Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

NH House votes down gay marriage bill because of religious liberty protection clause


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#16 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,998 posts

Posted 28 May 2009 - 11:57 AM

churches should lose their tax exempt status period, but that's an entirely different argument.

#17 Zod

Zod

    YOUR RULER

  • MFCEO
  • 19,701 posts

Posted 28 May 2009 - 11:57 AM

I agree, but there is no chance of that happening so whats the use in talking about it. ;)

#18 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,489 posts
  • LocationWilmington, NC

Posted 28 May 2009 - 11:59 AM

My stance is any religious institution should be able to deny marriage to anyone that their particular religion prohibits marrying. But, in doing so, churches should lose their tax exempt status because clearly they are not interested in serving all of the community.


I agree with you that churches should be able to marry or not marry anyone that their religion allows them to, but what has that got to do with the tax exempt status. Isn't that simply a way to force churches to do what the gov't wants them to?

#19 Zod

Zod

    YOUR RULER

  • MFCEO
  • 19,701 posts

Posted 28 May 2009 - 12:00 PM

I agree with you that churches should be able to marry or not marry anyone that their religion allows them to, but what has that got to do with the tax exempt status. Isn't that simply a way to force churches to do what the gov't wants them to?


Are businesses forced to do what the government wants them to do because of taxes? I don't have that problem in my business.

#20 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,489 posts
  • LocationWilmington, NC

Posted 28 May 2009 - 12:06 PM

Are businesses forced to do what the government wants them to do because of taxes? I don't have that problem in my business.


I think you missed my point... your business already pays taxes, while churches do not. The threat of losing tax exempt status could be used as a coercion to do something could it not? I supposed the gov't could come to your business just the same and say "do this or we'll raise your taxes."

Nonetheless, I still don't understand why you think that churches who won't marry anyone that wants to should lose that tax exempt status? That's apples and oranges to me...

#21 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,147 posts

Posted 28 May 2009 - 12:09 PM

i came into the thread not having a problem with it because yes, churches should be allowed to discriminate all they want. but zod raised a good point with taxes. an organization should not be allowed to be tax exempt and discriminate at the same time. that is in essence government sponsored discrimination.

#22 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Administrators
  • 15,643 posts
  • LocationMatthews, NC

Posted 28 May 2009 - 12:12 PM

What about the st jude's children's hospital? They discriminate against adults!

Tax them!

#23 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,716 posts

Posted 28 May 2009 - 12:16 PM

This is going the exact direction I knew it would.

Anyone that's against that provision is about destroying church's that don't abide by the homosexual agenda.

I'd asked you Zod if the Jewish Orthodox church should be forced to marry a jew and gentile...some wouldn't allow it. They are a race. And you know...religion IS a protected civil right. What you screw isn't.

Separation of church and state doesn't mean separation of church FROM the state...it's both ways.

#24 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,716 posts

Posted 28 May 2009 - 12:17 PM

What about the st jude's children's hospital? They discriminate against adults!

Tax them!


Don't point out the idiocy in Zod's arguments. He takes it personally and you'll end up a racist...wait...an ageist...or whatever.

#25 Zod

Zod

    YOUR RULER

  • MFCEO
  • 19,701 posts

Posted 28 May 2009 - 12:17 PM

This is going the exact direction I knew it would.

Anyone that's against that provision is about destroying church's that don't abide by the homosexual agenda.

I'd asked you Zod if the Jewish Orthodox church should be forced to marry a jew and gentile...some wouldn't allow it. They are a race. And you know...religion IS a protected civil right. What you screw isn't.

Separation of church and state doesn't mean separation of church FROM the state...it's both ways.



You are at least 5 steps behind in the argument. Let me know when you catch up.

#26 Zod

Zod

    YOUR RULER

  • MFCEO
  • 19,701 posts

Posted 28 May 2009 - 12:21 PM

that is in essence government sponsored discrimination.


Yep

You think that because they don't pay taxes for the church that no one does? Whose taxes pay for the street lights, the roads, the traffic cops, the land surveys, etc. Yours and mine do.

Should you have to pay for all that to be done for an organization that just discriminated against you?


Nope.

Let them pay their own taxes and discriminate all they want.

#27 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,716 posts

Posted 28 May 2009 - 12:24 PM

Take it up with Democrat gov Lynch.

#28 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Administrators
  • 15,643 posts
  • LocationMatthews, NC

Posted 28 May 2009 - 12:24 PM

Like any entity that builds on land, churches must make the required road/utility/land improvements and pay for it themselves. If NCDOT tells them they need to add turn lanes and a traffic light, they have to pay for it.

Trust me.

And I'm pretty sure traffic cops tend to be off-duty cops that churches hire. It isn't a public service.

#29 Zod

Zod

    YOUR RULER

  • MFCEO
  • 19,701 posts

Posted 28 May 2009 - 12:29 PM

Do they pay for their own police in case of break in and fire departments?

#30 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,737 posts

Posted 28 May 2009 - 12:30 PM

I'm gonna have to go with the idea that churches have to follow their own rules on this one.

I however do not understand the need to write this into the law - it's kind of a given as is, and who would want to get married by a church that does not want them? The additional language is unneeded, and could be used at a later date for some oddball unrelated reason.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.