And here in lies the problem! A government within a government.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
In some cases challenges may happen and some things may happen. I have no way of predicting the future and neither do you.[/quote]
Well, with Church-related associations surely you must agree that LOGICALLY it should happen once it goes to court (we both know it will very soon be challenged like never before). If homosexual marriage= interracial marriage…Well, precedent is set by interracial marriage.
So…No brainer. Yes, they must lose their status. [/quote]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Churches won’t lose their tax exempt status as long as they follow the rules.
http://www.mosherlaw.com/docs/20presentation.pdf[/quote]
It’ll start with their organizations (schools, hospitals, etc.). Since many of these are survive on the margins, a good many will have to pull into their shell, forgo as much charitable outreach, and thus have less influence. If they they don’t have to shutter their doors permanently, that is. This will further weaken (as its intent will be) the standing of churches. Therefore, will weaken the ability of the church to defend its auto-tax exempt status.
See “Redskins/NFL” and congress, presently
[/quote]
I don’t follow. As long as the church follows the rules for tax exempt status the IRS will not revoke it.
Did I miss where Congress threatened to revoke the NFL’s status?[/quote]
The talk has started.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-10/congress-goes-after-the-washington-redskins-for-racist-name
[/quote]
The NFL and churches are a little different. They fall under different sections of 501.
[/quote]
I understand. I am claiming Churches won’t, for long. Their status is actually relatively recent, to begin with. [/quote]
Indeed.
This is another reason to scrap the income tax. For corps AND individuals.
A consumption tax(es) of some sort is the way to go.
Too many shenanigans exist, and will continue to exist, under the present system. [/quote]
You don’t think a consumption tax could be equally as ambiguous?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Churches won’t lose their tax exempt status as long as they follow the rules.
http://www.mosherlaw.com/docs/20presentation.pdf[/quote]
It’ll start with their organizations (schools, hospitals, etc.). Since many of these are survive on the margins, a good many will have to pull into their shell, forgo as much charitable outreach, and thus have less influence. If they they don’t have to shutter their doors permanently, that is. This will further weaken (as its intent will be) the standing of churches. Therefore, will weaken the ability of the church to defend its auto-tax exempt status.
See “Redskins/NFL” and congress, presently
[/quote]
I don’t follow. As long as the church follows the rules for tax exempt status the IRS will not revoke it.
Did I miss where Congress threatened to revoke the NFL’s status?[/quote]
The talk has started.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-10/congress-goes-after-the-washington-redskins-for-racist-name
[/quote]
The NFL and churches are a little different. They fall under different sections of 501.
[/quote]
I understand. I am claiming Churches won’t, for long. Their status is actually relatively recent, to begin with. [/quote]
Indeed.
This is another reason to scrap the income tax. For corps AND individuals.
A consumption tax(es) of some sort is the way to go.
Too many shenanigans exist, and will continue to exist, under the present system. [/quote]
It’s sad. I used to argue the pro-civil rights employment/business side because–and despite the dangers of such power–I felt like we had to at least try help racial minorities catch up in an economic/jobs race we had been running for some time now. Well, damn if I don’t feel like a fool.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Slipper slope stuff? Its been coming true piece by piece. Employment/business laws are already playing their part.[/quote]
O…k.
Considering anti-discrimination laws in the past DIDN’T change the tax exempt status of churches I’d say you are being a little paranoid in this instance and using slippery slope logic yet.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Churches won’t lose their tax exempt status as long as they follow the rules.
http://www.mosherlaw.com/docs/20presentation.pdf[/quote]
It’ll start with their organizations (schools, hospitals, etc.). Since many of these are survive on the margins, a good many will have to pull into their shell, forgo as much charitable outreach, and thus have less influence. If they they don’t have to shutter their doors permanently, that is. This will further weaken (as its intent will be) the standing of churches. Therefore, will weaken the ability of the church to defend its auto-tax exempt status.
See “Redskins/NFL” and congress, presently
[/quote]
I don’t follow. As long as the church follows the rules for tax exempt status the IRS will not revoke it.
Did I miss where Congress threatened to revoke the NFL’s status?[/quote]
The talk has started.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-10/congress-goes-after-the-washington-redskins-for-racist-name
[/quote]
The NFL and churches are a little different. They fall under different sections of 501.
[/quote]
I understand. I am claiming Churches won’t, for long. Their status is actually relatively recent, to begin with. [/quote]
Indeed.
This is another reason to scrap the income tax. For corps AND individuals.
A consumption tax(es) of some sort is the way to go.
Too many shenanigans exist, and will continue to exist, under the present system. [/quote]
It’s sad. I used to argue the pro-civil rights employment/business side because–and despite the dangers of such power–I felt like we had to at least try help racial minorities catch up in an economic/jobs race we had been running for some time now. Well, damn if I don’t feel like a fool.
[/quote]
Yes, life was so much better when the government was mandating the type of sex consenting adults could have.
It’s too bad we aren’t having the government force that and put people in jail anymore. Government save us from thine selves. We know no better! Freedom is for those who make the right decisions with their freedom. Via la fascism!
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Slipper slope stuff? Its been coming true piece by piece. Employment/business laws are already playing their part.[/quote]
O…k.
Considering anti-discrimination laws in the past DIDN’T change the tax exempt status of churches I’d say you are being a little paranoid in this instance and using slippery slope logic yet. [/quote]
Let’s both bookmark this page, and check in 10-15 years.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Yes, life was so much better when the government was mandating the type of sex consenting adults could have.
It’s too bad we aren’t having the government force that and put people in jail anymore. Via la fascism! [/quote]
That’s not what I said. I actually gave a nod towards the Libertarian position on employment/business anti-discrimination laws, and you attacked me…
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Yes, life was so much better when the government was mandating the type of sex consenting adults could have.
It’s too bad we aren’t having the government force that and put people in jail anymore. Via la fascism! [/quote]
That’s not what I said. I actually gave a nod towards the Libertarian position on employment/business anti-discrimination laws, and you attacked me…
[/quote]
I didn’t attack you. And libertarians are pro gay marriage FWIW.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Yes, life was so much better when the government was mandating the type of sex consenting adults could have.
It’s too bad we aren’t having the government force that and put people in jail anymore. Via la fascism! [/quote]
That’s not what I said. I actually gave a nod towards the Libertarian position on employment/business anti-discrimination laws, and you attacked me…
[/quote]
I didn’t attack you. And libertarians are pro gay marriage FWIW. [/quote]
They are not all pro-STATE gay marriage. The LP (which adopted the progressive position) isn’t all libertarians. I know libertarians who absolutely wouldn’t support STATE gay marriage until religious liberty was ensured from home to business. I know others who only support it as long as every other imaginable consenting adult arrangement rode the same wave at the same time. I know others who only aimed to remove hetero-marriage (therefore, all state recognized marriage).
But, specifically, libertarians wide and far oppose the sort of anti-discrimation measures the wedding cake maker, and photographer, are now being attacked with. What you quoted was about anti-discrimination laws in employment/business, which libertarians are supposed to oppose. So, I don’t how that provoked what you replied with…
In fact, some of those libertarians who do support STATE recognized marriage do so in order to tear it, and any other form of STATE marriage, down in the future.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Yes, life was so much better when the government was mandating the type of sex consenting adults could have.
It’s too bad we aren’t having the government force that and put people in jail anymore. Via la fascism! [/quote]
That’s not what I said. I actually gave a nod towards the Libertarian position on employment/business anti-discrimination laws, and you attacked me…
[/quote]
I didn’t attack you. And libertarians are pro gay marriage FWIW. [/quote]
They are not all pro-STATE gay marriage. The LP (which adopted the progressive position) isn’t all libertarians. I know libertarians who absolutely wouldn’t support STATE gay marriage until religious liberty was ensured from home to business. I know others who only support it as long as every other imaginable consenting adult arrangement rode the same wave at the same time. I know others who only aimed to remove hetero-marriage (therefore, all state recognized marriage).
But, specifically, libertarians wide and far oppose the sort of anti-discrimation measures the wedding cake maker, and photographer, are now being attacked with. What you quoted was about anti-discrimination laws in employment/business, which libertarians are supposed to oppose. So, I don’t how that provoked what you replied with…
[/quote]
Sloth I (and other Libs) are against discrimination laws in general, but clearly that is a position that hasn’t been popular for a long time now. Honestly trying to change that may be fruitless, I have no idea. I’m not FOR anti-discrimination laws and my posts against the move was because of WHERE they were coming from.
Libertarians on the whole are against the state having special treatment for people. A limited government point of view has churches being free to marry (and not marry) who they wish. Why would anyone oppose this? Why should some peoples religion trump OTHER peoples ability to do certain things?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
In fact, some of those libertarians who do support STATE recognized marriage do so in order to tear it, and any other form of STATE marriage, down in the future.
http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/07/the-libertarian-gay-marriage-paradox[/quote]
I’ve already said I am personally against benefits for people who are married and I am getting married soon. Personally I see no need for tax exemptions and different treatment for a 35 year old man vs. a 35 year old married man.
I think the less special treatments a government gives individuals and businesses the better. Unfortunately our convoluted tax code is filled with all sorts of special treatment and I’d love to see a lot of that go away.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
You don’t think a consumption tax could be equally as ambiguous?[/quote]
I don’t.[/quote]
Interesting.
[quote]H factor wrote:
…and I am getting married soon.[/quote]
Congrats!