California tax bill seeks to punish Scouts for gay ban

[Hayabusa Rider]

So you appear to be saying that some viewpoints are worthy of discrimination against. Some kinds of wrong thinking should be punished?

I am not the Thought Police. I don't approve of the KKK for instance, but it has been recognized that they have a right to exist. When they touch a hair on someone's head then let the chips fall. Then again I dislike burning the flag. I would never do it. I will also not punish someone who does. What about organizations that support that expression that many find objectionable? Should the ACLU be punished for it's Wrong Thinking?

Be careful here. Once you punish for Thought Crimes then you have opened a very large can of worms and your approval or disapproval of how it's used is entirely in the hands of those in power at the moment.

 

[fskimospy]

I am not the Thought Police. I don't approve of the KKK for instance, but it has been recognized that they have a right to exist. When they touch a hair on someone's head then let the chips fall. Then again I dislike burning the flag. I would never do it. I will also not punish someone who does. What about organizations that support that expression that many find objectionable? Should the ACLU be punished for it's Wrong Thinking?

Be careful here. Once you punish for Thought Crimes then you have opened a very large can of worms and your approval or disapproval of how it's used is entirely in the hands of those in power at the moment.

Again, I don't want to get too hung up on a particular organization.

Lets say that another group espouses all the same views as the KKK, but wishes to subjugate black people through entirely legal means. Should the state be forced to exempt them from taxes while they go about it?

This is not about a right to exist, it is about an explicit state subsidy.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Freedom of expression is different than discrimination. If you own a business and you say that you have trouble trusting black customers because you've had bad experiences with them stealing from you, you're allowed to. The second you start saying you won't let black customers in your store is when you're discriminating. You get me or do I need to continue basic human morality lessons with you?

I don't need your morality lessons because clearly you don't understand the concept. Churches perform marriage as a service in the context of established and accepted religious beliefs. No one can force a minister or priest to marry one if he believes that doing so is contrary to the core beliefs of their religion. You simply fail to ignore that there is such a thing as religious freedoms which you seem to think you have the right to ignore and establish law regarding the practice thereof. If gay people want to be married I have no problem. Forcing someone to do it? Fuck that.

 

[thraashman]

I don't need your morality lessons because clearly you don't understand the concept. Churches perform marriage as a service in the context of established and accepted religious beliefs. No one can force a minister or priest to marry one if he believes that doing so is contrary to the core beliefs of their religion. You simply fail to ignore that there is such a thing as religious freedoms which you seem to think you have the right to ignore and establish law regarding the practice thereof. If gay people want to be married I have no problem. Forcing someone to do it? Fuck that.

Well at least we're getting closer here in understanding. And I have no problem allowing a religious organization have whatever status within the religion they want. But if they're going to insist on having a discriminatory practice, then how about we remove legal recognition from it. You can get married in your church. Your church can choose to not marry gay couples all it wants. You marriage while valid within your church is not recognized by the state and you would have to get a separate ceremony/whatever the hell is done at a courthouse to let the state recognize it. Any church that wants to have their marriages recognized by the state and still receive tax exempt status would have to end discriminatory practices and be willing to marry homosexual partners.

That sounds like a decent compromise. It's separating church and state fairly well.

 

[nehalem256]

But the Republicans ARE trying to push their morality.

How are they pushing their morality by the government not funding abortion?

You are still free to get an abortion with your money.

As far as revoking tax exempt status from PP, well they aren't discriminating against any group so there's no grounds to.

They are murdering babies according to the Republicans. That would seem to be grounds to from the Republican perspective.

 

[nehalem256]

Well at least we're getting closer here in understanding. And I have no problem allowing a religious organization have whatever status within the religion they want. But if they're going to insist on having a discriminatory practice, then how about we remove legal recognition from it. You can get married in your church. Your church can choose to not marry gay couples all it wants. You marriage while valid within your church is not recognized by the state and you would have to get a separate ceremony/whatever the hell is done at a courthouse to let the state recognize it. Any church that wants to have their marriages recognized by the state and still receive tax exempt status would have to end discriminatory practices and be willing to marry homosexual partners.

That sounds like a decent compromise. It's separating church and state fairly well.

Wow. Sounds like Republicans were right to be worried liberals would impose their morality onto churches.

 

[pauldun170]

California bars discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations

Provides that an organization that is a public charity youth organization that discriminates on the basis of gender identity, race, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or religious affiliation is not exempt from the taxes imposed by the Sales and Use Tax Law.

The legislation, also known as the Youth Equality Act, would deny tax-exempt status to nonprofit youth groups that discriminate on the basis of gender identity, race, sexual orientation, nationality, religion or religious affiliation.

As a result, it would require those organizations to pay corporate taxes on donations, membership dues, camp fees and other sources of income, and to obtain sellers permits and pay sales taxes on food, beverages and homemade items sold at fundraisers. Because all tax returns are private in California, supporters do not know how big a tax hit the Boy Scouts would take if the proposal passes.

Churches that sponsor Boy Scouts troops would not lose their underlying tax-exempt status, but an array of nonprofits, ranging from the Young Men’s Christian Association and Pop Warner football to the American Youth Soccer Association and 4-H clubs would have their tax returns and membership policies scrutinized by the state Franchise Tax Board, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office.


http://www.boston.com/business/pers...for-gay-ban/rN8yZLLoCrdAipO4dfJviJ/story.html

The bill is answering the question "Why are we giving certain tax breaks to organizations that are not in compliance with state law?"

All Tax breaks\exemptions are there to reward behaviors deemed beneficial to society.
They are not entitlements.

The bill appears target all groups that are not in line with California law.

 

[nehalem256]

Again, I don't want to get too hung up on a particular organization.

Lets say that another group espouses all the same views as the KKK, but wishes to subjugate black people through entirely legal means. Should the state be forced to exempt them from taxes while they go about it?

This is not about a right to exist, it is about an explicit state subsidy.

I think if the state is going to grant non-profit status to organizations that engage in advancing political views it should grant it to all such organizations.

Granting it only to groups the government agrees with seems like a very dangerous idea.

I guess it is too bad Republicans didn't get the idea to deny non-profit status to pro same-sex marriage groups years ago

 

[nehalem256]

California bars discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations

The bill is answering the question "Why are we giving certain tax breaks to organizations that are not in compliance with state law?"

All Tax breaks\exemptions are there to reward behaviors deemed beneficial to society.
They are not entitlements.

The bill appears target all groups that are not in line with California law.

And so denying tax breaks to same-sex couples because their behavior was not deemed beneficial to society would be completely constitutional.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Again, I don't want to get too hung up on a particular organization.

Lets say that another group espouses all the same views as the KKK, but wishes to subjugate black people through entirely legal means. Should the state be forced to exempt them from taxes while they go about it?

This is not about a right to exist, it is about an explicit state subsidy.

What you keep doing is making equivalencies that do not exist. The Boy Scouts do not have as their mission the goal of subjugating gays. They may not approve of the lifestyle, and that is the core issue here, but if they were suddenly possessed and changed their purpose by going about trying to ruin peoples lives or beat them or get them fired or flay them or whatever then at that point they are not Wrong Thinking, they are acting in a way which is intended to cause malicious harm, which would probably be legally actionable.

Remember that the Boy Scouts did not get charitable status for not liking gays, but for what is perceived to be a useful contribution to the community apart from any other issue. If someone were to go before the state and say "Hey, I would like to have tax exempt status for the purpose of rolling the clock back on civil rights by a century" wouldn't seem to be considered a valuable service by the majority of people. If that were the case I could say I did a bunch of good things, give me the break.

So if the Boy Scouts as in institution goes about trying to get gays fired or put in jail or the like, then we have an entirely different situation. When that happens get back to me and we'll discuss what I think ought to be done at that point.

 

[thraashman]

Wow. Sounds like Republicans were right to be worried liberals would impose their morality onto churches.

Well if once the government legalizes same-sex marriage the church refuses to recognize the government's definition of marriage, then why should the government recognize the church's definition? The church doesn't get to just have it their way in all situations. Either you shut your fucking mouth and stop trying to force the rest of the country to adhere to your outdated and narrow definition of marriage, or give up your tax exempt status.

 

[fskimospy]

I think if the state is going to grant non-profit status to organizations that engage in advancing political views it should grant it to all such organizations.

Granting it only to groups the government agrees with seems like a very dangerous idea.

I guess it is too bad Republicans didn't get the idea to deny non-profit status to pro same-sex marriage groups years ago

It wouldn't have mattered, same sex marriage would have won anyway. Americans have grown up a lot in the last 20 years.

So long as you are arguing that the government should be required to subsidize a group that advocates amending the constitution so that white people and men should be enslaved because all viewpoint discrimination should be banned that's fine. I think it is a dumb opinion, bit at least it is logically coherent.

 

[nehalem256]

Well if once the government legalizes same-sex marriage the church refuses to recognize the government's definition of marriage, then why should the government recognize the church's definition? The church doesn't get to just have it their way in all situations. Either you shut your fucking mouth and stop trying to force the rest of the country to adhere to your outdated and narrow definition of marriage, or give up your tax exempt status.

And you are literally forcing the churches to adhere to your perverted definition of "marriage". But hey liberals are so open-minded and tolerant.

 

[GoPackGo]

California and many of you miss this "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

 

[thraashman]

How are they pushing their morality by the government not funding abortion?

You are still free to get an abortion with your money.



They are murdering babies according to the Republicans. That would seem to be grounds to from the Republican perspective.

Government funds have already been banned from funding abortion for many, many years. But trying to cut all funding to the nation's largest provider of health services to the underprivileged just because 3% of their services are abortion related, is pushing your morality.

 

[nehalem256]

It wouldn't have mattered, same sex marriage would have won anyway. Americans have grown up a lot in the last 20 years.

So long as you are arguing that the government should be required to subsidize a group that advocates amending the constitution so that white people and men should be enslaved because all viewpoint discrimination should be banned that's fine. I think it is a dumb opinion, bit at least it is logically coherent.

If a group wants to advocated for that stupid political opinion fine. Grant them the same tax-exempt status.

The idea that the government should decide what political opinions are acceptable seems like a horrible idea.

 

[nehalem256]

Government funds have already been banned from funding abortion for many, many years. But trying to cut all funding to the nation's largest provider of health services to the underprivileged just because 3% of their services are abortion related, is pushing your morality.

So now the government is required to directly fund organizations that engage in "baby"-killing.

And I think your 3% number is off by a bit:

In 2009, Planned Parenthood performed 332,278 abortions (for comparison, 1.21 million abortions were performed in the US in 2008[84]), from which it derives about $164,154,000, or 15% of its annual revenue as of their 2008-2009 calculations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_parenthood#Abortion

Even the Republicans have not tried to strip PP of tax-exempt status.

No one is arguing that California should be required to give money to the Boy Scouts.

 

[thraashman]

And you are literally forcing the churches to adhere to your perverted definition of "marriage". But hey liberals are so open-minded and tolerant.

First, it's not a perverted definition. Just because you enjoy living in the moral dark ages doesn't mean the rest of us do. I also don't think I should marry my dead brother's wife or that a rapist should marry his victim, but that's just more of my "perverted" definition of "marriage" I guess. Second, I'm providing a way in which the church can still remain completely separate from the state, and that's the state will not recognize any marriages performed by a church that chooses to continue being discriminatory. I'm forcing nothing.

California and many of you miss this "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Maybe you can help me, I'm having trouble finding the part in the First Amendment where it grants tax exempt status to groups that discriminate against American citizens.

 

[First]

[edited for shit]

Boy, you're just falling all over yourself sticking to your original debunked lines, aren't you. How cute.

 

[pauldun170]

And so denying tax breaks to same-sex couples because their behavior was not deemed beneficial to society would be completely constitutional.

Give tax break to married couples filing jointly.
Make law that explicitly states marriage as between man and women.

Something like that?

 

[Incorruptible]

First, it's not a perverted definition. Just because you enjoy living in the moral dark ages doesn't mean the rest of us do. I also don't think I should marry my dead brother's wife or that a rapist should marry his victim, but that's just more of my "perverted" definition of "marriage" I guess. Second, I'm providing a way in which the church can still remain completely separate from the state, and that's the state will not recognize any marriages performed by a church that chooses to continue being discriminatory. I'm forcing nothing.


Maybe you can help me, I'm having trouble finding the part in the First Amendment where it grants tax exempt status to groups that discriminate against American citizens.

Apparently you haven't heard of private property rights. Do you have a problem with minority groups that disallow whites?

 

[nehalem256]

First, it's not a perverted definition. Just because you enjoy living in the moral dark ages doesn't mean the rest of us do. I also don't think I should marry my dead brother's wife or that a rapist should marry his victim, but that's just more of my "perverted" definition of "marriage" I guess. Second, I'm providing a way in which the church can still remain completely separate from the state, and that's the state will not recognize any marriages performed by a church that chooses to continue being discriminatory. I'm forcing nothing.

You are in a completely practical sense trying to force your definition of marriage on Churches and you know it.

You want to punish churches for having views you disapprove of.

I wonder how long it will be until liberals are advocating for putting people that don't approve of same-sex "marriage" in special reeducation camps

 

[nehalem256]

Give tax break to married couples filing jointly.
Make law that explicitly states marriage as between man and women.

Something like that?

Oh no. Gay couples could still get married. They just wouldn't get the tax benefits.

Just like the boy scouts could still be an organization they just wont get tax benefits.

 

[xBiffx]

Boy, you're just falling all over yourself sticking to your original debunked lines, aren't you. How cute.

Your argument is about as good as the rest at refuting my claims that this removal of status is discriminatory and that this probably won't stand because of it.

Good job adding to the thread.

 

[First]

Your argument is about as good as the rest at refuting my claims that this removal of status is discriminatory and that this probably won't stand because of it.

Good job adding to the thread.

Oh it's already been debunked, as evidenced by your wimp-out vis-à-vis eskimospy discussion.

I just thought you should know no one intelligent was buying your bullshit. Hence my post.

Carry on with the obfuscation, my layman attorney friend.