SCOTUS makes a good call for once!

[OC for ME]

False characterization of the "cake cases" as a service or no-service issue. The Oregon incident, maybe, the case in Colorado, absolutely false.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

@UTBagpiper or whatever his username is; Deal with it. I hate religion, and I hate religious people. Anyone who believes in any sort of mythical being, is no better to me, than an earth worm. Gun rights, and the right to open carry, and the promotion thereof, are the only things that I agree, and am united with everyone else on this forum, over. Other than that, each and every one of us will argue, kick, spit, scream, and throw punches towards, with, and at each other, over the thousands of things that no one person on the forum agrees on. You are disgusted by my sheer hatred of religion, and religious people... well, I'm disgusted by your words, and your reasoning FOR being religious. We can follow three simple words that sum up each others right [outside of this private forum] to free speech... Deal with it. Personally, I'm perfectly content, and fine, and supportive, of restrictions on religion, or the destruction of 'religious freedoms', imposed by the federal, or state governments, so long as it's in my favor, and my favor being state atheism. Your religion has held back humanity for hundreds, thousands, of years, and has oppressed peoples that it deems 'sinners', for just as long. Way I see it, I'd welcome a law, or a forced order, to force religious people, christians, jews, muslims, etc, to take part in, celebrate, and promote LGBT marriages, as a big "F you", and "IN YOUR FACE!", as a means of pay back for the thousands of years of torture, humiliation, oppression, death, and harsh-treatment by most of the religions in the world today, and by most of its followers.

This is very hateful and indicates that you don't understand or don't care about equality or basic human rights. It indicates that you are critically immoral.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

@ the others, the forum has a rule against advocating that ANYONE break the law, no matter what law, no matter in what manner, no matter if its knowingly or unknowingly. That goes for everyone, even myself as the Atheist non-Gods' gift to the human race.

It may be a violation of forum rules to advocate breaking the law, but it is certainly not against the rules to advocate changes in law, or to generally dissent laws.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Marriage is a STATE ISSUED LICENSE. ... [/end topic]

Therein lies (one of) the big contentions, Dave. I feel one would need to be pretty obtuse to seriously try and summarily dismiss the whole discussion with this.

 

[Logan 5]

You know, this has likely been mentioned already, but since the RKBA is more vocal about it's own protection (i.e. "shall not be infringed") than the right for one gay to marry another, AFAIC that should mean the GCA and Lautenberg Amendment should be null & void.

 

[Freedom1Man]

The question is why should a church be treated differently than any other business? The tax exemption is particularly disturbing when the church essentially levies taxes of its own on parishioners. (Such as when a church demands to see your W-2 to make sure you are tithing properly.)
Too many churches have taken to dictating which candidates are acceptable (a violation of the tax exemption rules for religious organizations), but the moment the IRS tries to enforce the rules, there are cries about an attack on religion. You can't have it both ways.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The restriction is only for 501 (c)(3) corporations.

Churchs are tax exempt even without 501 (c)(3).

Sorry, I study tax law.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[Freedom1Man]

Of course it is. How can stealing the income from some but not other organizations possibly be just? Tax exemptions of any kind should eliminated. Who could possibly say that the scum who rule our land can be trusted to make such decisions? We like your product we will steal less from you. We don't like your product we will steal more from you. ugh.

Those who are not the subject of the tax are exempt. Are you volunteering to be the subject of the income tax? (Only a 'withholding agent' is liable for paying and non-resident aliens and foreign corporations are the subject of the income tax)
Something to think about.


Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[HPmatt]

It may be a violation of forum rules to advocate breaking the law, but it is certainly not against the rules to advocate changes in law, or to generally dissent laws.

In my learned legal interpretation of the plain language of the Constitution - the gay marriage ruling, along w Roe on abortion, is an over-reach by the SCOTUS to stick its nose into an area it has NO GRANTED AUTHORITY, so I will ignore it. The 'Law' ruling is a penumbra conjured up by five lawyers outvoting 4.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nonameisgood]

The restriction is only for 501 (c)(3) corporations.

Churchs are tax exempt even without 501 (c)(3).

Sorry, I study tax law.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

I think you may be incorrect. At least as far as the IRS is concerned. If it operates as most churches, that is that they operate as a business that receives money from people and then disburses that money to the needy and those who run the organization, then IRS rules would apply. For federal purposes, they are not exempt unless they declare themselves so. Some states may automatically exempt them from property or sales tax, but the IRS still holds them to rules, including as a 501(c)(3). The main differentiation between churches and other not-for-profit operations is that they do not have to file certain reports.

If a church does not claim 501(c)(3) or a similar exemption, contributions to them would not be deductible for the givers. In exchange, under the rules for 501(c)(3), there are restrictions on political activity.

A church that doesn't accept or spend money doesn't owe taxes or file returns.
A church that receives, gives, and consumes money can operate as a regular business that has no net income and thus pays no income tax and has no restrictions on speech.
Once they ask for special treatment there are special restrictions.

 

[Liberty-or-Death]

BTW...do you pass around the collection plate after we say AMEN??

I don't follow.

 

[DrakeZ07]

In my learned legal interpretation of the plain language of the Constitution - the gay marriage ruling, along w Roe on abortion, is an over-reach by the SCOTUS to stick its nose into an area it has NO GRANTED AUTHORITY, so I will ignore it. The 'Law' ruling is a penumbra conjured up by five lawyers outvoting 4.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Would you prefer we gays be granted 3/5th of a marriage, instead of equal marriage?

Tell me, if a group of states' population, voted and passed an amendment to their constitutions, that banned ANYONE from wearing a gray T-shirt, but allowed people to wear a gray V-neck shirt, would you be for or against it? and what then if SCOTUS ruled such an amendment to be unconstitutional, based on their view of the constitution, despite there be NO written right to wear gray T-shirts?

What if a majority of voters in, say, Iowa, voted and passed an amendment to their state's constitution, decreeing that black people, and white people, cannot legally marry, because inter-racial marriages offended the majority of the voters, would you be happy and fine with that? what then if SCOTUS ruled as it did in Loving v. Virginia? The constitution doesn't explicitly say that the states, or the people thereof, cannot pass a law restricting marriage based on race, so its fine right? I mean, if the constitution doesn't clearly list inter-racial marriage as a right, then the people, and the states, are free to decide, based on majority rule, what is or is not, a right... right?

What if a very large majority, say, 80% of the voters of... Virginia, passed an amendment to the state's cosntitution, saying that guns should and WILL only be used, and possessed, by law enforcement, and members of the military. Because a large majority of the people voted, and passed that amendment, then you should be happy, and accept it. I mean, obviously if the majority wants something to be a thing, then who are you, to disagree with it?

Let's say a majority of voters in Texas, passed a state amendment to their constitution, which decreed that alcohol, tobacco, soda, and fruit juices, was to be considered illegal. Seeing as how the usage, and possession of such things are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, nor out-lined in the bill of rights, then obviously if the majority of people want those items to be illegal, and banned, then its fine and dandy. But, what if the SCOTUS decided, that the state ban on Alcohol, tobacco, soda, and fruit juices, was in and of itself, illegal, and unconstitutional. Would you then disagree with, and be butt hurt about the SCOTUS ruling?

The Constitution doesn't outline every. single. freedom. and. right. that we Americans, enjoy, and take for granted, without thinking or acknowledging, every single day of our lives. So, therefore, it's alright if people then decide that we don't have the right to urinate in urination and waste collection devices in our home, and if the people decided that no one has the right, or the freedom, to watch television, then that too is perfectly fine, because neither are out-lined in the constitution.

But hey, I'm just echoing your, and others, sentiments. How dare SCOTUS over-step its bounds in declaring same-sex marriage bans to be illegal! How dare SCOTUS over-step its bounds by saying that bans on inter-racial marriages, are illegal. How DARE SCOTUS over-step its bounds by saying that women have a right to determine what is best to do with their own body. HOW F***ING DARE they decide that gay marriage bans are illegal! THATS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Jesus, you people whine and complain more than a child that's been spanked for torturing the family cat.

 

[Liberty-or-Death]

Hmm. Why are you whining if you got what you wanted? Winning isn't enough? Must we capitulate, even genuflect and beg mercy for daring to think differently? I'm waiting for an admin thread lock as this debate (which is almost as old as sin itself) will never end.

 

[Ezek]

Would you prefer we gays be granted 3/5th of a marriage, instead of equal marriage?

Tell me, if a group of states' population, voted and passed an amendment to their constitutions, that banned ANYONE from wearing a gray T-shirt, but allowed people to wear a gray V-neck shirt, would you be for or against it? and what then if SCOTUS ruled such an amendment to be unconstitutional, based on their view of the constitution, despite there be NO written right to wear gray T-shirts?

What if a majority of voters in, say, Iowa, voted and passed an amendment to their state's constitution, decreeing that black people, and white people, cannot legally marry, because inter-racial marriages offended the majority of the voters, would you be happy and fine with that? what then if SCOTUS ruled as it did in Loving v. Virginia? The constitution doesn't explicitly say that the states, or the people thereof, cannot pass a law restricting marriage based on race, so its fine right? I mean, if the constitution doesn't clearly list inter-racial marriage as a right, then the people, and the states, are free to decide, based on majority rule, what is or is not, a right... right?

What if a very large majority, say, 80% of the voters of... Virginia, passed an amendment to the state's cosntitution, saying that guns should and WILL only be used, and possessed, by law enforcement, and members of the military. Because a large majority of the people voted, and passed that amendment, then you should be happy, and accept it. I mean, obviously if the majority wants something to be a thing, then who are you, to disagree with it?

Let's say a majority of voters in Texas, passed a state amendment to their constitution, which decreed that alcohol, tobacco, soda, and fruit juices, was to be considered illegal. Seeing as how the usage, and possession of such things are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, nor out-lined in the bill of rights, then obviously if the majority of people want those items to be illegal, and banned, then its fine and dandy. But, what if the SCOTUS decided, that the state ban on Alcohol, tobacco, soda, and fruit juices, was in and of itself, illegal, and unconstitutional. Would you then disagree with, and be butt hurt about the SCOTUS ruling?

The Constitution doesn't outline every. single. freedom. and. right. that we Americans, enjoy, and take for granted, without thinking or acknowledging, every single day of our lives. So, therefore, it's alright if people then decide that we don't have the right to urinate in urination and waste collection devices in our home, and if the people decided that no one has the right, or the freedom, to watch television, then that too is perfectly fine, because neither are out-lined in the constitution.

But hey, I'm just echoing your, and others, sentiments. How dare SCOTUS over-step its bounds in declaring same-sex marriage bans to be illegal! How dare SCOTUS over-step its bounds by saying that bans on inter-racial marriages, are illegal. How DARE SCOTUS over-step its bounds by saying that women have a right to determine what is best to do with their own body. HOW F***ING DARE they decide that gay marriage bans are illegal! THATS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Jesus, you people whine and complain more than a child that's been spanked for torturing the family cat.

Your projecting, and theorizing, your whole argument is a red herring.

the only thing I will say is this.

there is suppose to be a separation of church and state and marriage is, traditionally, a HOLY union blessed by god through an ordained priest/minister. the state took the tradition and saw opportunity to profit by requiring licenses.

therefore marriage of the LGBT crowd is, round-about, impossible, for it is not a holy union in any aspect of the bible, and no priest can overrule god by their own volition, and because god pretty much says so in his own book.

so while you will now be a profit generator for states and counties through the "legal" process of obtaining a license, you still flounder on the religious aspect.

I wouldn't expect warm welcomes and hugs from most pastors/preachers/minister of the churches, as it is their right to refuse on grounds of religion.

 

[OC Freedom]

Would you prefer we gays be granted 3/5th of a marriage, instead of equal marriage?

Tell me, if a group of states' population, voted and passed an amendment to their constitutions, that banned ANYONE from wearing a gray T-shirt, but allowed people to wear a gray V-neck shirt, would you be for or against it? and what then if SCOTUS ruled such an amendment to be unconstitutional, based on their view of the constitution, despite there be NO written right to wear gray T-shirts?

What if a majority of voters in, say, Iowa, voted and passed an amendment to their state's constitution, decreeing that black people, and white people, cannot legally marry, because inter-racial marriages offended the majority of the voters, would you be happy and fine with that? what then if SCOTUS ruled as it did in Loving v. Virginia? The constitution doesn't explicitly say that the states, or the people thereof, cannot pass a law restricting marriage based on race, so its fine right? I mean, if the constitution doesn't clearly list inter-racial marriage as a right, then the people, and the states, are free to decide, based on majority rule, what is or is not, a right... right?

What if a very large majority, say, 80% of the voters of... Virginia, passed an amendment to the state's cosntitution, saying that guns should and WILL only be used, and possessed, by law enforcement, and members of the military. Because a large majority of the people voted, and passed that amendment, then you should be happy, and accept it. I mean, obviously if the majority wants something to be a thing, then who are you, to disagree with it?

Let's say a majority of voters in Texas, passed a state amendment to their constitution, which decreed that alcohol, tobacco, soda, and fruit juices, was to be considered illegal. Seeing as how the usage, and possession of such things are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, nor out-lined in the bill of rights, then obviously if the majority of people want those items to be illegal, and banned, then its fine and dandy. But, what if the SCOTUS decided, that the state ban on Alcohol, tobacco, soda, and fruit juices, was in and of itself, illegal, and unconstitutional. Would you then disagree with, and be butt hurt about the SCOTUS ruling?

The Constitution doesn't outline every. single. freedom. and. right. that we Americans, enjoy, and take for granted, without thinking or acknowledging, every single day of our lives. So, therefore, it's alright if people then decide that we don't have the right to urinate in urination and waste collection devices in our home, and if the people decided that no one has the right, or the freedom, to watch television, then that too is perfectly fine, because neither are out-lined in the constitution.

But hey, I'm just echoing your, and others, sentiments. How dare SCOTUS over-step its bounds in declaring same-sex marriage bans to be illegal! How dare SCOTUS over-step its bounds by saying that bans on inter-racial marriages, are illegal. How DARE SCOTUS over-step its bounds by saying that women have a right to determine what is best to do with their own body. HOW F***ING DARE they decide that gay marriage bans are illegal! THATS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Jesus, you people whine and complain more than a child that's been spanked for torturing the family cat.

Women murdering their unborn children through abortion and men sodomizing other men, really should be illegal. What is wrong, now has become right, and what is right, has now become wrong.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

Those who are not the subject of the tax are exempt. Are you volunteering to be the subject of the income tax? (Only a 'withholding agent' is liable for paying and non-resident aliens and foreign corporations are the subject of the income tax)
Something to think about.
Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

huh?

Your projecting, and theorizing, your whole argument is a red herring.

the only thing I will say is this.

there is suppose to be a separation of church and state and marriage is, traditionally, a HOLY union blessed by god through an ordained priest/minister. the state took the tradition and saw opportunity to profit by requiring licenses.

therefore marriage of the LGBT crowd is, round-about, impossible, for it is not a holy union in any aspect of the bible, and no priest can overrule god by their own volition, and because god pretty much says so in his own book.

so while you will now be a profit generator for states and counties through the "legal" process of obtaining a license, you still flounder on the religious aspect.

I wouldn't expect warm welcomes and hugs from most pastors/preachers/minister of the churches, as it is their right to refuse on grounds of religion.

Your absurd definition of "traditional" marriage is irrelevant. The discussion is primarily about legal state-authorized marriage. Before gays were marrying atheists were marrying. It has nothing to do with your personal religious traditions.

Women murdering their unborn children through abortion and men sodomizing other men, really should be illegal. What is wrong, now has become right, and what is right, has now become wrong.

Fine if you think it's wrong to be gay, appalling you wish the government to force your twisted views on others. Slaver.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP Your absurd definition of "traditional" marriage is irrelevant. The discussion is primarily about legal state-authorized marriage. Before gays were marrying atheists were marrying. It has nothing to do with your personal religious traditions.

Hey! That's right! Thanks for pointing that out! I hadn't thought of that before!

Some religionists are co-opting marriage by arguing it is (insert religious argument here). Heck, marriage might pre-date religion by millennia.

 

[nonameisgood]

Hey! That's right! Thanks for pointing that out! I hadn't thought of that before!

Some religionists are co-opting marriage by arguing it is (insert religious argument here). Heck, marriage might pre-date religion by millennia.

I was at dinner having a convo about this very thing whilst you were typing.
Religious people like to claim ownership of other people's things. Like evergreen trees, messiahs, bright stars or comets, virgin births... may as well take marriage.

 

[Citizen]

I was at dinner having a convo about this very thing whilst you were typing.
Religious people like to claim ownership of other people's things. Like evergreen trees, messiahs, bright stars or comets, virgin births... may as well take marriage.

Easy, there. Some religious people like to claim ownership of other people's things.

I am rather religious.

Lucky for y'all that my religious views include a very large degree of spiritual freedom.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I was at dinner having a convo about this very thing whilst you were typing.
Religious people like to claim ownership of other people's things. Like evergreen trees, messiahs, bright stars or comets, virgin births... may as well take marriage.

Other peoples property by the altars of the states.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

Your projecting, and theorizing, your whole argument is a red herring.

the only thing I will say is this.

there is suppose to be a separation of church and state and marriage is, traditionally, a HOLY union blessed by god through an ordained priest/minister. the state took the tradition and saw opportunity to profit by requiring licenses.

therefore marriage of the LGBT crowd is, round-about, impossible, for it is not a holy union in any aspect of the bible, and no priest can overrule god by their own volition, and because god pretty much says so in his own book.

so while you will now be a profit generator for states and counties through the "legal" process of obtaining a license, you still flounder on the religious aspect.

I wouldn't expect warm welcomes and hugs from most pastors/preachers/minister of the churches, as it is their right to refuse on grounds of religion.

Marriage likely predates.... every world religion.

Christianity ain't that old.