Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Posted: 7/1/2015 4:53:14 PM EDT
Not sure how many of you read the WSJ, but yesterday's opinion page (A11) was very well composed.  

McGurn's "Justice Kennedy's Bitter Truth" in particular is a must read for people who want to consider both sides of the Obergefell decision.
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 5:02:55 PM EDT
[#1]
What ever you do, do not post a link!
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 5:04:19 PM EDT
[#2]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


What ever you do, do not post a link!
View Quote




 
if you don't subscribe to the WSJ you won't be able to read it anyway.
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 5:13:02 PM EDT
[#3]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

  if you don't subscribe to the WSJ you won't be able to read it anyway.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
What ever you do, do not post a link!

  if you don't subscribe to the WSJ you won't be able to read it anyway.

Doesn't sound all that "must read" to me then.
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 5:18:28 PM EDT
[#4]
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 5:22:46 PM EDT
[#5]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

  if you don't subscribe to the WSJ you won't be able to read it anyway.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
What ever you do, do not post a link!

  if you don't subscribe to the WSJ you won't be able to read it anyway.


Wrong. Google the article's title and it's the first result.
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 5:26:34 PM EDT
[#6]
So...you gonna tell me or not?
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 5:26:47 PM EDT
[#7]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History


Still have to sign in to read it
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 5:37:05 PM EDT
[#8]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Still have to sign in to read it
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Still have to sign in to read it


no you don't. Just read it without signing in to anything...
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 5:42:55 PM EDT
[#9]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


no you don't. Just read it without signing in to anything...
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:


Still have to sign in to read it


no you don't. Just read it without signing in to anything...


Yes you do, it says sign in or subscribe to read the full article

Link Posted: 7/1/2015 5:44:18 PM EDT
[#10]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Yes you do, it says sign in or subscribe to read the full article

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:


Still have to sign in to read it


no you don't. Just read it without signing in to anything...


Yes you do, it says sign in or subscribe to read the full article



Same for me.
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 6:07:47 PM EDT
[#11]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Same for me.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:


Still have to sign in to read it


no you don't. Just read it without signing in to anything...


Yes you do, it says sign in or subscribe to read the full article



Same for me.


I'm trying to find a legal way to link the article for you guys, but it's a frigging mess.  
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 6:13:32 PM EDT
[#12]
Cut and paste?
Legally? What the hell has this country devolved into?
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 6:22:20 PM EDT
[#13]
I read it by clicking the google link. I did push the stop button while adds were still loading.
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 6:54:28 PM EDT
[#14]
By WILLIAM MCGURN
June 29, 2015 7:26 p.m. ET
1768 COMMENTS
In the heady days since Anthony Kennedy unearthed a constitutional right for Americans "to define and express their identity,” the extravagance of the Supreme Court’s claim has taken some by surprise. It shouldn’t have. In finding for same-sex marriage the way he did, Justice Kennedy made official what he made inevitable a quarter-century back.


That was in 1992. The occasion was a Supreme Court decision on abortion into which Mr. Kennedy inserted a new definition of liberty. Where Thomas Jefferson had grounded human liberty in self-evident truth, Mr. Kennedy holds that the mere self suffices.


"At the heart of liberty,” he wrote, "is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”




Now he has followed through. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the court substitutes for the laws passed by the people acting through their state legislatures a new constitutional right to "dignity” based on the court’s "better informed understanding.”


Back when poor Harry Blackmun in Roe v. Wade established a right to privacy that likewise appears nowhere in the Constitution, he wrote under the conceit that his decision would resolve the issue once and for all. Instead, his 1973 ruling launched the culture wars.

---snip---

Those seeking to crush all dissent from the new judicial orthodoxy on marriage will not always win, not least because the right to the free exercise of religion—in bald contrast to Mr. Kennedy’s right to dignity—is in fact in the Constitution. Still, however individual cases may turn out, by foreclosing the option for democratic debate and compromise the Supreme Court has ensured a bitter national harvest.


Welcome to Justice Kennedy’s world. Where upholding the Kennedy definition of liberty—the right to define your own truth—turns out to mean denying that same right to millions of Americans who define marriage and truth in a way different from his.


[Do not post full stories and ensure you provide a link back to the orginal - respect property rights - Paul]
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 7:03:07 PM EDT
[#15]
Wow. That's really eye opening.
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 7:07:05 PM EDT
[#16]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Yes you do, it says sign in or subscribe to read the full article

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:


Still have to sign in to read it


no you don't. Just read it without signing in to anything...


Yes you do, it says sign in or subscribe to read the full article



By tomorrow the link should work for everybody. They only keep articles behind the pay wall for a day or two and then release them.

Link Posted: 7/1/2015 7:21:25 PM EDT
[#17]


I just read it via the google link no problem. . . very succinct and well-written article. . .











I've been saying the country is ungovernable for some time now. . . . this will speed that along. . . as I said in another thread, we will hear much "that is not what we intended. . . "   in the coming years. . . as if that absolves them of blame. . .





 
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 7:21:31 PM EDT
[#18]
I doubt it's going to be the big deal everyone is afraid of, people will just find different ways to achieve their goals.  The facist gays will still be what and who they are, the religious right will still find ways to oppose them, and everyone else will be too busy working and paying their bills to notice.  And the FSA is both oblivious and impervious to it all.
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 7:25:22 PM EDT
[#19]
It is well written, but I disagree with the author's premise that simply because a right does not appear in The Constitution does not mean that We the People do not have that right.

I would direct him to the 9th Amendment:


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
View Quote


Link Posted: 7/1/2015 7:31:15 PM EDT
[#20]
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 7:32:13 PM EDT
[#21]
I really don't get the anti gay marriage thing.  The Catholic church can still do whatever it wants, it is just the state that cannot deny a marriage license.  Marriage is a legal arrangement conferring very real benefits and costs; why should anyone care if gays elect to choose those benefits and costs?
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 7:34:54 PM EDT
[#22]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I doubt it's going to be the big deal everyone is afraid of, people will just find different ways to achieve their goals.  The facist gays will still be what and who they are, the religious right will still find ways to oppose them, and everyone else will be too busy working and paying their bills to notice.  And the FSA is both oblivious and impervious to it all.
View Quote

That will change when they use it as an excuse to remove the tax exempt status of churches on the grounds of civil rights violations.

Some churches will be fine with that, but many smaller ones aren't so well funded and the loss of tax exempt status will shutter them.

Many on this site will celebrate that. They will be fools.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... That will be found to be less important than gay rights. It's difficult to predict how some future government crusader will co-opt that, but we all know it will happen.
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 7:39:21 PM EDT
[#23]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

That will change when they use it as an excuse to remove the tax exempt status of churches on the grounds of civil rights violations.

Some churches will be fine with that, but many smaller ones aren't so well funded and the loss of tax exempt status will shutter them.

Many on this site will celebrate that. They will be fools.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... That will be found to be less important than gay rights. It's difficult to predict how some future government crusader will co-opt that, but we all know it will happen.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
I doubt it's going to be the big deal everyone is afraid of, people will just find different ways to achieve their goals.  The facist gays will still be what and who they are, the religious right will still find ways to oppose them, and everyone else will be too busy working and paying their bills to notice.  And the FSA is both oblivious and impervious to it all.

That will change when they use it as an excuse to remove the tax exempt status of churches on the grounds of civil rights violations.

Some churches will be fine with that, but many smaller ones aren't so well funded and the loss of tax exempt status will shutter them.

Many on this site will celebrate that. They will be fools.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... That will be found to be less important than gay rights. It's difficult to predict how some future government crusader will co-opt that, but we all know it will happen.


Yeah, well some people don't want to live under the religious beliefs of others, whether is is sharia, Judaism or Catholicism.  And tax exempt status is a privilege given to religious organizations.  Taking it away would neither establish nor prohibit a religion, it would just stop according religion special treatment.
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 8:00:57 PM EDT
[#24]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Yeah, well some people don't want to live under the religious beliefs of others, whether is is sharia, Judaism or Catholicism.  And tax exempt status is a privilege given to religious organizations.  Taking it away would neither establish nor prohibit a religion, it would just stop according religion special treatment.
View Quote


Well said!
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 8:58:48 PM EDT
[#25]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Well said!
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah, well some people don't want to live under the religious beliefs of others, whether is is sharia, Judaism or Catholicism.  And tax exempt status is a privilege given to religious organizations.  Taking it away would neither establish nor prohibit a religion, it would just stop according religion special treatment.


Well said!


Although the tax system and non-profit status as a whole need significant improvement, the issues are a bit more complicated than pseudo libertarianism would assert - but only if all people, even religious ones, are allowed to keep their inalienable rights protected by our Constitution.
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 9:12:06 PM EDT
[#26]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Although the tax system and non-profit status as a whole need significant improvement, the issues are a bit more complicated than pseudo libertarianism would assert - but only if all people, even religious ones, are allowed to keep their inalienable rights protected by our Constitution.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah, well some people don't want to live under the religious beliefs of others, whether is is sharia, Judaism or Catholicism.  And tax exempt status is a privilege given to religious organizations.  Taking it away would neither establish nor prohibit a religion, it would just stop according religion special treatment.


Well said!


Although the tax system and non-profit status as a whole need significant improvement, the issues are a bit more complicated than pseudo libertarianism would assert - but only if all people, even religious ones, are allowed to keep their inalienable rights protected by our Constitution.


The post I commented on only addressed one specific point. not other "issues".
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 9:19:53 PM EDT
[#27]
I have very little doubt left that Anthony Kennedy is a closet homosexual like Hastert.
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 9:22:44 PM EDT
[#28]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History


Hardly, fool.
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 9:32:10 PM EDT
[#29]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Yeah, well some people don't want to live under the religious beliefs of others, whether is is sharia, Judaism or Catholicism.  And tax exempt status is a privilege given to religious organizations.  Taking it away would neither establish nor prohibit a religion, it would just stop according religion special treatment.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I doubt it's going to be the big deal everyone is afraid of, people will just find different ways to achieve their goals.  The facist gays will still be what and who they are, the religious right will still find ways to oppose them, and everyone else will be too busy working and paying their bills to notice.  And the FSA is both oblivious and impervious to it all.

That will change when they use it as an excuse to remove the tax exempt status of churches on the grounds of civil rights violations.

Some churches will be fine with that, but many smaller ones aren't so well funded and the loss of tax exempt status will shutter them.

Many on this site will celebrate that. They will be fools.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... That will be found to be less important than gay rights. It's difficult to predict how some future government crusader will co-opt that, but we all know it will happen.


Yeah, well some people don't want to live under the religious beliefs of others, whether is is sharia, Judaism or Catholicism.  And tax exempt status is a privilege given to religious organizations.  Taking it away would neither establish nor prohibit a religion, it would just stop according religion special treatment.


"Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"  Taxing religious entities is paramount to prohibiting or inhibiting the practice of their religion.  Remember the poll tax?  How do you feel about having to purchase a 'handgun permit' or license to purchase?
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 9:42:37 PM EDT
[#30]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:





That will change when they use it as an excuse to remove the tax exempt status of churches on the grounds of civil rights violations.



Some churches will be fine with that, but many smaller ones aren't so well funded and the loss of tax exempt status will shutter them.



Many on this site will celebrate that. They will be fools.



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... That will be found to be less important than gay rights. It's difficult to predict how some future government crusader will co-opt that, but we all know it will happen.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:

I doubt it's going to be the big deal everyone is afraid of, people will just find different ways to achieve their goals.  The facist gays will still be what and who they are, the religious right will still find ways to oppose them, and everyone else will be too busy working and paying their bills to notice.  And the FSA is both oblivious and impervious to it all.


That will change when they use it as an excuse to remove the tax exempt status of churches on the grounds of civil rights violations.



Some churches will be fine with that, but many smaller ones aren't so well funded and the loss of tax exempt status will shutter them.



Many on this site will celebrate that. They will be fools.



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... That will be found to be less important than gay rights. It's difficult to predict how some future government crusader will co-opt that, but we all know it will happen.




 
this is the key. Things will get VERY interesting when religious rights her trampled in the south.
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 9:44:37 PM EDT
[#31]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Well said!

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:

Yeah, well some people don't want to live under the religious beliefs of others, whether is is sharia, Judaism or Catholicism.  And tax exempt status is a privilege given to religious organizations.  Taking it away would neither establish nor prohibit a religion, it would just stop according religion special treatment.




Well said!





 



No.




Churches aren't businesses. They survive on donations.
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 10:18:27 PM EDT
[#32]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


"Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"  Taxing religious entities is paramount to prohibiting or inhibiting the practice of their religion.  Remember the poll tax?  How do you feel about having to purchase a 'handgun permit' or license to purchase?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I doubt it's going to be the big deal everyone is afraid of, people will just find different ways to achieve their goals.  The facist gays will still be what and who they are, the religious right will still find ways to oppose them, and everyone else will be too busy working and paying their bills to notice.  And the FSA is both oblivious and impervious to it all.

That will change when they use it as an excuse to remove the tax exempt status of churches on the grounds of civil rights violations.

Some churches will be fine with that, but many smaller ones aren't so well funded and the loss of tax exempt status will shutter them.

Many on this site will celebrate that. They will be fools.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... That will be found to be less important than gay rights. It's difficult to predict how some future government crusader will co-opt that, but we all know it will happen.


Yeah, well some people don't want to live under the religious beliefs of others, whether is is sharia, Judaism or Catholicism.  And tax exempt status is a privilege given to religious organizations.  Taking it away would neither establish nor prohibit a religion, it would just stop according religion special treatment.


"Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"  Taxing religious entities is paramount to prohibiting or inhibiting the practice of their religion.  Remember the poll tax?  How do you feel about having to purchase a 'handgun permit' or license to purchase?


That is not true.  A church paying some percent of its income does not prohibit religion and "inhibiting" is something you added on your own.  It treats them like everyone else is treated.  Frankly I don't care if the church gets special tax treatment, in some respects many people do.  

The real point is that churches are not going to be forced to marry gay people, any more than you can be pulled off the street and forced to officiate at a gay wedding.
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 10:20:20 PM EDT
[#33]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

 

No.


Churches aren't businesses. They survive on donations.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah, well some people don't want to live under the religious beliefs of others, whether is is sharia, Judaism or Catholicism.  And tax exempt status is a privilege given to religious organizations.  Taking it away would neither establish nor prohibit a religion, it would just stop according religion special treatment.


Well said!

 

No.


Churches aren't businesses. They survive on donations.


Well if I survived on donations, I would still owe income taxes.  Religious organizations are exempt as charitable organizations, which is a policy choice.  Just like the home mortgage interest deduction and all kinds of favorable tax treatments.
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 10:26:57 PM EDT
[#34]

In the heady days since Anthony Kennedy unearthed a constitutional right for Americans "to define and express their identity,” the extravagance of the Supreme Court’s claim has taken some by surprise. It shouldn’t have. In finding for same-sex marriage the way he did, Justice Kennedy made official what he made inevitable a quarter-century back.


That was in 1992. The occasion was a Supreme Court decision on abortion into which Mr. Kennedy inserted a new definition of liberty. Where Thomas Jefferson had grounded human liberty in self-evident truth, Mr. Kennedy holds that the mere self suffices.


"At the heart of liberty,” he wrote, "is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”






Opinion Journal Video



Main Street columnist William McGurn analyzes the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision. Photo: Getty

Now he has followed through. In <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-position: 0px 0px;">Obergefell v. Hodges[/span], the court substitutes for the laws passed by the people acting through their state legislatures a new constitutional right to "dignity” based on the court’s "better informed understanding.”


Back when poor Harry Blackmun in <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-position: 0px 0px;">Roe v. Wade[/span] established a right to privacy that likewise appears nowhere in the Constitution, he wrote under the conceit that his decision would resolve the issue once and for all. Instead, his 1973 ruling launched the culture wars.


<em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-position: 0px 0px;">Obergefell[/span] is <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-position: 0px 0px;">Roe[/span] on steroids. <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-position: 0px 0px;">Roe[/span] legalized a market for abortion for those who wanted them and those who provided them. It was qualified by conscience protections plus riders attached to federal legislation greatly limiting the use of taxpayer dollars to underwrite the practice. So <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-position: 0px 0px;">Roe[/span] didn’t demand much of those on the other side—or on the sidelines.


<em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-position: 0px 0px;">Obergefell[/span] is another thing altogether. In one of the great flimflams of American life, it is a prescription for endless litigation smuggled in under libertarian clothing. This began with the opening question put to all those who held the classic view of marriage: What can it possibly matter to you, they were asked, if two men or two women who love each other call their relationship marriage?


We learned that it matters a great deal.


It matters to Brendan Eich, who was forced to resign last year as CEO of the company he co-founded after it became public that he had donated $1,000 to Proposition 8, the successful California ballot measure banning same-sex marriage.


It matters to Chick-fil-A, which in 2012 saw the mayors of Chicago and Boston declare the restaurant chain had no place in their cities because its chief executive held the same view of marriage that Barack Obama held until very recently.


It matters to Catholic Charities, which in several states has been forced out of the adoption business either because the charity does not offer same-sex spousal benefits or declines to place children for adoption with same-sex couples.


It matters for cake bakers, photographers, florists, jewelers and pizza-parlor owners who happily serve gay customers but draw the line at assisting gay weddings.


Finally, it matters to all religious schools and religious institutions. Give the Obama administration its due: The president’s solicitor general admitted during the <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-position: 0px 0px;">Obergefell[/span]oral argument that a victory for same-sex marriage would put the tax-exempt status of such institutions on the chopping block.


The reason for all this is that the right for men to marry men or women to marry women is only half of the equation—and not even the most important half at that.


The other half involves antidiscrimination statutes and regulations, not to mention the discretion of federal, state and even private bureaucracies regarding everything from funding and accreditation to tax exemption.


In short, there is nothing live-and-let-live about the way this movement has operated the past few years, and to pretend otherwise requires a willful blindness. Now, with <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-position: 0px 0px;">Obergefell[/span], the full furies have been released.


As Justice Samuel Alito suggested in his dissent, thousands of Americans who never dreamed that the issue would affect them will soon get highly personal lessons in how the legalization of same-sex marriage by judicial fiat threatens their schools, their institutions and even their livelihoods. This is not your father’s culture war.


A century ago, another Supreme Court justice famously wrote that the Constitution "is made for people of fundamentally differing views.” How far we have traveled since.


Those seeking to crush all dissent from the new judicial orthodoxy on marriage will not always win, not least because the right to the free exercise of religion—in bald contrast to Mr. Kennedy’s right to dignity—<em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-position: 0px 0px;">is[/span] in fact in the Constitution. Still, however individual cases may turn out, by foreclosing the option for democratic debate and compromise the Supreme Court has ensured a bitter national harvest.


Welcome to Justice Kennedy’s world. Where upholding the Kennedy definition of liberty—the right to define your own truth—turns out to mean denying that same right to millions of Americans who define marriage and truth in a way different from his.

Link Posted: 7/1/2015 10:32:11 PM EDT
[#35]
The power to tax is the power to destroy.



The left wishes to destroy the churches.




Churches were part of the bulwark against godless communism.




It is yet another step towards their glorious revolution.




I don't give a damn about gay marriage and would welcome it if that was the end goal.




It isn't.
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 10:43:24 PM EDT
[#36]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


That is not true.  A church paying some percent of its income does not prohibit religion and "inhibiting" is something you added on your own.  It treats them like everyone else is treated.  Frankly I don't care if the church gets special tax treatment, in some respects many people do.  

The real point is that churches are not going to be forced to marry gay people, any more than you can be pulled off the street and forced to officiate at a gay wedding.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I doubt it's going to be the big deal everyone is afraid of, people will just find different ways to achieve their goals.  The facist gays will still be what and who they are, the religious right will still find ways to oppose them, and everyone else will be too busy working and paying their bills to notice.  And the FSA is both oblivious and impervious to it all.

That will change when they use it as an excuse to remove the tax exempt status of churches on the grounds of civil rights violations.

Some churches will be fine with that, but many smaller ones aren't so well funded and the loss of tax exempt status will shutter them.

Many on this site will celebrate that. They will be fools.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... That will be found to be less important than gay rights. It's difficult to predict how some future government crusader will co-opt that, but we all know it will happen.


Yeah, well some people don't want to live under the religious beliefs of others, whether is is sharia, Judaism or Catholicism.  And tax exempt status is a privilege given to religious organizations.  Taking it away would neither establish nor prohibit a religion, it would just stop according religion special treatment.


"Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"  Taxing religious entities is paramount to prohibiting or inhibiting the practice of their religion.  Remember the poll tax?  How do you feel about having to purchase a 'handgun permit' or license to purchase?


That is not true.  A church paying some percent of its income does not prohibit religion and "inhibiting" is something you added on your own.  It treats them like everyone else is treated.  Frankly I don't care if the church gets special tax treatment, in some respects many people do.  

The real point is that churches are not going to be forced to marry gay people, any more than you can be pulled off the street and forced to officiate at a gay wedding.


But I can be forced to choose between religious beliefs or a livelihood.  

The 'income' is donations that come from the church members. So instead of supporting the church in the practice of their religion, the practitioners are supporting the government.  I'm glad that you have the choice to join a church or not.  I hope that those who do choose to join a church or practice a religion can continue to do so.  I'll hold you at your word that there will not be a single instance of a gay couple demanding to be married in a church and then filing a lawsuit when they are denied.  

BTW, I am not a religious person in that I do not attend a church or partake of an organized religious service.  I do fully support tax exemption for all charitable and non-profit organizations.  I fear this ruling will have negative consequences that extend well beyond the current joyous celebration of marital bliss for all.
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 10:50:10 PM EDT
[#37]
"But I can be forced to choose between religious beliefs or a livelihood.  

The 'income' is donations that come from the church members. So instead of supporting the church in the practice of their religion, the practitioners are supporting the government.  I'm glad that you have the choice to join a church or not.  I hope that those who do choose to join a church or practice a religion can continue to do so.  I'll hold you at your word that there will not be a single instance of a gay couple demanding to be married in a church and then filing a lawsuit when they are denied.  

BTW, I am not a religious person in that I do not attend a church or partake of an organized religious service.  I do fully support tax exemption for all charitable and non-profit organizations.  I fear this ruling will have negative consequences that extend well beyond the current joyous celebration of marital bliss for all."


I didn't say some gay couple wouldn't demand to be married in a church, get denied, and then sue the church.  I said the church won't be forced to marry them (i.e. the gays will lose that case).  Anyone can sue for anything, it would be better if we applied the English rule on attorney fees (loser pays).  

I too am fine with charitable organizations having a tax exemption.  But that isn't required by the Constitution -- taxation is not prohibition.  I pay gas tax, I'm not prohibited from buying gas, etc, etc, etc.
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 10:54:00 PM EDT
[#38]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
The power to tax is the power to destroy.

The left wishes to destroy the churches.


Churches were part of the bulwark against godless communism.


It is yet another step towards their glorious revolution.


I don't give a damn about gay marriage and would welcome it if that was the end goal.


It isn't.
View Quote


The power to tax is the power to destroy.
ATTRIBUTION:This quotation comes from the words of DANIEL WEBSTER and those of JOHN MARSHALL in the Supreme Court case, McCulloch v. Maryland.
Webster, in arguing the case, said: “An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy,” 17 U.S. 327 (1819).

 In his decision, Chief Justice Marshall said: “That the power of taxing it [the bank] by the States may be exercised so as to destroy it, is too obvious to be denied” (p. 427), and “That the power to tax involves the power to destroy … [is] not to be denied” (p. 431).

Too bad many people have forgotten this discussion and the implications that went well beyond the case in question...

Link Posted: 7/1/2015 11:03:08 PM EDT
[#39]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
"But I can be forced to choose between religious beliefs or a livelihood.  

The 'income' is donations that come from the church members. So instead of supporting the church in the practice of their religion, the practitioners are supporting the government.  I'm glad that you have the choice to join a church or not.  I hope that those who do choose to join a church or practice a religion can continue to do so.  I'll hold you at your word that there will not be a single instance of a gay couple demanding to be married in a church and then filing a lawsuit when they are denied.  

BTW, I am not a religious person in that I do not attend a church or partake of an organized religious service.  I do fully support tax exemption for all charitable and non-profit organizations.  I fear this ruling will have negative consequences that extend well beyond the current joyous celebration of marital bliss for all."


I didn't say some gay couple wouldn't demand to be married in a church, get denied, and then sue the church.  I said the church won't be forced to marry them (i.e. the gays will lose that case).  Anyone can sue for anything, it would be better if we applied the English rule on attorney fees (loser pays).  

I too am fine with charitable organizations having a tax exemption.  But that isn't required by the Constitution -- taxation is not prohibition.  I pay gas tax, I'm not prohibited from buying gas, etc, etc, etc.
View Quote


Take a look at this article... It says it much better than I can.  Just like the baker was forced out of business, I can see a church being forced to close their doors. While a tax is not supposed to be punitive (like Obamacare), what would you call it if a church loses their tax exempt status because of a 'civil rights violation'?  I hope it doesn't happen, but given what has become commonplace over the last several years, nothing surprises me anymore.  BTW, while you are not forced to buy gas, you are forced to pay tax if you do buy gas.  Ask what happens if a farmer gets caught using 'off road diesel' in his on the road truck.  

link
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 11:05:22 PM EDT
[#40]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

I didn't say some gay couple wouldn't demand to be married in a church, get denied, and then sue the church.  I said the church won't be forced to marry them (i.e. the gays will lose that case).  Anyone can sue for anything, it would be better if we applied the English rule on attorney fees (loser pays).  

I too am fine with charitable organizations having a tax exemption.  But that isn't required by the Constitution -- taxation is not prohibition.  I pay gas tax, I'm not prohibited from buying gas, etc, etc, etc.
View Quote


You are incredibly naive.  Maybe you haven't seen the cases where bakeries have been forced to make cakes, dress makers dresses, etc for gay couples.  SCOTUS' ruling is creating an open season on religion in the US.  This country was founded by people who wanted the freedom to express their religion without the government getting involved.  That is no longer possible.
Link Posted: 7/1/2015 11:29:26 PM EDT
[#41]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


You are incredibly naive.  Maybe you haven't seen the cases where bakeries have been forced to make cakes, dress makers dresses, etc for gay couples.  SCOTUS' ruling is creating an open season on religion in the US.  This country was founded by people who wanted the freedom to express their religion without the government getting involved.  That is no longer possible.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:

I didn't say some gay couple wouldn't demand to be married in a church, get denied, and then sue the church.  I said the church won't be forced to marry them (i.e. the gays will lose that case).  Anyone can sue for anything, it would be better if we applied the English rule on attorney fees (loser pays).  

I too am fine with charitable organizations having a tax exemption.  But that isn't required by the Constitution -- taxation is not prohibition.  I pay gas tax, I'm not prohibited from buying gas, etc, etc, etc.


You are incredibly naive.  Maybe you haven't seen the cases where bakeries have been forced to make cakes, dress makers dresses, etc for gay couples.  SCOTUS' ruling is creating an open season on religion in the US.  This country was founded by people who wanted the freedom to express their religion without the government getting involved.  That is no longer possible.


So if a state outlaws discrimination against gays, that's no good, but if a state bans gay marriage, that's fine?  State rights are good if you agree with them?

I don't think religions should have their own set of civil obligations based on their beliefs.  Again, if you don't want to live under sharia, don't expect others to live under your religious code.
Link Posted: 7/2/2015 1:11:44 AM EDT
[#42]
WSJ's primary function is to explain to the workers why they should support rapacious capitalists in exploiting them.
Link Posted: 7/2/2015 9:44:24 AM EDT
[#43]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I doubt it's going to be the big deal everyone is afraid of, people will just find different ways to achieve their goals.  The facist gays will still be what and who they are, the religious right will still find ways to oppose them, and everyone else will be too busy working and paying their bills to notice.  And the FSA is both oblivious and impervious to it all.
View Quote


Tempest In A Teapot?

The estimate is about 120,000 gay marriages, so about 1/4 million people out of 340 million individuals.  .02% or so right now.
Link Posted: 7/2/2015 9:56:19 AM EDT
[#44]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Yeah, well some people don't want to live under the religious beliefs of others, whether is is sharia, Judaism or Catholicism.  And tax exempt status is a privilege given to religious organizations.  Taking it away would neither establish nor prohibit a religion, it would just stop according religion special treatment.
View Quote

Link Posted: 7/2/2015 9:58:28 AM EDT
[#45]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


The power to tax is the power to destroy.
ATTRIBUTION:This quotation comes from the words of DANIEL WEBSTER and those of JOHN MARSHALL in the Supreme Court case, McCulloch v. Maryland.
Webster, in arguing the case, said: “An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy,” 17 U.S. 327 (1819).

 In his decision, Chief Justice Marshall said: “That the power of taxing it [the bank] by the States may be exercised so as to destroy it, is too obvious to be denied” (p. 427), and “That the power to tax involves the power to destroy … [is] not to be denied” (p. 431).

Too bad many people have forgotten this discussion and the implications that went well beyond the case in question...

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
The power to tax is the power to destroy.

The left wishes to destroy the churches.


Churches were part of the bulwark against godless communism.


It is yet another step towards their glorious revolution.


I don't give a damn about gay marriage and would welcome it if that was the end goal.


It isn't.


The power to tax is the power to destroy.
ATTRIBUTION:This quotation comes from the words of DANIEL WEBSTER and those of JOHN MARSHALL in the Supreme Court case, McCulloch v. Maryland.
Webster, in arguing the case, said: “An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy,” 17 U.S. 327 (1819).

 In his decision, Chief Justice Marshall said: “That the power of taxing it [the bank] by the States may be exercised so as to destroy it, is too obvious to be denied” (p. 427), and “That the power to tax involves the power to destroy … [is] not to be denied” (p. 431).

Too bad many people have forgotten this discussion and the implications that went well beyond the case in question...



The NFA taxes were confiscatory.  Cheap shotguns were taxed at 10 times their value.
Link Posted: 7/2/2015 10:06:42 AM EDT
[#46]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
WSJ's primary function is to explain to the workers why they should support rapacious capitalists in exploiting them.
View Quote


That article was about rapacious government so at least they are not Comedy Central.
Link Posted: 7/2/2015 10:16:08 AM EDT
[#47]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Well said!
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah, well some people don't want to live under the religious beliefs of others, whether is is sharia, Judaism or Catholicism.  And tax exempt status is a privilege given to religious organizations.  Taking it away would neither establish nor prohibit a religion, it would just stop according religion special treatment.


Well said!


This/
Link Posted: 7/2/2015 10:49:32 AM EDT
[#48]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Cut and paste?
Legally? What the hell has this country devolved into?
View Quote


QFT
Link Posted: 7/2/2015 10:57:55 AM EDT
[#49]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

That will change when they use it as an excuse to remove the tax exempt status of churches on the grounds of civil rights violations.

Some churches will be fine with that, but many smaller ones aren't so well funded and the loss of tax exempt status will shutter them.

Many on this site will celebrate that. They will be fools.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... That will be found to be less important than gay rights. It's difficult to predict how some future government crusader will co-opt that, but we all know it will happen.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
I doubt it's going to be the big deal everyone is afraid of, people will just find different ways to achieve their goals.  The facist gays will still be what and who they are, the religious right will still find ways to oppose them, and everyone else will be too busy working and paying their bills to notice.  And the FSA is both oblivious and impervious to it all.

That will change when they use it as an excuse to remove the tax exempt status of churches on the grounds of civil rights violations.

Some churches will be fine with that, but many smaller ones aren't so well funded and the loss of tax exempt status will shutter them.

Many on this site will celebrate that. They will be fools.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... That will be found to be less important than gay rights. It's difficult to predict how some future government crusader will co-opt that, but we all know it will happen.


They shouldn't be tax exempt in the fucking first place...but aside from that, there is zero evidence other than "your feels" that this will be the case.  

The same goes for all the chicken little "but now my church is going to be forced to marry homos" bullshit.  You guys are crying and whining about shit that hasn't even happened yet.

I think you guys talk about and are more obsessed about homos than most gay people.  It's quite disturbing really....
Link Posted: 7/2/2015 4:47:41 PM EDT
[#50]
All I know is that I could do a lot more shit if I were tax-exempt.

But I'm not.
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top