Today will mark the beginning
- Thread starter TarHeelEer
- Start date
I agree hypocritical chicken littles throwing around hate-filled hypotheticals is a bunch of 'much ado about nothing". But that is what they do.
Definitely a hypocritical view. You have free speech, a right to assemble and religion but dont exercise all those rights at the same time or we will come to get you.
Says the guy who is all over this thread passing judgement on THE and his church. How comical.
I dont think scotus should have ruled on this issue because it a state issue but the ruling doesnt affect or bother me. I think govt. Should stop supporting all marriages of all type and merely recognize any two people who petition to form a union.
Dave, you do understand that PACs are not considered a tax free non-profit, right? It is because they lobby for positions, laws, etc. When churches do this, they are doing the same thing and shouldn't be treated as a tax-free non-profit. No one is telling them they can't say something, the SCOTUS is telling them when they act as lobbyists, they will be taxed.
You do realize that churches tax exempt status has nothing to do with their opionion and everything to do with their status as charitable orgs. Everyon in every church has the right to an opinion. Should a church lose the tax exemption if the let a politician speak to their assembly? They have the right to assemble freely and say what they want. They are tax exempt because they are not in business for orofits but instead to provide necessary service to their community.
"Necessary service to their community."
Pretty soon it won't be seen as a necessary service ......... and soon after that (if not before) they will cry out to that same God they said never existed and that is the only "I am" and only seen through Jesus Christ.
Doesn't that narrow road just suck? :sunglasses:
Pretty soon it won't be seen as a necessary service ......... and soon after that (if not before) they will cry out to that same God they said never existed and that is the only "I am" and only seen through Jesus Christ.
Doesn't that narrow road just suck? :sunglasses:
I fully support a state's right, as long as it doesn't interfere with an individual's constitutional right. This ruling could actually be used to help bolster 2nd Amendment rights, specifically recognition of conceal carry permits, etc.
But I agree. Government should have never been in the "Marriage" license business anyways, and opponents to gay marriage brought this decision on themselves when they failed to press for the removal of legal marriages to begin with.
So, you are saying that all the black churches should be a taxed entity. That is great news. A major complaint in the South is that every black church instructs on whom to vote for. That has historically resulted in the black vote of the area to be a block vote for Dems.
Not every man or woman married is married in the eyes of the church. Polygamy is but one of several examples. Same sex marriages are the same until the church sanctions them. Until then the church does not endorse this claim of marriage as a devine act. It just has civil and legal endorsement.
The comments I have seen in this thread regarding the PAC issue haven't labeled the political speech required for that sort of designation. I'll pull a dave and tell you to work on your reading comprehension.
Why? I didnt say they had been labeled but everyone knows damn well that nobody is pulling a tax exemption from a church for having jesse jacjson speak.
Jesse Jackson speaking at a church doesn't mean a church should lose its exemption. Same for any politician. What would cause an issue is what the speak about.
Religion? Fine.
Broad social issues? Fine.
Who you should vote for in the next election (by name)? Not fine.
Silliness. People every day discuss who they should vote for. The only reason doing it in a church is a problem is because the churches are ysually telling people to vote for conservatives and liberals LOVE to punish people who dont agree with them.
But earlier someone in this thread was complaining that the black churches get everyone to vote for democracts?
Ok? Someone linked a story about a black church urging people to bote for obama in response to someone claiming it was a republian thing? Which side is trying to take silence churches by threatening their tax exempt status? Its not republicans.
There is a difference in pointing out that all kinds of churches can preach politics but it another to suggest they stop being a church and start being a PAC for prople expressing their opinions.
No actually it was a response to someone stating that churches do that, I posted that as an example, and they didn't reply to it.
Actually, the attorney representing gay marriage advocates admitted to the justices that religious institutions may well be in danger of losing their tax exempt status.
I said that churches which engage in politics should lose their tax exempt status under the law. Then you start in about that only applies to Republican candidates and somehow Jesse Jackson enters the discussion.
At this point I don't even know what you are trying to say anymore.
Churches won't have any issue as their exemption is well carved out via specific exemptions in the Civil Rights Act and various SCOTUS decisions.