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

#46 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,151 posts

Posted 28 May 2009 - 06:25 PM

do you guys like the idea of your tax money subsidizing the westborro baptist church's military funeral protests? because by not paying taxes, that's exactly what's happening. you're pulling their weight.

#47 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,534 posts
  • LocationWilmington, NC

Posted 28 May 2009 - 06:41 PM

tax exemption for religion is not in the constitution. that is a special privilege. it's not infringing on freedom of religion in the least. it is giving them all the freedom in the world to do what they want, and to pick between keeping discrimination or their special privileges. they're still 100% free to practice their religion as they see fit.

to answer your question, DDII, yes, they should lose it. why shouldn't they?


This is a question rodeo... I don't know the answer, which is why I'm asking... obviously it is not in the constitution that churches are tax exempt... why are they, when did that happen?

#48 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,151 posts

Posted 28 May 2009 - 06:50 PM

i don't know either. i know it's 501c3. i can't find any info about its origins though.

#49 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,967 posts

Posted 28 May 2009 - 06:50 PM

tax exemption for religion is not in the constitution. that is a special privilege. it's not infringing on freedom of religion in the least. it is giving them all the freedom in the world to do what they want, and to pick between keeping discrimination or their special privileges. they're still 100% free to practice their religion as they see fit.

to answer your question, DDII, yes, they should lose it. why shouldn't they?


No its not in the constitution. You are correct there. If they take tax exemption away for all religious groups, then I would be ok with it. But if they single out any specific religion because they will not do something that their religous beliefs forbid, then that is imo a violation of the first amendment. I can't imagine a more extreme example of a violation of the first amendment than to say that if you don't practice your religion the way we want you to, then its going to cost you a lot of money.

#50 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,967 posts

Posted 28 May 2009 - 06:53 PM

do you guys like the idea of your tax money subsidizing the westborro baptist church's military funeral protests? because by not paying taxes, that's exactly what's happening. you're pulling their weight.


Do I like it? No I certainly don't. But I would be against removing that tax exemption merely because I find them disgusting.

#51 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,151 posts

Posted 28 May 2009 - 06:58 PM

No its not in the constitution. If they take tax exemption away for all religious groups, then I would be ok with it. But if they single out any specific religion because they will not do something that their religous beliefs forbid, then that is imo a violation of the first amendment. I can't imagine a more extreme example of a violation of the first amendment than to say that if you don't practice your religion the way we want you to, then its going to cost you a lot of money.


they already do that for charities. in fact the salvation army tried a very similar argument as yours in trying to discriminate against gays.

i just think it should be much more difficult than it is to be tax exempt. in order to gain that status i think you should have to:

1) go to much greater lengths to prove that you truly aren't for profit. it's a joke to see these not-for-profit churches with huge-ass sound systems and big screens and coffee shops in the lobby and their pastors with ferraris.

2) illustrate exactly what good you do in the community and how much of it you do.

3) not discriminate or be a harmful presence to anyone.

i mean, being exempt from taxes has a lot of gravity behind it. that's a big deal. and when people like westborro baptist and scientology are running around making millions without paying taxes, it sticks in my craw!

#52 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,967 posts

Posted 28 May 2009 - 08:19 PM

The salvation army case was a bit different. In that case, Salvation Army was administering public funds in faith based initiatives (something that I didn't really support). Thats a bit different from revoking a church's tax free status because it will not perform certain types of marriages.

Should a church lose its tax exemption because it refuses to marry one of its members to a member of another religion? If it doesn't, then it are they guilty of religion based discrimination?

Edited by Davidson Deac II, 28 May 2009 - 08:28 PM.


#53 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,151 posts

Posted 28 May 2009 - 09:24 PM

i've been basing my argument on discrimination, but honestly i don't think churches should be tax exempt at all by default. i think charities should be tax exempt. and i think all churches should start off paying taxes, and then each individual one can make their case of 'we do x y and z for the community, and here are our books to show that we don't turn a proft' to earn charity status and tax exemption. but there's no reason it should be automatic just because they are a church.

to answer your question, no i don't think a church who refuses services to any kind of demographic should be tax exempt any more than a charity who would turn away someone of the wrong religion. it's against the whole spirit of why they're tax exempt at all.

tax exemption is a special privilege given because they are supposed to be a positive presence in the community and they are supposed to help people. that's not compatible with discrimination.

Edited by rodeo, 28 May 2009 - 09:26 PM.


#54 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,967 posts

Posted 28 May 2009 - 10:57 PM

Like I said, if they remove it from all churches, then that would be ok constitutionally. But singling a church out because of certain practices = blatant violation of first amendment.

That being said, any president or congress member who proposes ending tax exemption for churchs has zero chance at getting re-elected.

#55 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,727 posts

Posted 28 May 2009 - 11:17 PM

Like I said, if they remove it from all churches, then that would be ok constitutionally. But singling a church out because of certain practices = blatant violation of first amendment.


Bingo

#56 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,151 posts

Posted 28 May 2009 - 11:27 PM

Like I said, if they remove it from all churches, then that would be ok constitutionally. But singling a church out because of certain practices = blatant violation of first amendment.


but the government endorsing discrimination is a violation of the fourteenth amendment, is it not? does a gay person truly have equal protection under the law if churches are allowed to discriminate against them and enjoy special benefits under the law?

the supreme court held that yes, that violates the constitution when applied to interracial marriage. why is it different for marriages of different religions or gay-level?

#57 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,781 posts

Posted 29 May 2009 - 08:05 AM

I think Rodeo is on to something here. As the gay marriage debate fades into the same "no big deal" mentality that interracial marriages have, the decisions that affected that will be applied equally to gay marriages, because who is sticking what into whom is completely irrelevant when it comes to equal protection.


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.