Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Ssm And Byu Tax Exempt


CCRW

Recommended Posts

Obama Admin: Religious Organizations Could Lose Tax-Exempt Status If Supreme Court Creates Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-admin-religious-organizations-could-lose-tax-exempt-status-if-supreme-court-creates-constitutional-right-same-sex-ma?page=1

 

Looks like long hard battles ahead

 

 

And they said it wouldn't couldn't happen.

Link to comment

All of the "assurances" by SSM supporters that religious belief or freedom would not be affected by SSM are being shown for what they are - empty rhetoric meant to mislead a gullible public.

 

That was certainly very concerning. Granted, what will actually happen is yet to be seen. Still, this does not bode well and a lot of people who have assured the rest of us that it would not come to this very well may be eating their words. My guess is that when it comes right down to it, many of them will have changed their tune and preach how it is only fair.

Link to comment

Is someone at the court saying this or is it an interpretation by an observer and if so, what are his or her credentials/experience and demonstrated knowledge and wisdom that we should see that interpretation as valid?

Link to comment

All of the "assurances" by SSM supporters that religious belief or freedom would not be affected by SSM are being shown for what they are - empty rhetoric meant to mislead a gullible public.

 

What does tax exempt status have to do with religious freedom? 

Link to comment

Is someone at the court saying this or is it an interpretation by an observer and if so, what are his or her credentials/experience and demonstrated knowledge and wisdom that we should see that interpretation as valid?

 

From the bottom of the article:

 

"Adam J. White is an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a lawyer in Washington, D.C."

 

Links with additional information are here and here.

 

Looks pretty credible to me. Was pretty simple to Google him and get this information.

Link to comment

Is someone at the court saying this or is it an interpretation by an observer and if so, what are his or her credentials/experience and demonstrated knowledge and wisdom that we should see that interpretation as valid?

 

If you read the article, the quote on tax exempt status came from the Solicitor General (the administration's attorney arguing before the Supreme Court) himself in the oral arguments.

Link to comment

All of the "assurances" by SSM supporters that religious belief or freedom would not be affected by SSM are being shown for what they are - empty rhetoric meant to mislead a gullible public.

 

And of course you can articulate how United States Constitution garuntees Tax exempt status for BYU, Notre Dame, Bob Jones University - certainly your assurances are not empty rhetoric meant to mislead a gullible person.

Link to comment

And of course you can articulate how United States Constitution garuntees Tax exempt status for BYU, Notre Dame, Bob Jones University - certainly your assurances are not empty rhetoric meant to mislead a gullible person.

 

Your argument could be easily used against SSM, just so you know.

Link to comment

And of course you can articulate how United States Constitution garuntees Tax exempt status for BYU, Notre Dame, Bob Jones University - certainly your assurances are not empty rhetoric meant to mislead a gullible person.

 

The United States Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. Taxing religion is clearly repressive and hence would be in violation of the Constitution. It will especially be so in this case where the purpose of such taxation is to punish religious belief that homosexual relations are sinful, and that such taxation is only designed to force religious belief to be changed to something the state approves of.

 

Taxation of religion in a case like this would be in fundamental opposition to the Constitution. That should be clear to anyone.

Link to comment

Recent studies have shown that 60% of the US population supports SSM. I think that is all well and good. I wonder, though, how much that number would drop if the solicitor general's comment on tax exempt status for universities (and by extension religious organizations) and the detrimental effect it would have on their Faith-based organizations were included in such surveys.

 

In other words, I wonder how many people would be in support of SSM if they knew its approval would necessarily impact religion? I would say yes.

Link to comment

And of course you can articulate how United States Constitution garuntees Tax exempt status for BYU, Notre Dame, Bob Jones University - certainly your assurances are not empty rhetoric meant to mislead a gullible person.

 

"Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,.. ."

First Amendment to the US Constitution

Link to comment

"Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,.. ."

First Amendment to the US Constitution

 

Yet, how many laws do we have from Congress that affect religion?  And how many laws mention religion as exempt from laws?  If the 1st means what it means as you present it, then no law could ever mention religion and no law could restirct religious human sacrifice.

Link to comment

The United States Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. Taxing religion is clearly repressive and hence would be in violation of the Constitution. It will especially be so in this case where the purpose of such taxation is to punish religious belief that homosexual relations are sinful, and that such taxation is only designed to force religious belief to be changed to something the state approves of.

 

Taxation of religion in a case like this would be in fundamental opposition to the Constitution. That should be clear to anyone.

 

Yet you provide no evidence. All you have repeatedly done is make unsupported claims. 

 

Please articulate how Religious Freedom garuntees tax exempt status. Perhaps you should first read the Supreme Courts rulling against Bob Jones University.

Link to comment

Is someone at the court saying this or is it an interpretation by an observer and if so, what are his or her credentials/experience and demonstrated knowledge and wisdom that we should see that interpretation as valid?

 

Bob Jones University had admission standards or code of conduct standards against interracial couples.  The IRS determined those standards violated the tax exempt code.  Bob Jones University eventually argued their case to keep tax exemption and keep the "racist" policies.  The Supreme Court refused to uphold the tax exempt status due to the racist policies.

 

Justice Alito, briefly mentioned the Bob Jones case:

 

JUSTICE ALITO:  Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax­exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating.  So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same­sex marriage?

 

GENERAL VERRILLI (for the United States):  You know, I ­­ I don't think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it's certainly going to be an issue. I ­­ I don't deny that.  I don't deny that, Justice Alito.  It is ­­ it is going to be an issue.

Link to comment

Yet you provide no evidence. All you have repeatedly done is make unsupported claims. 

 

Please articulate how Religious Freedom garuntees tax exempt status. Perhaps you should first read the Supreme Courts rulling against Bob Jones University.

 

I don't see any need to justify my comments to someone who's simply going to dismiss them out of hand as "unsupported".

 

Or perhaps you see taxation as a benevolent activity by government that should be warmly embraced by those being screwed over taxed. In that case, you're sorely mistaken.

Link to comment

The United States Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. Taxing religion is clearly repressive and hence would be in violation of the Constitution. It will especially be so in this case where the purpose of such taxation is to punish religious belief that homosexual relations are sinful, and that such taxation is only designed to force religious belief to be changed to something the state approves of.

 

Taxation of religion in a case like this would be in fundamental opposition to the Constitution. That should be clear to anyone.

Link to comment

“An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy.”  Daniel Webster, 17 U.S. 327 (1819).

"The power to tax involves the power to destroy."  Chief Justice John Marshall, 1819, McCulloch v. Maryland.

 

You have not shown how Religious Freedom garuntees tax exemption.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...