nuclearfuels Posted October 15, 2019 Posted October 15, 2019 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Thoughts? Beto is competing amongst many Socialists/Democrats. He has to up his game if he wants to continue attending their debates. Like Sen. Harris, he'd consider it a victory to get any political appointment, heading any federal agency at all, after the POTUS election next Nov.
california boy Posted October 15, 2019 Posted October 15, 2019 (edited) 45 minutes ago, smac97 said: I encourage you to review the remarks of Eugene Volokh in the OP. Your assessment is incorrect on this point. The denial or revocation of tax exemption based on the viewpoint of the group is viewpoint discrimination. It's against the law. I am not. I am saying that your remarks are off-topic. Please take them elsewhere. Again, no comments about Trump, please. I started the thread. I get to determine its scope. Feel free to start your own thread about Trump if you like. Thanks, -Smac Whatever. If you only want to talk about half of the equation and the very reason why tax exemption has become an issue, which seems typical of you in these kinds of threads you start, then I will quit responding to your posts Edited October 15, 2019 by california boy 1
Ahab Posted October 15, 2019 Posted October 15, 2019 4 minutes ago, CA Steve said: I cannot imagine the level of intolerance it takes for someone or maybe some group like a church trying to use their position to make things they don't agree with illegal. Proportional to how much persistence it takes for someone or maybe some group of people like an organization trying to use their position to make things they agree with legal, I suppose.
smac97 Posted October 15, 2019 Author Posted October 15, 2019 1 minute ago, Ahab said: Quote He seems to equate "oppos{ing} same-sex marriage" with "den{ying} the full human rights and the full civil rights" of gay persons. Yes he seems to be equating the two but they are not the same thing. But if he thinks they are the same thing, and if he is in a position to punish religious groups because he thinks of them as the same thing... 1 minute ago, Ahab said: We don't deny the full human rights or the full civil rights of anybody, gay or otherwise. We recognize the rights of everyone to choose what they want to do for themselves. We do oppose doing anything opposed to what God wants us to do, though, but at the same time we still respect everyone's right to choose to do whatever they will do. It is a complex issue and we may need to go through some court battles to drive our point home. I agree. 1 minute ago, Ahab said: Quote I agree that "we don't deny others the right to marry someone of the same sex if they want to," but that's not all there is to it. Is the Church's tax exemption at risk for teaching that same-sex marriage is not compatible with the Gospel? That homosexual behavior violates the Law of Chastity? It seems so. No, I don't think so, even though he and some other people may think so. We have a right to believe whatever we want to believe, and we also have the right to say whatever we want to say. Even within the limits of a charitable organization. I agree. The problem is that I think there are plenty of ways that a "President O'Rourke" could find to use the government to punish religious organizations, such as the Church, for its teachings about same-sex marriage. 1 minute ago, Ahab said: We're in a pretty much unbeatable position, I would say, if you were to ask me. Then why did Mr. Verrelli make such a startling concession when arguing Obergefell? What "long legal battle" was Mr. Booker referencing? What "hard line" does Mr. Tushnet have in mind? 1 minute ago, Ahab said: Quote Again, that's not all there is. Consider Mr. Booker's remarks. And Mr. Verrelli's. Both of them allude to future legal battles. Battles about what? Battles about who to vote for. Who to support. I'm not sure you are correct here. Mr. Booker specifically referenced a "long legal battle." Mr. Verrelli admitted in open court "that the tax-exempt status of Christian colleges and universities who hold traditional views of marriage was 'going to be an issue.'" 1 minute ago, Ahab said: Whose position and which positions will carry the majority vote? The majority vote can't overturn the Constitution of the United States, though. Even if some people battle with all their might to defeat it, we will prevail. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the "living document" theory of Constitutional law. 1 minute ago, Ahab said: Quote If the status quo is sufficient, then why is Mr. Booker speaking of wanting to "press this issue" and speaking of a "long legal battle?" To stir up the public. To try to get more votes. More publicity. More action in his favor, he hopes. It's all strategy. His strategy, with the goals he wants to achieve in his mind. I think I have already explained well enough. I think it's just some more of the same kind of fluff. So he's . . . lying? He won't "press this issue" or pursue a "long legal battle?" He's just telling constituents what he thinks they want to hear? Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted October 15, 2019 Author Posted October 15, 2019 10 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said: Thanks for the correction. The law is clear. Don't support candidates. Period. Change the law so tax-exempt status can be revoked for engaging in politics. Still too broad. "Engaging in politics" can mean all sorts of things. Thanks, -Smac 1
ksfisher Posted October 15, 2019 Posted October 15, 2019 10 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said: Change the law so tax-exempt status can be revoked for engaging in politics. Why? 1
ksfisher Posted October 15, 2019 Posted October 15, 2019 9 minutes ago, CA Steve said: I cannot imagine the level of intolerance it takes for someone or maybe some group like a church trying to use their position to make things they don't agree with illegal. What about things like environmental issues? If a church believes in being good stewards of the earth and limiting environmental degradation, should they be allowed to speak out? Plenty of politics surrounding the environment. 2
Ahab Posted October 15, 2019 Posted October 15, 2019 (edited) 13 minutes ago, smac97 said: But if he thinks they are the same thing, and if he is in a position to punish religious groups because he thinks of them as the same thing... The problem is that I think there are plenty of ways that a "President O'Rourke" could find to use the government to punish religious organizations, such as the Church, for its teachings about same-sex marriage. Then why did Mr. Verrelli make such a startling concession when arguing Obergefell? What "long legal battle" was Mr. Booker referencing? What "hard line" does Mr. Tushnet have in mind? I'm not sure you are correct here. Mr. Booker specifically referenced a "long legal battle." Mr. Verrelli admitted in open court "that the tax-exempt status of Christian colleges and universities who hold traditional views of marriage was 'going to be an issue.'" So he's . . . lying? He won't "press this issue" or pursue a "long legal battle?" He's just telling constituents what he thinks they want to hear? No, I don't think he is lying. It is already a big issue and there may indeed be some (more) court "battle(s)" over the issue of whether or not charitable organizations or members of them have the right to share what they believe with other people. And do you really think any version of any "President O'Rourke" would get enough of Congress to go along with him even if he did think there shouldn't be any charitable organization on this planet declaring their own beliefs to other people? It's too ridiculous to give any serious thought to, even if it ever does end up as an issue in some court in our land of America. Just another sign of the times showing how ridiculous some things and some people are becoming. Edited October 15, 2019 by Ahab
ttribe Posted October 15, 2019 Posted October 15, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, california boy said: I do have a few questions that someone might be able to answer. Is tax exemption a guarantee to churches or any other group? Doesn't a charitable organization have to show financial records to prove they are not a for profit business to qualify for tax exemption? What is the difference between a business and a business that claims to be a charity and how is that legally determined? Some answers - - Any entity claiming to be a charity or religious organization can claim tax-exempt status. Typical non-profits and charities are required to file a Form 990 with the IRS to report their basic (read, highly summarized) financial information. Churches have an additional "religious exemption" which excludes them from being required to file a Form 990. - I don't think your "charity or business" legal determination question is phrased to make sense under the law (I'm not a lawyer, btw). The answer to the question of "non-profit" versus "for profit" (which is akin to your question) has to do with how ownership is established and whether owners can collect the profits of the entity. A "non-profit" entity can legally generate profits; it just can't distribute them to an owner; they have to be used for the charitable purpose of the entity, itself. Edited October 15, 2019 by ttribe 3
ttribe Posted October 15, 2019 Posted October 15, 2019 (edited) Double post. Edited October 15, 2019 by ttribe
Popular Post bluebell Posted October 15, 2019 Popular Post Posted October 15, 2019 35 minutes ago, CA Steve said: I cannot imagine the level of intolerance it takes for someone or maybe some group like a church trying to use their position to make things they don't agree with illegal. I know the sarcasm was probably meant to highlight the hypocrisy in my post, but I think you missed my point. I wasn't saying that his intolerance is the problem (though I think his level of intolerance is noteworthy). The problem is the actions that he claims he would take as president. Citizens vote to make things they agree with and disagree with legal or illegal all the time. There is nothing nefarious in that (it's probably something that you yourself have done at some point during your lifetime and I'm sure you didn't feel intolerant doing it), as long as the results are constitutional. The problem is when a president changes laws to suit his own beliefs, using his executive power, that affect constitutional rights. And obviously the church has no ability to do that, so the veiled charge of hypocrisy misses the mark. 5
CA Steve Posted October 15, 2019 Posted October 15, 2019 4 minutes ago, bluebell said: I know the sarcasm was probably meant to highlight the hypocrisy in my post, but I think you missed my point. I wasn't saying that his intolerance is the problem (though I think his level of intolerance is noteworthy). The problem is the actions that he claims he would take as president. Citizens vote to make things they agree with and disagree with legal or illegal all the time. There is nothing nefarious in that (it's probably something that you yourself have done at some point during your lifetime and I'm sure you didn't feel intolerant doing it), as long as the results are constitutional. The problem is when a president changes laws to suit his own beliefs, using his executive power, that affect constitutional rights. And obviously the church has no ability to do that, so the veiled charge of hypocrisy misses the mark. It hit the mark squarely before your second post. But if you want to qualify your remark to only pertain to a president, then can I assume you are okay with powerful organizations using their influence to have legislation passed or candidates elected that only benefits them?
ksfisher Posted October 15, 2019 Posted October 15, 2019 4 minutes ago, CA Steve said: It hit the mark squarely before your second post. But if you want to qualify your remark to only pertain to a president, then can I assume you are okay with powerful organizations using their influence to have legislation passed or candidates elected that only benefits them? Are you ok with corporations engaging in political speech?
Popular Post ttribe Posted October 15, 2019 Popular Post Posted October 15, 2019 My thoughts re: the topic of this thread - there is a SIGNIFICANT amount of case law and history of Constitutional protection afforded to religious organizations in the U.S. Moreover, the current makeup of the Supreme Court seems to make it EXTREMELY unlikely to change course on this issue, specifically. Why an attorney would start this thread and feed the hysteria on this issue is quite beyond me. All I see is a bunch of political rhetoric by politicians trying to appeal to the most extreme on either side. It's rather disheartening, actually. For the record: After being a life-long Republican, I left the party shortly following the election of our current president. I am not affiliated with any party at this point, and hold no specific allegiances that would cause me to blindly support either side on this (or any other) issue. 5
bluebell Posted October 15, 2019 Posted October 15, 2019 13 minutes ago, CA Steve said: It hit the mark squarely before your second post. But if you want to qualify your remark to only pertain to a president, then can I assume you are okay with powerful organizations using their influence to have legislation passed or candidates elected that only benefits them? 1
CV75 Posted October 15, 2019 Posted October 15, 2019 (edited) I don't know why people aren't up in arms over the Equality Act on the same grounds. Edited October 15, 2019 by CV75
smac97 Posted October 15, 2019 Author Posted October 15, 2019 2 minutes ago, ttribe said: My thoughts re: the topic of this thread - there is a SIGNIFICANT amount of case law and history of Constitutional protection afforded to religious organizations in the U.S. Agreed. 2 minutes ago, ttribe said: Moreover, the current makeup of the Supreme Court seems to make it EXTREMELY unlikely to change course on this issue, specifically. Which, if anything, speaks to the politicization of the Supreme Court. 2 minutes ago, ttribe said: Why an attorney would start this thread and feed the hysteria on this issue is quite beyond me. In 2000, The Simpsons included an episode where Donald Trump was elected as POTUS. It was obviousy intended as a joke. Now... In 2002-2003, when I was in law school, same-sex marriage sounded preposterous. Now... In 2008, Mr. Obama, as a publicly opposed same-sex marriage. In 2019, one or two candidates are suggesting that this position, if taken by a religious group, is grounds for stripping that group's tax exemption. In 2016, pretty much everyone thought Hillary Clinton was going to win the election. A lot can happen in a relatively short period of time, including unexpected things. So I'm not really sure that this is "hysteria." Conventional wisdom and expectations are not as reliable as I used to think they were. So I think it's a legitimate and reasoned concern. And it doesn't appear that I am alone in that assessment. Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg have both distanced themselves from O'Rourke's position. Thanks, -Smac 1
Robert F. Smith Posted October 15, 2019 Posted October 15, 2019 3 hours ago, smac97 said: .......................... This is, to put it mildly, unsettling. ................................... And again, this is all fairly unsettling. ................ Either way, his published threat is, again, unsettling......................... Not unsettling at all, Spencer. These efforts by failed candidates to gain attention are doomed to abject failure legislatively and in federal court. It is just unconstitutional. 2
smac97 Posted October 15, 2019 Author Posted October 15, 2019 Just now, Robert F. Smith said: Not unsettling at all, Spencer. These efforts by failed candidates to gain attention are doomed to abject failure legislatively and in federal court. It is just unconstitutional. I hope so. Perhaps I should amend my previous statement. The apparent normalization/mainstreaming of policy proposals that not long ago would have been seen as extreme and disqualifying is "unsettling." Consider not only the statement, but the audience's reaction to it:
ttribe Posted October 15, 2019 Posted October 15, 2019 9 minutes ago, smac97 said: Agreed. Which, if anything, speaks to the politicization of the Supreme Court. In 2000, The Simpsons included an episode where Donald Trump was elected as POTUS. It was obviousy intended as a joke. Now... In 2002-2003, when I was in law school, same-sex marriage sounded preposterous. Now... In 2008, Mr. Obama, as a publicly opposed same-sex marriage. In 2019, one or two candidates are suggesting that this position, if taken by a religious group, is grounds for stripping that group's tax exemption. In 2016, pretty much everyone thought Hillary Clinton was going to win the election. A lot can happen in a relatively short period of time, including unexpected things. So I'm not really sure that this is "hysteria." Conventional wisdom and expectations are not as reliable as I used to think they were. So I think it's a legitimate and reasoned concern. And it doesn't appear that I am alone in that assessment. Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg have both distanced themselves from O'Rourke's position. Thanks, -Smac [sigh] I suppose you do have a point about some of the shift in the political climate (although, I don't see gay marriage in the same light you do). It reminds of this, from 10/2/19: 2
stemelbow Posted October 15, 2019 Posted October 15, 2019 Considering the Church has it's hands in many businesses and has reportedly many billions of dollars, I imagine and hope the Church already pays various levels of taxes. I'd hate to imagine a corporation worth many billions pays far less as a rate in taxes than I do, but it is quite likely the case. I do believe there are many very sneaky ways to get out of paying certain taxes. I'm pretty confident the Church and its resources have figured out many ways to cut back on taxes in order to benefit the church's coffers. There is a fundamental difference between preaching what a church believes, and a Church organizing and coordinating forces, spending money, and requesting it's membership to oppose state and national issues. Churches should be able to preach what it believes and leave it at that, in my view. I find churches to be lacking integrity when they go beyond that. Pay taxes for getting heavily involved in any particularly political view? sure. But I doubt it'll happen. The big guys usually get their way...and there is an extremely strong precedent set for Churches to not pay taxes.
Ahab Posted October 15, 2019 Posted October 15, 2019 13 minutes ago, smac97 said: Agreed. Which, if anything, speaks to the politicization of the Supreme Court. In 2000, The Simpsons included an episode where Donald Trump was elected as POTUS. It was obviousy intended as a joke. Now... In 2002-2003, when I was in law school, same-sex marriage sounded preposterous. Now... In 2008, Mr. Obama, as a publicly opposed same-sex marriage. In 2019, one or two candidates are suggesting that this position, if taken by a religious group, is grounds for stripping that group's tax exemption. In 2016, pretty much everyone thought Hillary Clinton was going to win the election. A lot can happen in a relatively short period of time, including unexpected things. So I'm not really sure that this is "hysteria." Conventional wisdom and expectations are not as reliable as I used to think they were. So I think it's a legitimate and reasoned concern. And it doesn't appear that I am alone in that assessment. Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg have both distanced themselves from O'Rourke's position. Thanks, -Smac So what you envision in what I assume to be one of your worst nightmares is that something like this would happen?: In 2020, President O'Rourke successfully revoked tax exempt status from charitable organizations who share beliefs contrary to what some people in government want them to believe.. How sad it must be for you to feel that way. I have sympathy for your concerns. And yet at the same time I don't think that is going to happen.
ksfisher Posted October 15, 2019 Posted October 15, 2019 7 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Churches should be able to preach what it believes and leave it at that, in my view. I find churches to be lacking integrity when they go beyond that. So you're fine with other organization, such as corporations engaging in political speech, just not churches. Why? 9 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Pay taxes for getting heavily involved in any particularly political view? sure. So freedom of speech is "pay to play." 1
The Nehor Posted October 15, 2019 Posted October 15, 2019 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Again, please take commentary about Trump elsewhere. Thanks, -Smac We are talking about someone making stupid anticonstitutional statements to fire up his extremist bigoted base. How can we not use the comparison? 3
Prof Posted October 15, 2019 Posted October 15, 2019 Just a second tier candidate trying to grab attention to stay relevant. I bet he drops out of the race within a couple of weeks.
Recommended Posts