the suits. Tell them how you feel about the individual components of "church" being brought down one by one by the LGBT litigation machine..

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Of course not! I voted NO, this is America. Having said that though, let me be clear about the fact that I am a staunch supporter of marriage equality. However to impose that on religion is a violation of the first amendment's prohibition on "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" when it comes to religion. The moment we do that, we can no longer complain about religion's attempts at imposing itself on secular society and government.

I find it hard to believe that this question keeps coming up..

The discussion keeps coming up because LGBTs keep suing Christians and punishing them for not abdicating their faith in order to cater to "gay weddings".

You'd better run over the LGBT lawyer-pool who is suing individual Christians as fast as their paralegals can file the suits. Tell them how you feel about the individual components of "church" being brought down one by one by the LGBT litigation machine..

Oh common! You are confusing religious institution that are protected by the first amendment, and in many cases by state laws that provide a religious exemption to any anti discrimination laws that they may have with individuals who want to discriminate on the basis of religious freedom.

 

[Rozman]

Why would any couple want their wedding performed by a Church that was forced to do it....

 

[Silhouette]

Oh common! You are confusing religious institution that are protected by the first amendment, and in many cases by state laws that provide a religious exemption to any anti discrimination laws that they may have with individuals who want to discriminate on the basis of religious freedom.

Please explain the specific legal difference between a member of a church and a church as to the protection of freedom of religion.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Oh common! You are confusing religious institution that are protected by the first amendment, and in many cases by state laws that provide a religious exemption to any anti discrimination laws that they may have with individuals who want to discriminate on the basis of religious freedom.

Please explain the specific legal difference between a member of a church and a church as to the protection of freedom of religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. ESTABLISMENT OF RELIGION An individual, a baker , photographer, proprietor of a for profit wedding mill is not an establishment of religion.


1. The historical meaning of religious freedom:

This term relates to the personal freedom:
•Of religious belief,
•Of religious speech,
•Of religious assembly with fellow believers,
•Of religious proselytizing and recruitment, and
•To change one's religion from one faith group to another -- or to decide to have no religious affiliation -- or vice-versa.


The individual believer has often been the target of oppression for thinking or speaking unorthodox thoughts, for assembling with and recruiting others, and for changing their religious affiliation. Typically, the aggressors have been large religious groups and governments. Freedom from such oppression is the meaning that we generally use on this web site to refer to any of the four terms: religious freedom, religious liberty, freedom of worship and freedom to worship.

2. A rapidly emerging new meaning of religious freedom: the freedom to discriminate and denigrate:

In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities.

Now, the direction of the oppression has reversed. It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. It appears that this change is begin driven by a number of factors:

•The increasing public acceptance of women's use of birth control/contraceptives. This is a practice regarded as a personal decision by most faith groups, but is actively opposed by the Roman Catholic and a few other conservative faith groups.
•The increasing public acceptance of equal rights for sexual minorities including Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and transsexuals -- the LGBT community (); and
•The increasing percentage of NOTAs in North America. These are individuals who are NOT Affiliated with an organized faith group. Some identify themselves as Agnostics, Atheists secularists, Humanists, free thinkers, etc. Others say that they are spiritual, but not religious.

The media often refer to NOTAs as "NONES" because they are affiliated to NONE of the faith groups. However, the words Nones and Nuns are homophones: words that sound alike but are spelled differently and which hold very different meanings. To avoid confusion, we recommend against this practice and recommend the unambiguous term "NOTA."

One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6.

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfree.htm

 

[Silhouette]

Oh common! You are confusing religious institution that are protected by the first amendment, and in many cases by state laws that provide a religious exemption to any anti discrimination laws that they may have with individuals who want to discriminate on the basis of religious freedom.

Please explain the specific legal difference between a member of a church and a church as to the protection of freedom of religion.

One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6. ...Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfree.htm

Your last post didn't address the specific legal difference between a member of a church and a church as to the protection of freedom of religion. Was the 1st Amendment about a building, wood, nails, pews and an altar, bathroom and adjacent kitchen for gatherings to practice its religion? Or was it about the individuals who ascribe to the formless faith of the religious doctrines?

Speaking of those doctrines I notice you mentioned a few. But you forgot Jude 1. Might want to look that one up with respect to this discussion.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Oh common! You are confusing religious institution that are protected by the first amendment, and in many cases by state laws that provide a religious exemption to any anti discrimination laws that they may have with individuals who want to discriminate on the basis of religious freedom.

Please explain the specific legal difference between a member of a church and a church as to the protection of freedom of religion.

One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6. ...Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfree.htm

Your last post didn't address the specific legal difference between a member of a church and a church as to the protection of freedom of religion. Was the 1st Amendment about a building, wood, nails, pews and an altar, bathroom and adjacent kitchen for gatherings to practice its religion? Or was it about the individuals who ascribe to the formless faith of the religious doctrines?

Speaking of those doctrines I notice you mentioned a few. But you forgot Jude 1. Might want to look that one up with respect to this discussion.

The free exercise of religion does not extend to the right of individuals to discriminate against others in the name of their religion. To do so is in effect imposing their religion on others, thereby depriving those others of their religious freedom. Religious freedom is not just about practicing one’s own religion but also being free from the religion of others.

The right to religious freedom, like all rights is not absolute. When the exercise of any right bumps up against the rights of others, those limitations apply. I documented how the concept of religious freedom as changed and has exceeded the intent of the first amendment. We cannot have each and every individual deciding for his or her self what is a permissible practice in the name of religion. Anyone who wants to do that should start a religion that incorporates those practices and then maybe they can get away with it. While religions as a whole, and religious individuals enjoy the right to religious freedom, religious exemptions apply only to religious groups and not to individuals.

 

[Silhouette]

The free exercise of religion does not extend to the right of individuals to discriminate against others in the name of their religion. To do so is in effect imposing their religion on others, thereby depriving those others of their religious freedom. Religious freedom is not just about practicing one’s own religion but also being free from the religion of others....The right to religious freedom, like all rights is not absolute. When the exercise of any right bumps up against the rights of others, those limitations apply...

Thank you for pointing that out. A child's right to a father and mother in marriage DOES trump the wishes of people who want to dismantle that right in order to favor a non-qualifying and deviant "parenting" situation forcing states to incentivize this sub-par situation with tax breaks "as married".

A state doesn't care about marriage only but to stimulate fathers and mothers (grandfathers/grandmothers) for children in a stable setting for them.

So, in full agreement with your conclusion, yes, when a quest for rights bumps up against the rights of other, those limitations apply. I think you just summed up a perfect paragraph to include in the SCOTUS' Opinion soon to be released. States and childrens' rights trump the LGBT cult. Thanks for pointing that out.

*waits for the "No!...I mean those rights can only be smashed BY gays OF others!"..*

 

[BULLDOG]

The free exercise of religion does not extend to the right of individuals to discriminate against others in the name of their religion. To do so is in effect imposing their religion on others, thereby depriving those others of their religious freedom. Religious freedom is not just about practicing one’s own religion but also being free from the religion of others....The right to religious freedom, like all rights is not absolute. When the exercise of any right bumps up against the rights of others, those limitations apply...

Thank you for pointing that out. A child's right to a father and mother in marriage DOES trump the wishes of people who want to dismantle that right in order to favor a non-qualifying and deviant "parenting" situation forcing states to incentivize this sub-par situation with tax breaks "as married".

A state doesn't care about marriage only but to stimulate fathers and mothers (grandfathers/grandmothers) for children in a stable setting for them.

So, in full agreement with your conclusion, yes, when a quest for rights bumps up against the rights of other, those limitations apply. I think you just summed up a perfect paragraph to include in the SCOTUS' Opinion soon to be released. States and childrens' rights trump the LGBT cult. Thanks for pointing that out.

*waits for the "No!...I mean those rights can only be smashed BY gays OF others!"..*

Your post makes perfect sense if you can answer just one question. Gay marriage has only recently been legalized in a few places, but lots of kids didn't have a stable home with a mother and father before legalization. How exactly is the gay marriage of such a small percentage of the population going to change that?

 

[Ernie S.]

Oh common! You are confusing religious institution that are protected by the first amendment, and in many cases by state laws that provide a religious exemption to any anti discrimination laws that they may have with individuals who want to discriminate on the basis of religious freedom.

Please explain the specific legal difference between a member of a church and a church as to the protection of freedom of religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. ESTABLISMENT OF RELIGION An individual, a baker , photographer, proprietor of a for profit wedding mill is not an establishment of religion.


1. The historical meaning of religious freedom:

This term relates to the personal freedom:
•Of religious belief,
•Of religious speech,
•Of religious assembly with fellow believers,
•Of religious proselytizing and recruitment, and
•To change one's religion from one faith group to another -- or to decide to have no religious affiliation -- or vice-versa.


The individual believer has often been the target of oppression for thinking or speaking unorthodox thoughts, for assembling with and recruiting others, and for changing their religious affiliation. Typically, the aggressors have been large religious groups and governments. Freedom from such oppression is the meaning that we generally use on this web site to refer to any of the four terms: religious freedom, religious liberty, freedom of worship and freedom to worship.

2. A rapidly emerging new meaning of religious freedom: the freedom to discriminate and denigrate:

In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities.

Now, the direction of the oppression has reversed. It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. It appears that this change is begin driven by a number of factors:

•The increasing public acceptance of women's use of birth control/contraceptives. This is a practice regarded as a personal decision by most faith groups, but is actively opposed by the Roman Catholic and a few other conservative faith groups.
•The increasing public acceptance of equal rights for sexual minorities including Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and transsexuals -- the LGBT community (); and
•The increasing percentage of NOTAs in North America. These are individuals who are NOT Affiliated with an organized faith group. Some identify themselves as Agnostics, Atheists secularists, Humanists, free thinkers, etc. Others say that they are spiritual, but not religious.

The media often refer to NOTAs as "NONES" because they are affiliated to NONE of the faith groups. However, the words Nones and Nuns are homophones: words that sound alike but are spelled differently and which hold very different meanings. To avoid confusion, we recommend against this practice and recommend the unambiguous term "NOTA."

One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6.

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfree.htm

Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

You'll notice that there is no qualifier. One can take that to apply to either a member of an organized of individual.

Nice try, but you're wrong, as usual.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The free exercise of religion does not extend to the right of individuals to discriminate against others in the name of their religion. To do so is in effect imposing their religion on others, thereby depriving those others of their religious freedom. Religious freedom is not just about practicing one’s own religion but also being free from the religion of others....The right to religious freedom, like all rights is not absolute. When the exercise of any right bumps up against the rights of others, those limitations apply...

Thank you for pointing that out. A child's right to a father and mother in marriage DOES trump the wishes of people who want to dismantle that right in order to favor a non-qualifying and deviant "parenting" situation forcing states to incentivize this sub-par situation with tax breaks "as married".

A state doesn't care about marriage only but to stimulate fathers and mothers (grandfathers/grandmothers) for children in a stable setting for them.

So, in full agreement with your conclusion, yes, when a quest for rights bumps up against the rights of other, those limitations apply. I think you just summed up a perfect paragraph to include in the SCOTUS' Opinion soon to be released. States and childrens' rights trump the LGBT cult. Thanks for pointing that out.

*waits for the "No!...I mean those rights can only be smashed BY gays OF others!"..*

Your post makes perfect sense if you can answer just one question. Gay marriage has only recently been legalized in a few places, but lots of kids didn't have a stable home with a mother and father before legalization. How exactly is the gay marriage of such a small percentage of the population going to change that?

You might want to review post #178 on this thread in order to get a better handle on the issue Michigan Allows Adoption Agents to Opt-Out of Adoption to Gay Couples Page 18 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I did not say that same sex marriage is going to result in more children having a mother and a father. I said that it will result in more children having married parents who are both the legal guardian, and that is far more important than having opposite sex parents. Gays may be a small percentage of the population, but there are an estimated 2 million kids with a gay parent.

 

[dblack]

Oh common! You are confusing religious institution that are protected by the first amendment, and in many cases by state laws that provide a religious exemption to any anti discrimination laws that they may have with individuals who want to discriminate on the basis of religious freedom.

Please explain the specific legal difference between a member of a church and a church as to the protection of freedom of religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. ESTABLISMENT OF RELIGION An individual, a baker , photographer, proprietor of a for profit wedding mill is not an establishment of religion.


1. The historical meaning of religious freedom:

This term relates to the personal freedom:
•Of religious belief,
•Of religious speech,
•Of religious assembly with fellow believers,
•Of religious proselytizing and recruitment, and
•To change one's religion from one faith group to another -- or to decide to have no religious affiliation -- or vice-versa.


The individual believer has often been the target of oppression for thinking or speaking unorthodox thoughts, for assembling with and recruiting others, and for changing their religious affiliation. Typically, the aggressors have been large religious groups and governments. Freedom from such oppression is the meaning that we generally use on this web site to refer to any of the four terms: religious freedom, religious liberty, freedom of worship and freedom to worship.

2. A rapidly emerging new meaning of religious freedom: the freedom to discriminate and denigrate:

In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities.

Now, the direction of the oppression has reversed. It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. It appears that this change is begin driven by a number of factors:

•The increasing public acceptance of women's use of birth control/contraceptives. This is a practice regarded as a personal decision by most faith groups, but is actively opposed by the Roman Catholic and a few other conservative faith groups.
•The increasing public acceptance of equal rights for sexual minorities including Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and transsexuals -- the LGBT community (); and
•The increasing percentage of NOTAs in North America. These are individuals who are NOT Affiliated with an organized faith group. Some identify themselves as Agnostics, Atheists secularists, Humanists, free thinkers, etc. Others say that they are spiritual, but not religious.

The media often refer to NOTAs as "NONES" because they are affiliated to NONE of the faith groups. However, the words Nones and Nuns are homophones: words that sound alike but are spelled differently and which hold very different meanings. To avoid confusion, we recommend against this practice and recommend the unambiguous term "NOTA."

One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6.

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfree.htm

Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

You'll notice that there is no qualifier. One can take that to apply to either a member of an organized of individual.

Nice try, but you're wrong, as usual.

And in neither case should the First Amendment be construed as an exemption from the law. Equal protection means everyone follows the same laws, no exemptions or special privileges.

The irony of misinterpreting the First Amendment in this way is that it actually undermines religious freedom. By granting exemptions to religions, we set government up as the authority to decide which religions are valid and which aren't. And it gives government leverage over churches with the power to revoke their privileges and exemptions if they step out of line.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The free exercise of religion does not extend to the right of individuals to discriminate against others in the name of their religion. To do so is in effect imposing their religion on others, thereby depriving those others of their religious freedom. Religious freedom is not just about practicing one’s own religion but also being free from the religion of others....The right to religious freedom, like all rights is not absolute. When the exercise of any right bumps up against the rights of others, those limitations apply...

Thank you for pointing that out. A child's right to a father and mother in marriage DOES trump the wishes of people who want to dismantle that right in order to favor a non-qualifying and deviant "parenting" situation forcing states to incentivize this sub-par situation with tax breaks "as married".

A state doesn't care about marriage only but to stimulate fathers and mothers (grandfathers/grandmothers) for children in a stable setting for them.

So, in full agreement with your conclusion, yes, when a quest for rights bumps up against the rights of other, those limitations apply. I think you just summed up a perfect paragraph to include in the SCOTUS' Opinion soon to be released. States and childrens' rights trump the LGBT cult. Thanks for pointing that out.

*waits for the "No!...I mean those rights can only be smashed BY gays OF others!"..*

It's apparent that you have not been able to absorb a single thing that I tried to get across to you about adoption and children on the Michigan thread. http://www.usmessageboard.com/threa...t-out-of-adoption-to-gay-couples.423887/ There is no conflict between gay rights and children's rights. That is just ignorant equine excrement. Congratulations. You are the first to be condemned to the bowels of my ignore list

 

[Seawytch]

Oh common! You are confusing religious institution that are protected by the first amendment, and in many cases by state laws that provide a religious exemption to any anti discrimination laws that they may have with individuals who want to discriminate on the basis of religious freedom.

Please explain the specific legal difference between a member of a church and a church as to the protection of freedom of religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. ESTABLISMENT OF RELIGION An individual, a baker , photographer, proprietor of a for profit wedding mill is not an establishment of religion.


1. The historical meaning of religious freedom:

This term relates to the personal freedom:
•Of religious belief,
•Of religious speech,
•Of religious assembly with fellow believers,
•Of religious proselytizing and recruitment, and
•To change one's religion from one faith group to another -- or to decide to have no religious affiliation -- or vice-versa.


The individual believer has often been the target of oppression for thinking or speaking unorthodox thoughts, for assembling with and recruiting others, and for changing their religious affiliation. Typically, the aggressors have been large religious groups and governments. Freedom from such oppression is the meaning that we generally use on this web site to refer to any of the four terms: religious freedom, religious liberty, freedom of worship and freedom to worship.

2. A rapidly emerging new meaning of religious freedom: the freedom to discriminate and denigrate:

In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities.

Now, the direction of the oppression has reversed. It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. It appears that this change is begin driven by a number of factors:

•The increasing public acceptance of women's use of birth control/contraceptives. This is a practice regarded as a personal decision by most faith groups, but is actively opposed by the Roman Catholic and a few other conservative faith groups.
•The increasing public acceptance of equal rights for sexual minorities including Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and transsexuals -- the LGBT community (); and
•The increasing percentage of NOTAs in North America. These are individuals who are NOT Affiliated with an organized faith group. Some identify themselves as Agnostics, Atheists secularists, Humanists, free thinkers, etc. Others say that they are spiritual, but not religious.

The media often refer to NOTAs as "NONES" because they are affiliated to NONE of the faith groups. However, the words Nones and Nuns are homophones: words that sound alike but are spelled differently and which hold very different meanings. To avoid confusion, we recommend against this practice and recommend the unambiguous term "NOTA."

One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6.

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfree.htm

Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

You'll notice that there is no qualifier. One can take that to apply to either a member of an organized of individual.

Nice try, but you're wrong, as usual.

One could take that to apply to unicorns that fart glitter, but neither would be legally valid.

The law is very clear on what constitutes a church.