Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 2:43:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2015 22:34:02 GMT -5
The only thing I disagreed with was the statement that Bristol Palin isn't aware of hating anyone, that she doesn't hate anyone. Her 3 year old was calling people "homosexual**ts. Where did he learn that? Home, I bet. Both Bristol and Willow are known for making gay slurs, so forgive me for not taking her statement of victimhood at face value. Well... to be fair we all know what value Bristol's "statements" to others mean... just look at her Abstinence stance...
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 28, 2015 22:58:09 GMT -5
Agreed. We had an employee of Haitian descent. He was a dreadful worker, always leering at the females and making suggestive remarks. He scared the student nurses to death, and they went out of their way to avoid him. He also constantly criticized me for reading on my breaks, saying I should be studying the bible and calling me a soulless heathen. When he was finally fired, he pulled the race card and accused everyone of picking on him because he was black. (About 60% of our workers are black, so that didn't fly.) Human Resources had a list on him a mile long, so he was gone. I documented everything.
Why do you think he probably pulled that card? If I had to guess it is because it's worked at some point in the past because far too many people are working harder than they should to avoid the perception of bigotry. Also would it have even been an issue if he wasn't in a "protected class?" Which ultimately is the point, that there appears to be a need for managers to make sure they do everything to CYA when trying to fire somebody from a protected class of people. While certain employee protections can be good, I'm not sure it is right for certain groups of people to have more protection than others to the point of managers needing to be able to avoid the perception that the "protected characteristic" wasn't the reason for being fired. I don't give a crap how many times he pulled it before. It didn`t work this time, even with an incredibly strong union behind him. Everyone is a protected class here.... gays, the disabled, trans, sick people, women and minorities, but if you screw up, you still get fired. They can't refuse to hire you if you're in a protected class, but they sure as hell still can fire you.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 28, 2015 23:02:01 GMT -5
I am! I am totally not a huge movie buff, but I loved Pleasantville before I was half an hour into it. I don't know your opinion of or how you feel about Reese Witherspoon, but I think her best movie is one called Election , about a high school class president election. Really good movie and hits all the right notes. I loved her in The Good Lie, where she played mentor to a group of refugees plucked from an African refugee camp and relocated in Kansas. Great movie. Both funny and poignant.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Jun 29, 2015 8:29:04 GMT -5
Very interesting article. I think he makes some very good points, and observations. I can understand the validity of approach in theory, but I do have to wonder how much it works in practice. For such an approach to work, there has to be give and take, and I am not convinced that it does when we are dealing with topics that are so emotionally charged. If you truly believe something to be inherently, and morally wrong, why would you ever budge on that? There is also something about the notion that the formerly oppressed are being asked to bridge that gap that bugs me. On an intellectual level I get it; they have "lost" nothing, while those on the other side feel a very real sense of loss. However, on an emotional level it just irritates me. In this instance we are talking about same sex marriage, but would we apply this method to all formerly marginalized people? He brings it up as a way to stave off a counter-revolution. Does this even work when they are launching preemptive attacks?
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Jun 29, 2015 9:05:35 GMT -5
Ok, I'm on page 5 so maybe someone addressed this, if so, sorry. Bolding is mine. www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2015/scotus_roundup/supreme_court_gay_marriage_john_roberts_dissent_in_obergefell_is_heartless.htmlThe four dissents strike me as very weak, though I’ll discuss just two of them, beginning with the chief justice’s. On the first page of his opinion, we read that “marriage ‘has existed for millennia and across civilizations,’ ” and “for all those millennia, across all those civilizations, ‘marriage’ referred to only one relationship: the union of a man and a woman.” That’s nonsense; polygamy—the union of one man with more than one woman (sometimes with hundreds of women)—has long been common in many civilizations (let’s not forget Utah) and remains so in much of the vast Muslim world. But later in his opinion the chief justice remembers polygamy and suggests that if gay marriage is allowed, so must be polygamy. He ignores the fact that polygamy imposes real costs, by reducing the number of marriageable women. Suppose a society contains 100 men and 100 women, but the five wealthiest men have a total of 50 wives. That leaves 95 men to compete for only 50 marriageable women.
The chief justice criticizes the majority for “order[ing] the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?” We’re pretty sure we’re not any of the above. And most of us are not convinced that what’s good enough for the Bushmen, the Carthaginians, and the Aztecs should be good enough for us. Ah, the millennia! Ah, the wisdom of ages! How arrogant it would be to think we knew more than the Aztecs—we who don’t even know how to cut a person’s heart out of his chest while’s he still alive, a maneuver they were experts at.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 2:43:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2015 9:08:27 GMT -5
Grumpyhermit, I have been mightily struggling with this. I still am working on my articulation of the problem.
In some ways it mirrors other 'goal post' issues I have with today's politics. They set the posts where they think the middle is, and it so far from the actual 'middle'... If that makes any sense. What this article did was help give me some phrasing that I think allows me to better counter the goal post issue without saying, you must come over to this side, if that makes sense.
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Jun 29, 2015 10:31:33 GMT -5
I'd be totally fine with this thread being locked now. We're not going to get back on topic and I don't like where we are headed. I'm watching it, haapai. if the OP requests it to be locked, it will be immediately. but I concur, some recent posts are pretty tasteless. let's try to get back on topic, shall we? -chiver mod I wasn't around over the weekend. Let me get to the end first, in case there's anything I want to respond to! So 1100 Central Time, you can lock it.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,690
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 29, 2015 10:33:49 GMT -5
I'm watching it, haapai. if the OP requests it to be locked, it will be immediately. but I concur, some recent posts are pretty tasteless. let's try to get back on topic, shall we? -chiver mod I wasn't around over the weekend. Let me get to the end first, in case there's anything I want to respond to! So 1100 Central Time, you can lock it. Unless you are unhappy with the comments and direction of the thread, is there any reason to lock it? Chiver said she would lock it IF you wanted it locked. There is no reason I can see to lock it at this time.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,738
|
Post by chiver78 on Jun 29, 2015 10:34:20 GMT -5
whatever works for you, beth. PM me or post back if you still want it locked at that time.
-chiver mod
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,365
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jun 29, 2015 10:35:43 GMT -5
I wasn't around over the weekend. Let me get to the end first, in case there's anything I want to respond to! So 1100 Central Time, you can lock it. Unless you are unhappy with the comments and direction of the thread, is there any reason to lock it? Chiver said she would lock it IF you wanted it locked. There is no reason I can see to lock it at this time. I think she was uncomfortable with Blue, Ken and I expressing our physical love for eachother. But I do not need to be ashamed anymore!!!!
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jun 29, 2015 10:44:10 GMT -5
I don't think the objection had anything to do with you, Blue and Ken horsing around, ArchietheDragon. There was one comment that was very much out of line and it was removed. I see no reason the discussion can't continue from here. Everyone seems to be doing a darned good job with discussing a contentious subject. I'd like to thank all of you for that.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,690
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 29, 2015 10:46:58 GMT -5
Unless you are unhappy with the comments and direction of the thread, is there any reason to lock it? Chiver said she would lock it IF you wanted it locked. There is no reason I can see to lock it at this time. I think she was uncomfortable with Blue, Ken and I expressing our physical love for eachother. But I do not need to be ashamed anymore!!!! 'The love that dare not speak its name' is fine, Archie. But your're now going way off topic with polygamy! That's an entirely different SCOTUS case yet to be heard.
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Jun 29, 2015 10:55:08 GMT -5
whatever works for you, beth. PM me or post back if you still want it locked at that time. -chiver mod Then you can leave it open, esp. if that's what people want (and it keeps a light on for Phoenix, in the future)
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jun 29, 2015 11:23:17 GMT -5
I just wish BOTH sides would get the hell off my FB about it. My FB looks like a deleted mess.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jun 29, 2015 18:14:10 GMT -5
Look, this decision will have ramifications for religious liberty. In 1983, Bob Jones University, a fundamentalist Christian School, lost it's tax exempt status because their policy banning inter racial marriage and dating. This issue was also on the minds of the justices when listening to the case, and the lawyer arguing on behalf of gay marriage, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, even acknowledged this is going to be an issue going forward.
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/26/how-a-supreme-court-decision-for-gay-marriage-would-affect-religious-institutions/
This isn't theoretical people, this is going to be a major source of contention going forward. Are you going to support religious freedom? It's something we'll all have to ask ourselves soon enough.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 29, 2015 18:20:15 GMT -5
I'm honestly not entirely sure how churches were automatically granted tax exempt status anyways. And I'm not sure how paying taxes impinges on anyone practicing their religion.
I pay taxes and it certainly hasn't kept me from practicing my beliefs.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,690
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 29, 2015 18:27:00 GMT -5
Look, this decision will have ramifications for religious liberty. In 1983, Bob Jones University, a fundamentalist Christian School, lost it's tax exempt status because their policy banning inter racial marriage and dating. This issue was also on the minds of the justices when listening to the case, and the lawyer arguing on behalf of gay marriage, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, even acknowledged this is going to be an issue going forward.
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/26/how-a-supreme-court-decision-for-gay-marriage-would-affect-religious-institutions/
This isn't theoretical people, this is going to be a major source of contention going forward. Are you going to support religious freedom? It's something we'll all have to ask ourselves soon enough. Our country survived blacks being allowed to attend all white public schools with the Brown vs. Board of Education decision in 1954. The country will survive this too.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jun 29, 2015 18:30:22 GMT -5
ANd if someone disagrees with that person's religion, then that someone should be ostracized and brow-beaten, just like when someone disagrees with the gay lifestyle. Is that not also EQUAL? I don't know anyone who would ostracize someone (much the less brow-beat anyone) because of their religion - except a few I've run into online who would do so to muslims. I haven't seen anyone ostracized because they disagree with the gay lifestyle, either. You must run with an entirely different crowd than I do. And this is why the left is totally blind to their own disrespecting ways...
Let me break it down to all the people that don't seem to see it:
Example 1 = someone posts a message on this board that says they are against gays getting married, that they don't believe someone is born gay, that its a lifestyle choice, etc, etc. That person would get reemed by the left on this board, saying that their words are insulting/demeaning, they would be ridiculed, called names, etc, etc.
Example 2 = someone posts a message on these boards calling someone's god an "invisible man in the sky" and the Bible a fictional storybook thereby demeaning that person's god, their religion, and their beliefs. The leftist liberals would be absolutely silent - in fact, they would probably "like" the post.
So please stop this "liberals are so much more tolerant and understanding of different people's views and beliefs" horseshit...its getting old and has never been true.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jun 29, 2015 18:35:37 GMT -5
I'm honestly not entirely sure how churches were automatically granted tax exempt status anyways. And I'm not sure how paying taxes impinges on anyone practicing their religion. I pay taxes and it certainly hasn't kept me from practicing my beliefs. I don't understand what people think they will get form churches in taxes. Every church I've been a member of has always been pretty much breaking even or even in the red most months. Besides a few evangelicals down south who get their own TV shows, there's not some big pile of money to be taxed in church coffers
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 2:43:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2015 18:41:11 GMT -5
Well, when BJU was asked to either lift their ban on interracial dating/marriage or pay back taxes, they opted to pay 1 million + in back taxes.... 76-83 I believe, so 7 years probably.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 29, 2015 18:42:04 GMT -5
I don't know anyone who would ostracize someone (much the less brow-beat anyone) because of their religion - except a few I've run into online who would do so to muslims. I haven't seen anyone ostracized because they disagree with the gay lifestyle, either. You must run with an entirely different crowd than I do. And this is why the left is totally blind to their own disrespecting ways...
Let me break it down to all the people that don't seem to see it:
Example 1 = someone posts a message on this board that says they are against gays getting married, that they don't believe someone is born gay, that its a lifestyle choice, etc, etc. That person would get reemed by the left on this board, saying that their words are insulting/demeaning, they would be ridiculed, called names, etc, etc.
Example 2 = someone posts a message on these boards calling someone's god an "invisible man in the sky" and the Bible a fictional storybook thereby demeaning that person's god, their religion, and their beliefs. The leftist liberals would be absolutely silent - in fact, they would probably "like" the post.
So please stop this "liberals are so much more tolerant and understanding of different people's views and beliefs" horseshit...its getting old and has never been true.
So, he's NOT invisible? When was the last time you saw him? And he doesn't live in the sky? Where does he live? Under a bridge? In a subway station? Portugal?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 2:43:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2015 18:44:44 GMT -5
Ok, I'm on page 5 so maybe someone addressed this, if so, sorry. Bolding is mine. www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2015/scotus_roundup/supreme_court_gay_marriage_john_roberts_dissent_in_obergefell_is_heartless.htmlThe four dissents strike me as very weak, though I’ll discuss just two of them, beginning with the chief justice’s. On the first page of his opinion, we read that “marriage ‘has existed for millennia and across civilizations,’ ” and “for all those millennia, across all those civilizations, ‘marriage’ referred to only one relationship: the union of a man and a woman.” That’s nonsense; polygamy—the union of one man with more than one woman (sometimes with hundreds of women)—has long been common in many civilizations (let’s not forget Utah) and remains so in much of the vast Muslim world. But later in his opinion the chief justice remembers polygamy and suggests that if gay marriage is allowed, so must be polygamy. He ignores the fact that polygamy imposes real costs, by reducing the number of marriageable women. Suppose a society contains 100 men and 100 women, but the five wealthiest men have a total of 50 wives. That leaves 95 men to compete for only 50 marriageable women.
The chief justice criticizes the majority for “order[ing] the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?” We’re pretty sure we’re not any of the above. And most of us are not convinced that what’s good enough for the Bushmen, the Carthaginians, and the Aztecs should be good enough for us. Ah, the millennia! Ah, the wisdom of ages! How arrogant it would be to think we knew more than the Aztecs—we who don’t even know how to cut a person’s heart out of his chest while’s he still alive, a maneuver they were experts at.PolyGAMY doesn't guarantee multiple spouses will be wives though... that would be polyGYNY. Polygamy is "multiple spouses"... of any gender make-up. Could be 1 husband + many wives... could be 1 wife + many husbands... could be a few husbands + a few wives... and with gay marriage legal now, it could be all wives or all husbands.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jun 29, 2015 18:45:47 GMT -5
I don't know anyone who would ostracize someone (much the less brow-beat anyone) because of their religion - except a few I've run into online who would do so to muslims. I haven't seen anyone ostracized because they disagree with the gay lifestyle, either. You must run with an entirely different crowd than I do. And this is why the left is totally blind to their own disrespecting ways...
Let me break it down to all the people that don't seem to see it:
Example 1 = someone posts a message on this board that says they are against gays getting married, that they don't believe someone is born gay, that its a lifestyle choice, etc, etc. That person would get reemed by the left on this board, saying that their words are insulting/demeaning, they would be ridiculed, called names, etc, etc.
Example 2 = someone posts a message on these boards calling someone's god an "invisible man in the sky" and the Bible a fictional storybook thereby demeaning that person's god, their religion, and their beliefs. The leftist liberals would be absolutely silent - in fact, they would probably "like" the post.
So please stop this "liberals are so much more tolerant and understanding of different people's views and beliefs" horseshit...its getting old and has never been true.
Since you quoted me, I assume that last sentence is intended for me. It doesn't apply. I don't look at things in terms of conservatives vs liberals. You do.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 2:43:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2015 18:53:02 GMT -5
I don't know anyone who would ostracize someone (much the less brow-beat anyone) because of their religion - except a few I've run into online who would do so to muslims. I haven't seen anyone ostracized because they disagree with the gay lifestyle, either. You must run with an entirely different crowd than I do. And this is why the left is totally blind to their own disrespecting ways...
Let me break it down to all the people that don't seem to see it:
Example 1 = someone posts a message on this board that says they are against gays getting married, that they don't believe someone is born gay, that its a lifestyle choice, etc, etc. That person would get reemed by the left on this board, saying that their words are insulting/demeaning, they would be ridiculed, called names, etc, etc.
Example 2 = someone posts a message on these boards calling someone's god an "invisible man in the sky" and the Bible a fictional storybook thereby demeaning that person's god, their religion, and their beliefs. The leftist liberals would be absolutely silent - in fact, they would probably "like" the post.
So please stop this "liberals are so much more tolerant and understanding of different people's views and beliefs" horseshit...its getting old and has never been true.
The problem with those examples though is that they are not equivalent. "Example 1" is a case where someone would likely want to force their beliefs onto others. "Example 2" is where someone is telling the other person that their beliefs are crap... but is NOT stopping them from having them or believing them or participating in worship based on them with other like-minded believers. When "Example 2" gets to the point that people are no longer allowed to personally believe as they see fit nor personally worship as they see fit, nor gather as a group to worship with fellow believers as they see fit... then there will be a comparison... and I'll be on your side in the fight against the oppression.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 29, 2015 19:11:40 GMT -5
I'm honestly not entirely sure how churches were automatically granted tax exempt status anyways. And I'm not sure how paying taxes impinges on anyone practicing their religion. I pay taxes and it certainly hasn't kept me from practicing my beliefs. I don't understand what people think they will get form churches in taxes. Every church I've been a member of has always been pretty much breaking even or even in the red most months. Besides a few evangelicals down south who get their own TV shows, there's not some big pile of money to be taxed in church coffers I'm not expecting a huge increase in taxes and if a church is truly spending everything the bring in than losing their tax exempt status won't be an issue, they'll have no income to tax. But I think there's something wrong with a church not paying taxes but builds a multi-million dollar church. Or builds a 20+ story office building but runs out of money part way through and just leaves it there because it's not like they're paying property taxes on it. And regardless I still don't see how a church having to pay taxes keeps you from practicing your beliefs.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jun 29, 2015 19:23:05 GMT -5
I'm honestly not entirely sure how churches were automatically granted tax exempt status anyways. And I'm not sure how paying taxes impinges on anyone practicing their religion. I pay taxes and it certainly hasn't kept me from practicing my beliefs. I don't understand what people think they will get form churches in taxes. Every church I've been a member of has always been pretty much breaking even or even in the red most months. Besides a few evangelicals down south who get their own TV shows, there's not some big pile of money to be taxed in church coffers Umm, California, anyone?
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jun 29, 2015 20:09:07 GMT -5
I don't understand what people think they will get form churches in taxes. Every church I've been a member of has always been pretty much breaking even or even in the red most months. Besides a few evangelicals down south who get their own TV shows, there's not some big pile of money to be taxed in church coffers I'm not expecting a huge increase in taxes and if a church is truly spending everything the bring in than losing their tax exempt status won't be an issue, they'll have no income to tax. But I think there's something wrong with a church not paying taxes but builds a multi-million dollar church. Or builds a 20+ story office building but runs out of money part way through and just leaves it there because it's not like they're paying property taxes on it. And regardless I still don't see how a church having to pay taxes keeps you from practicing your beliefs. That will be the first step in the war against religion, the removal of tax exempt status from churches.
step two will be the challenging of churches renting public venues for church meetings and events.
Step three will be fines and possible jail time for refusing to perform same sex weddings.
all because we can't violate "civil rights."
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 29, 2015 20:18:11 GMT -5
I'm not expecting a huge increase in taxes and if a church is truly spending everything the bring in than losing their tax exempt status won't be an issue, they'll have no income to tax. But I think there's something wrong with a church not paying taxes but builds a multi-million dollar church. Or builds a 20+ story office building but runs out of money part way through and just leaves it there because it's not like they're paying property taxes on it. And regardless I still don't see how a church having to pay taxes keeps you from practicing your beliefs. That will be the first step in the war against religion, the removal of tax exempt status from churches.
step two will be the challenging of churches renting public venues for church meetings and events.
Step three will be fines and possible jail time for refusing to perform same sex weddings.
all because we can't violate "civil rights."
Why should religions not pay taxes?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 2:43:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2015 20:44:00 GMT -5
I'm not expecting a huge increase in taxes and if a church is truly spending everything the bring in than losing their tax exempt status won't be an issue, they'll have no income to tax. But I think there's something wrong with a church not paying taxes but builds a multi-million dollar church. Or builds a 20+ story office building but runs out of money part way through and just leaves it there because it's not like they're paying property taxes on it. And regardless I still don't see how a church having to pay taxes keeps you from practicing your beliefs. That will be the first step in the war against religion, the removal of tax exempt status from churches.1
step two will be the challenging of churches renting public venues for church meetings and events.2
Step three will be fines and possible jail time for refusing to perform same sex weddings.3
all because we can't violate "civil rights."
1> That's not a "war against religion" issue... that's balancing private club against private club. Golf clubs aren't tax exempt... yet they are places where people of like minds gather in fellowship... and they also do charity work (sometimes)... Why should churches be tax exempt, anyway? I never understood the rationale for that. 2> Are you saying people shouldn't get to deny others the use of their space? Isn't "denial of the right to use their space" exactly what churches do to people that don't follow the tenets of their faith? Goose... meet gander. 3> That'll never happen... because (are you ready for this?): That would be a violation of the separation of Church and State.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 2:43:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2015 20:46:03 GMT -5
Is it possible for churches and people who support gay marriage to live in harmony? I see a lot of bashing on churches and wonder why that's any different than gay marriage. In other words, if I can say "gay marriage doesn't effect me so knock yourselves out," why can't other folks say "these people going to church doesn't effect me so knock yourselves out." Because the people against gay marriage want to bar gays from getting married. The people that don't believe in other people's religion don't want to bar them from participating in a religion they believe in.
|
|