Posted on 05/01/2015 4:59:44 AM PDT by marshmallow
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3285123/posts?page=6#6
Exactly!
1) Why be tax exempt in the first place?
2) Why not pay the taxes and be done with it?
3) Can an organization do the paperwork to become non-tax-exempt?
(I asked the first 2 questions on another thread, and at the time, no-one gave satisfactory answers)
Loathsome yes, but how was it contrary to scripture? Or supported by scripture for that matter?
Yep.
As Craig Parshall says, it’s time for civil disobedience to the gaystapo and their court decisions on a MASSIVE scale.
There’s a couple different ways that could work.
First, while Cruz is elected President the Senate flips back to the Dems. In the couple weeks between the convening of the new Congress and the Inauguration Obama appoints a replacement. The Democrat Senate reinstates the nuclear rule and rams through confirmation. Lifetime appointment.
Second, Cruz wins but the Senate stays Republican. If the Senate recesses in the time between convening and the inauguration Obama makes a recess appointment. Which lasts until the next Congress convenes (early 2019).
Both are theoretical and completely unprecedented. Also highly unlikely because in the first case the Conservatives in the GOP Senate. (Earnest, Lee, etc) WOULD pull out all the stops to tie the place in knots. In the second case it would require the GOP leadership to put the body into recess. Which would be a complete act of defiance against not only their own Party but the incoming President of their own Party. Mitch McConnell is a lot of things, but he’s not enough of a blithering idiot to dynamite his relationship with an incoming GOP President.
With the current tax system, the tax exempt thing has so many angles to it, Wild. First, individuals get to deduct charitable deductions from the their income, but the truth is that it probably doesn't make very much difference at all to most Americans. I imagine that for most, the standard deduction is better than itemizing deductions. And even if itemizing is better, those deductions are only worth their effective tax rate on the dollar. So, if a family deducted $1000 in church donations, and their effective rate is 10%, then it really only saved them a hundred bucks. Church property tax is probably the biggest issue, but I'd forget the IRS classification and argue that on 1st amendment grounds, if I were that church. Church offerings and church property should be off limits to ANY government law. "Congress shall make no law..." They also should be off limits because of clause 2 of the 1st: "prohibiting free exercise". It can hardly be "free" if the government is charging money for it. Someone mentioned Christians hospitals, medicare/Medicaid. I've not thought my way through that one yet, but I sense a person could fight that under equal protection, 14th amendment combined with 1st amendment.
Oh, and to add: I don’t think the nomination automatically goes away per-se. The new President might have the authority to yank the appointment and there are probably a few procedural motions that the Senate can use to just drop it. Failing that the Senate could vote no.
But again we’re talking about something that would be completely unprecedented and would go into a Constitutional area that is pretty much untouched.
Thats why Alito’s question was so critical. This ruling will put a massive bullseye on the Catholic schools and charitable organizations.
Roberts and Kennedy seemed to be on the fence. Which was surprising in Kennedy’s case, and he seemed really cognizant of the fact that this isn’t some simple change but rather a massive shift that will have far reaching impacts across all parts of society.
Search for ‘interracial marriage forbidden by scripture.’ I guess a lot of folks believed that until they didn’t anymore, and both sides used scripture to justify their thinking.
FReegards
I’m not a proponent of gay anything, but I am a proponent of keeping the state out of religion. That also means that religious organizations should not take any government money. Catholic (and other Christian) organizations who contract with the government to provide “social services” are not charities in my book.
I’d rather see all churches give up tax-exemptions and any other subsidies than submit to any government authority.
If you lose the non-profit status and become a business, you can’t decline the transgender student at the once Catholic school or flaming gay kindergarten teacher applicant.
The only example I can think of is the children of Israel being forbidden to inter-marry with others living in the land - such as the Philistines, the Canaanites, etc. But that was not based on race as much as it was on religion - the purpose was to prevent idolatry from infiltrating the nation of Israel by way of marrying those who practiced it. Of course, the Israelites ignored that prohibition, and see what happened to them - even some of their kings and queens began worshipping idols until God sent them into captivity in Babylon.
Don’t ask me. My only point was that places like Bob Jones U. thought they had scriptural support for the policy until they decided that they didn’t.
Freegards
That’s exactly what I had in mind.
This tax exempt stuff needs to stop anyway. Churches and Colleges as far as I know don’t make much of a profit. If they don’t have the tax exempt status they don’t have to take a bunch of carp off the govt.
So if the SCOTUS upholds the traditional view of marriage, does that then mean that gay organizations lose their non-profit status?
No, which is what makes it viewpoint discrimination by the government.
Thanks for the ping.
See Xzins post #25.
1st and 14th amendments could be used to combat this.
I would add the 10th amendment.
Let the states decide; leave the feds out of it.
Xzins,
Your thoughts on tbw2’s post?
The church school cannot be seen as other than a part of the church. There is too much historic evidence for it as well as the common sense observation of it. Religious people train their children. It is nothing new.
So, since the school is an extension of the church itself, it cannot be viewed really as a 'non-profit' or a 'business'. It is a religious institution.
As such, it is protected under the 1st amendment both to its untouchability by the government (make no law, establishment) and to its free exercise. Like Wild says, the 10th amendment, and as I've pointed out, the 14th amendment, protect these liberties nationally.
Again, I'd point out that a sales tax instead of an income tax would make almost all of these financial distinctions go away. If you buy, then you pay. No matter who you are, no matter where you shop.
What would be left would be arbitrary distinctions imposed and those would easily be seen as meddling by the government into religious issues that are of no concern to them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.