Leo123
Diamond Member
- Aug 26, 2017
- 38,911
- 32,013
- 2,915
Gays have no special right to force anyone to serve them.
Winning! Supreme Court Tosses Ruling Against Christian Bakers Who Refused Cake For Gay Couple
- Thread starter White_MAGA_Man
- Start date
Gays have no special right to force anyone to serve them.
daveman
Diamond Member
A bakery owned by Christians is tax-exempt?
Leo123
Diamond Member
- Aug 26, 2017
- 38,911
- 32,013
- 2,915
The 14th mentions privileges not rights.
bodecea
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #147
The 14th very clearly says that the state cannot deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; NOR DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. Hardly privileges. If the state provides marriage licenses to a certain group of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens, it cannot deny the same equal protection of its laws to another law-abiding, tax-paying group.
daveman
Diamond Member
So...only Christian churches are tax-exempt? Muslim, Buddhist, and Scientologist houses of worship pay taxes?
SassyIrishLass
Diamond Member
- Mar 31, 2009
- 113,772
- 101,610
- 3,605
The gays are melting down on Twitter because two high school kids took a video of them burning a *** flag and uploaded it.
Priceless like that rag is somehow immune from burning
Priceless like that rag is somehow immune from burning
Wry Catcher
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #150
Yeah, now Trump can stage an event to give the bigot the Medal of Freedom.
Leo123
Diamond Member
- Aug 26, 2017
- 38,911
- 32,013
- 2,915
No, the decision has to do with religious freedom that was denied to Aaron and Melissa by a 'state body.' It was NOT about any 'rights' the gay couple were entitled to. In fact, according to the 14th the gay couple was NOT denied equal protection as they could always go somewhere else.
Leo123
Diamond Member
- Aug 26, 2017
- 38,911
- 32,013
- 2,915
And NO, the Baker is not a 'bigot.'
Last edited:
Wry Catcher
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #153
He's not? What is he then? A tolerant gentleman he ain't.
Deno
Gold Member
- Nov 18, 2017
- 7,128
- 898
- 290
Trump is stacking the courts.....
No wonder the Tards hate him so bad....
He plays their game better than they do while
making fools of them.
Leo123
Diamond Member
- Aug 26, 2017
- 38,911
- 32,013
- 2,915
If not paying taxes is a right then the poor have more rights than those who make an income. Talk about inequality!! Funny.....But actually, Churches are not taxed for several reasons...I KNOW the link is religion ne:
5 reasons we should never tax churches, even if John Oliver is right (COMMENTARY) - Religion News Service
1. Government can’t pick some churches to tax & regulate but not others.
Oliver focused on churches that preach the “Prosperity Gospel” and do so in a public way. His audience (myself included) laughed as he ridiculed some prominent TV preachers. Making pronouncements, giving blessings, and issuing calls for faithful giving is, well, something found in nearly every house of worship in America. Government can’t pick and choose which ones are silly and which ones are legitimate. It must practice “benevolent neutrality.” If you tax the TV evangelist you don’t like, then you also must tax the Unitarian/Universalist congregation, the synagogue, the Catholic parish, the Amish house church, and every other religious community.
READ Five things I teach foreign students about American religion & politics
2. If we tax churches, then we will need to tax all not-for-profit organizations.
Government may exempt churches from property taxes and other taxes so long as they do so for other charities. There are some who argue that, as in the case of religious groups on public campuses (Rosenberger v UVA), government can’t select just religious groups to tax while leaving all other organizations like schools, women shelters, soup kitchens, and fraternal organizations tax-exempt.
3. To tax churches, government would need to have the (currently unconstitutional) authority to audit and regulate churches.
Income is revenue minus expenses. So, to tax revenue, the government has rules about what counts as legitimate business expenses and regulations on how businesses perform their accounting. The government may also audit organizations. To do this for churches means that the government would define what is and is not legitimate and then act to ensure compliance. This raises a constitutional issue as Congress cannot make laws that affect the free exercise of religion.
4. Taxation would benefit large churches and ministries and harm smaller ones.
As with any organization, larger is better. Big churches would have the resources to hire lawyers and accountants that would minimize their tax burden. Smaller churches that currently operate on shoestring budgets would face a relatively greater cost in order to comply with new regulations.
5. It wouldn’t solve the problem.
Most of the discussion of taxing churches offers so-called megachurches or television-based ministries as examples of abuse. But if we tax churches, then churches will do what other businesses do—they’ll increase expenditures in order to reduce taxable income. Again: income is revenue minus expenditures. The TV preacher’s million dollar income? That’s an expense. His clothes for his show? An expense. His jet to travel for business? Another expense. The cost of all those fundraising mailings? More expenses. By the end, there won’t be any income to tax.
He's not? What is he then? A tolerant gentleman he ain't.
He's not? What is he then? A tolerant gentleman he ain't.
Seems to me it was the gays who were intolerant.
bodecea
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #158
Of course...christians are the victims here.
If not paying taxes is a right then the poor have more rights than those who make an income. Talk about inequality!! Funny.....But actually, Churches are not taxed for several reasons...I KNOW the link is religion ne:
5 reasons we should never tax churches, even if John Oliver is right (COMMENTARY) - Religion News Service
1. Government can’t pick some churches to tax & regulate but not others.
Oliver focused on churches that preach the “Prosperity Gospel” and do so in a public way. His audience (myself included) laughed as he ridiculed some prominent TV preachers. Making pronouncements, giving blessings, and issuing calls for faithful giving is, well, something found in nearly every house of worship in America. Government can’t pick and choose which ones are silly and which ones are legitimate. It must practice “benevolent neutrality.” If you tax the TV evangelist you don’t like, then you also must tax the Unitarian/Universalist congregation, the synagogue, the Catholic parish, the Amish house church, and every other religious community.
READ Five things I teach foreign students about American religion & politics
2. If we tax churches, then we will need to tax all not-for-profit organizations.
Government may exempt churches from property taxes and other taxes so long as they do so for other charities. There are some who argue that, as in the case of religious groups on public campuses (Rosenberger v UVA), government can’t select just religious groups to tax while leaving all other organizations like schools, women shelters, soup kitchens, and fraternal organizations tax-exempt.
3. To tax churches, government would need to have the (currently unconstitutional) authority to audit and regulate churches.
Income is revenue minus expenses. So, to tax revenue, the government has rules about what counts as legitimate business expenses and regulations on how businesses perform their accounting. The government may also audit organizations. To do this for churches means that the government would define what is and is not legitimate and then act to ensure compliance. This raises a constitutional issue as Congress cannot make laws that affect the free exercise of religion.
4. Taxation would benefit large churches and ministries and harm smaller ones.
As with any organization, larger is better. Big churches would have the resources to hire lawyers and accountants that would minimize their tax burden. Smaller churches that currently operate on shoestring budgets would face a relatively greater cost in order to comply with new regulations.
5. It wouldn’t solve the problem.
Most of the discussion of taxing churches offers so-called megachurches or television-based ministries as examples of abuse. But if we tax churches, then churches will do what other businesses do—they’ll increase expenditures in order to reduce taxable income. Again: income is revenue minus expenditures. The TV preacher’s million dollar income? That’s an expense. His clothes for his show? An expense. His jet to travel for business? Another expense. The cost of all those fundraising mailings? More expenses. By the end, there won’t be any income to tax.
He's not? What is he then? A tolerant gentleman he ain't.
He's not? What is he then? A tolerant gentleman he ain't.
Seems to me it was the gays who were intolerant.
I had no idea trying to claim equal rights was fascist.
Maybe you lot ought to quit whining when twitter and fb exercise their umh "freedom of conscience" by blocking your haters.
RoshawnMarkwees
Assimilationist
- Banned
- #160
No one has a right to force another into a political or religious view. That would be the fascism I referred to. In this case, homofascism.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Air Canada hit a firetruck and the pilots died learn a lot more- Started by Robert W
- Replies: 2
-
-
