California tax bill seeks to punish Scouts for gay ban

[xBiffx]

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

Do tell. Nothing was debunked considering the discussion is still centered around the issue I brought up.

 

[thraashman]

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

No, I'm saying once the government recognized legal definition of marriage includes that of same-sex marriage, which it is inevitably moving towards, that churches don't get to choose which laws they ignore just because their religion says so. We also wouldn't let a radical mosque practice honor killings even if their religion says so.

 

[nehalem256]

No, I'm saying once the government recognized legal definition of marriage includes that of same-sex marriage, which it is inevitably moving towards, that churches don't get to choose which laws they ignore just because their religion says so. We also wouldn't let a radical mosque practice honor killings even if their religion says so.

Saying you have to get married at a different venue is the same as killing someone? :hmm:

 

[thraashman]

Nope, never said that. What I am saying is if they remove those tax breaks for discriminatory reasons, it wouldn't be legal.

Sure the state can discern between who it wants to give tax breaks too, as long as they don't say they are giving them to one group and not another based on discriminatory reasons.

Nice try putting words in my mouth.

Again, the issue isn't the removal of the tax exemption here, the issue is the reasons why its being removed.

Do tell. Nothing was debunked considering the discussion is still centered around the issue I brought up.

Ok, ok fine. Back to your original point then. The state isn't removing tax exemptions for discriminatory reasons, they're removing them BECAUSE of that organizations discriminatory practices. Which is a reasonable thing any state would do.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I'm curious as to why no one in opposition to this (nehalem, Biff, Hayabusa, Incorruptible, et al) has addressed the question DrPizza raised earlier:

Why don't you, and everyone else, answer this question: What are the reasons the government offers tax exempt status to any groups?

What, in your mind, is the reason government grants tax-exempt status to a group? We need to establish why it is that the government gives tax-exempt status to any group before we can venture any further into the discussion about who should be eligible.

 

[thraashman]

Saying you have to get married at a different venue is the same as killing someone? :hmm:

Oh quit being intentionally obtuse. It was another example of how we won't let a religious organization choose which laws they follow. I could have also used that one dude who was forcibly marrying underage girls in his church a few years ago but I can't remember enough details to make it anything but an obscure example.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

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.

this

 

[nehalem256]

Oh quit being intentionally obtuse. It was another example of how we won't let a religious organization choose which laws they follow. I could have also used that one dude who was forcibly marrying underage girls in his church a few years ago but I can't remember enough details to make it anything but an obscure example.

And that would still be different.

You would be comparing a church saying you have to get married at another venue (that approves of your lifestyle choices), and sexually molesting young girls.

It should be obvious to any reasonable person why those are different.

 

[xBiffx]

Ok, ok fine. Back to your original point then. The state isn't removing tax exemptions for discriminatory reasons, they're removing them BECAUSE of that organizations discriminatory practices. Which is a reasonable thing any state would do.

As I stated way back in the second post. The irony of you being ok with fighting discrimination with discrimination is hilarious. Its starting to become second in hilarity to you not being able to recognize that irony.

The state's decision to remove exempt status for an organization based solely on that organization's legal and constitutionally protected beliefs because the state does not agree with those beliefs is discriminatory. They are discriminating against any organization that does not fall in line with the State's stance on any given issue.

This, I believe, will be the crux of the matter when it does make its way to the courts. The State has the right to give or take away tax exempt status. What they don't have a right to do is base this decision on discriminatory political opinion and therefore illegal reasons.

If they had just shut their mouths and removed the status, not much would be happening here. Its because they choose to disclose the reasoning that is going to get them in hot water. Although, I think eventually, they would have to explain the reasoning behind the removal and that explanation would surely have to steer clear of obvious land mines.

 

[nehalem256]

What, in your mind, is the reason government grants tax-exempt status to a group? We need to establish why it is that the government gives tax-exempt status to any group before we can venture any further into the discussion about who should be eligible.

You grant tax-exempt status to organizations that are not in the business of making a profit. Normally these organizations exist to further a public interest.

So

Engaging in political discourse is in the public interest. No matter how stupid it is.

Further the moral development and character of boys is in the public interest. So the boy scouts are tax exempt.

If a gay group wanted to have a "Gay Scouts" group that only had gay scout leaders and gay boys I would have no objection to such a group being tax exempt.

 

[BoomerD]

Let's just do away with allowing ANY organization to have tax-exempt status...while we're at it, let's do away with allowing anyone to deduct the donations to any charitable organization. If you want to donate...do it out of the goodness of your heart, not because you get a tax break for doing so.

 

[xBiffx]

I'm curious as to why no one in opposition to this (nehalem, Biff, Hayabusa, Incorruptible, et al) has addressed the question DrPizza raised earlier:



What, in your mind, is the reason government grants tax-exempt status to a group? We need to establish why it is that the government gives tax-exempt status to any group before we can venture any further into the discussion about who should be eligible.

Why ask? Does it make any difference? We are talking about the removal of ONE exempt status.

As far as the reason why they do give exempt status. That has been addressed and its not worth repeating.

You want to remove all exempt statuses you will get no arguments from me.

Not sure why you are asking for what has already been addressed.

 

[zsdersw]

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

Soon, I'm sure, but little do they know that such steps are not necessary. Opponents to same-sex marriage are growing older, more decrepit and, accordingly, dying off... and will be either gone or a powerless minority in a generation or two.

 

[thraashman]

And that would still be different.

You would be comparing a church saying you have to get married at another venue (that approves of your lifestyle choices), and sexually molesting young girls.

It should be obvious to any reasonable person why those are different.

And I'm not saying the punishment for murder or child molestation by a church should be loss of tax exempt status. I'm pointing out that religious freedom does not exempt a church from following laws. Some religions promote use of drugs in their religious practices that are controlled narcotic substances. Should they be exempt from drug possession laws on religious grounds? (Hint, the answer is no)

 

[nehalem256]

And I'm not saying the punishment for murder or child molestation by a church should be loss of tax exempt status. I'm pointing out that religious freedom does not exempt a church from following laws. Some religions promote use of drugs in their religious practices that are controlled narcotic substances. Should they be exempt from drug possession laws on religious grounds? (Hint, the answer is no)

And you do not see the difference between prohibiting a church from doing something and forcing them to do something?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No, I'm saying once the government recognized legal definition of marriage includes that of same-sex marriage, which it is inevitably moving towards, that churches don't get to choose which laws they ignore just because their religion says so. We also wouldn't let a radical mosque practice honor killings even if their religion says so.

There is no law in existence or which could conceivably pass Constitutional muster which could require any clergy member to marry anyone for any reason any more than there can be one which compels you to go to church and the basis for that is legally the same. The Constitution protects them and you from such compulsions.

 

[thraashman]

There is no law in existence or which could conceivably pass Constitutional muster which could require any clergy member to marry anyone for any reason any more than there can be one which compels you to go to church and the basis for that is legally the same. The Constitution protects them and you from such compulsions.

Well I went to check on something here. First, I will bring up that so far as I can tell a church can refuse to marry an interracial couple and suffer no legal consequence. Apparently churches do get a pass in discrimination in that way, so it would hold true as well for marrying gay couples.

However I also discovered that not only is what California doing with the BSA legal, but there is precedence for it at the Supreme Court level.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0461_0574_ZS.html

The jist is that Bob Jones University was banning interracially married couples or even those who advocated interracial marriage or dating from being applicants. The IRS revoked their tax exempt status as a discriminatory. The Supreme Court found

that an institution seeking tax-exempt status must serve a public purpose and not be contrary to established public policy. Thus, to warrant exemption under § 501(c)(3), an institution must fall within a category specified in that section, and must demonstrably serve and be in harmony with the public interest, and the institution's purpose must not be so at odds with the common community conscience as to undermine any public benefit that might otherwise be conferred

In other words, the USSC has previously said that discriminatory institutions can have tax exempt status revoked but this does not appear to extend to requiring churches to perform ceremonies. I do not know if this would apply if a church refused to allow gay members or interracially married members.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

In other words, the USSC has previously said that discriminatory institutions can have tax exempt status revoked but this does not appear to extend to requiring churches to perform ceremonies. I do not know if this would apply if a church refused to allow gay members or interracially married members.

The requirements for a membership in the church is that the applicant agree to whatever articles of faith or beliefs it holds. In the case of homosexuality, it's long been considered unacceptable per Biblical references. Sexual immorality that is. Whether you or I agree isn't really the point. To force a church to accept that which it cannot condone is a violation of Church and state. In the case of interracial couples it would be far harder to justify since this was an accepted thing back in the days of Jesus. In the case of the Scouts it's no doubt legal that California can do as it will, but then again my point of Thought Police comes up. Like I've already said if the Scouts went around with the purpose of harming gays the situation turns from one of religious concerns to persecution, that goes much too far. We end up with Right Thinking being rewarded and Wrong Thinking being punished by the power of the state. Sound appealing? Read the book and see where that leads. I'm entirely uncomfortable saying that worse can't follow.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Why ask? Does it make any difference? We are talking about the removal of ONE exempt status.

As far as the reason why they do give exempt status. That has been addressed and its not worth repeating.

You want to remove all exempt statuses you will get no arguments from me.

Not sure why you are asking for what has already been addressed.

Of course it makes a difference. If your standard for exemption is a public benefit, then it makes sense that organizations operating outside the laws of a local jurisdiction would no longer be eligible for that benefit. To wit, California specifically treats discrimination for reasons of sexual orientation the same as discrimination along other lines such as race or gender. A group that discriminated against a specific race is not eligible for tax-exempt status under Federal filing regulations. California's rules, by including sexual orientation, are more stringent than the Federal rules, and would exclude the Boy Scouts given their stance on homosexuality. The Boy Scouts would still receive exemption at the Federal level, but they would be responsible for state taxes in California since they no longer meet California's stance for a non-discriminatory organization.

Now, if you hold that the purpose of tax exemption is something other than providing a public benefit, then you could also start down the path that discrimination codes shouldn't apply. That's why it's important to start from the standpoint asking why we give tax exempt status to anyone. I think it's because of the public benefit myself. And it's well within California's rights as a state to say that organizations that do not meet specific anti-discrimination laws are not operating for the public benefit according to their laws.

 

[ivwshane]

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.

And how is the states pushing their morality, the state can remove its tax exempt status and the BSA can still opporate with their current practices.

Oops, looks like your argument can work for both sides.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Well I went to check on something here. First, I will bring up that so far as I can tell a church can refuse to marry an interracial couple and suffer no legal consequence. Apparently churches do get a pass in discrimination in that way, so it would hold true as well for marrying gay couples.

A church can refuse to marry anyone for any reason. They aren't legally obligated to marry anybody, members or otherwise. This whole bit about forcing churches to marry gay couples is ridiculous; they're private organizations that happen to be allowed to conduct marriages (which still require additional legal paperwork be filed). Leave them be. If a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple, why in God's name would the gay couple want to force them to do so? "Man, they really don't want us here. This is a great place for our special day!"

 

[nehalem256]

And how is the states pushing their morality, the state can remove its tax exempt status and the BSA can still opporate with their current practices.

Oops, looks like your argument can work for both sides.

The difference is in one case the government is funding the operations of an organization.

And in the other it is not. Basically the Republicans would be treating PP no different than the BSA are treated currently. So unless you think that the way the BSA are currently being treated is pushing their morality you are full of BS.

 

[nehalem256]

A church can refuse to marry anyone for any reason. They aren't legally obligated to marry anybody, members or otherwise. This whole bit about forcing churches to marry gay couples is ridiculous; they're private organizations that happen to be allowed to conduct marriages (which still require additional legal paperwork be filed). Leave them be. If a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple, why in God's name would the gay couple want to force them to do so? "Man, they really don't want us here. This is a great place for our special day!"

To push the idea that homosexual couples are equal to heterosexual couples.

 

[xBiffx]

Of course it makes a difference. If your standard for exemption is a public benefit, then it makes sense that organizations operating outside the laws of a local jurisdiction would no longer be eligible for that benefit. To wit, California specifically treats discrimination for reasons of sexual orientation the same as discrimination along other lines such as race or gender. A group that discriminated against a specific race is not eligible for tax-exempt status under Federal filing regulations. California's rules, by including sexual orientation, are more stringent than the Federal rules, and would exclude the Boy Scouts given their stance on homosexuality. The Boy Scouts would still receive exemption at the Federal level, but they would be responsible for state taxes in California since they no longer meet California's stance for a non-discriminatory organization.

Now, if you hold that the purpose of tax exemption is something other than providing a public benefit, then you could also start down the path that discrimination codes shouldn't apply. That's why it's important to start from the standpoint asking why we give tax exempt status to anyone. I think it's because of the public benefit myself. And it's well within California's rights as a state to say that organizations that do not meet specific anti-discrimination laws are not operating for the public benefit according to their laws.

California's rules with regards to sexual orientation discrimination do not apply to private organizations. This has been already addressed.

The BSA has rights too.

 

[Darwin333]

Good luck getting this past the courts.

They have a right to choose who can be a member and who cannot. This is a private organization. Taxing them for executing their rights, first of which is their freedom of speech, is not going to end well. If they just dropped the tax exemption or just raised taxes on them without opening their big mouths there wouldn't be much to talk about here. But they chose to disclose the reasoning behind their actions. Lawmakers' first mistake here.

You may not agree with the Boy Scouts' decision but condoning illegal taxes as a way to "get em back" isn't gonna win you anything.

Oh and, the irony that you are ok with going after "discrimination" with discrimination is hilarious.

Paying taxes is discrimination? Where the hell is Jesse's phone number, the government has been discriminating the fuck out of me for most of my life!

Shrug, you want special breaks from the .gov then you have to play by their rules. If you don't like their rules then, as you correctly pointed out, as a private organization they aren't required to take the special breaks.

I fail to see how refusing to give them special breaks is actually discrimination though.