California tax bill seeks to punish Scouts for gay ban

[ivwshane]

And by discriminate you mean a private organization is able to decide criteria for who belongs to it.



No actually its pretty simple. If there is no difference between giving tax-free status to an organization and the government funding the organization...

Then there would be no difference between giving tax-free status to a church and the government directly funding the church. Want to bet the left would pitch a fit if say Mississippi started funding the operation of the Baptist church?

Lol, yeah no difference except for the fact that the government should make no law respecting the establishment of religion. So yeah, except for the constitutional issue, their is no difference.

/rollseyes

 

[ivwshane]

Except that the Boy Scouts are a private organization. Ever hear of Freedom of Association?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association#United_States_Constitution

And what view point are they advocating? Has the BSA said one of its purposes is to maintain the sanctity of heterosexual people?

Did you read what you quoted?

 

[nehalem256]

And what view point are they advocating? Has the BSA said one of its purposes is to maintain the sanctity of heterosexual people?

Did you read what you quoted?

http://www.frc.org/newsroom/frc-boy...esist-pressure-to-change-homosexuality-policy

"The mission of the Boy Scouts is 'to instill values in young people' and 'prepare them to make ethical choices,' and the Scout's oath includes a pledge 'to do my duty to God' and keep himself 'morally straight.' It is entirely reasonable and not at all unusual for those passages to be interpreted as requiring abstinence from homosexual conduct.

Is that clear enough for you?

 

[nehalem256]

Lol, yeah no difference except for the fact that the government should make no law respecting the establishment of religion. So yeah, except for the constitutional issue, their is no difference.

/rollseyes

But if funding an organization and granting tax-free status are the same that would mean that either:

(1) Granting tax-free status constituted establishment of religion.

(2) Funding an organization did not constitute establishment of religion.

:hmm:

 

[fskimospy]

And by discriminate you mean a private organization is able to decide criteria for who belongs to it.



No actually its pretty simple. If there is no difference between giving tax-free status to an organization and the government funding the organization...

Then there would be no difference between giving tax-free status to a church and the government directly funding the church. Want to bet the left would pitch a fit if say Mississippi started funding the operation of the Baptist church?

Oh well if being exempt from taxation is being given nothing of value then I guess taxes take nothing of value. Good to know.

 

[Incorruptible]

The government has no right to tell a private organization who it can allow and disallow. Freedom of association is protected and its absolutely shameful there are people who think its alright to tax groups that they oppose like this.

People are entitled to their views and the government cant change that. Funny how some of the supporters of this bill are some of the same ones who support the WTC Mosque. They only support the Constitution when it suits them.

 

[ivwshane]

The government has no right to tell a private organization who it can allow and disallow. Freedom of association is protected and its absolutely shameful there are people who think its alright to tax groups that they oppose like this.

People are entitled to their views and the government cant change that. Funny how some of the supporters of this bill are some of the same ones who support the WTC Mosque. They only support the Constitution when it suits them.

Hey fucking moron! It's not about telling anyone what they can or can't say, it's about taxes and guess who has the right to levy taxes? Yep, it's the government and that's what they are doing.

You should understand the topic before you comment on it. I know it's hard not to comment when your "buddies" show up and you want them to like you but you should think before posting

 

[nehalem256]

Hey fucking moron! It's not about telling anyone what they can or can't say, it's about taxes and guess who has the right to levy taxes? Yep, it's the government and that's what they are doing.

So then the government also has the right to not grant marital tax benefits to same-sex couples.

OH! What you mean is they can levy taxes on associations that liberals dislike.

 

[ivwshane]

So then the government also has the right to not grant marital tax benefits to same-sex couples.

OH! What you mean is they can levy taxes on associations that liberals dislike.

Well that's being debated right now so we will see. However tax breaks are typically required to follow anti discriminatory laws, that is, you can't deny someone something because of sex, race, or religion.

What that has to do with law makers who want to specify how a particular tax break would affect every organization, I don't know.

But your double down on stupidity is admirable.

 

[Fern]

Your advice is for Californians to create a Separate but Equal organization? How about we just remind the Boy Scouts that they are being horrible people until they change their minds? Seems to be working so far.

Not exactly, they should create a separation organization that promotes the views they want instead instead of changing an existing one against its will to fit their views.

A pillar of the Boy Scouts has long been religion, and whether one likes it or not they have that right.

I'm saying get off your azz and go create a youth organization designed around the themes you want.

Fern

 

[Fern]

I usually agree with you but that sounds an awful lot like white only water fountains and black only water fountains....

I don't think it's anything of the sort.

Youth programs, no matter the type, are always organized around certain principles and/or activities.

Should kids who want to swim be allowed to join the soccer club and then insist they use that club's time and resources to go swimming?

Should the young atheists club be compelled to admit Jews and redesigned to have study time of the Torah?

No. If you want a youth program designed around certain principles or activities and one doesn't exist, go start one instead of forcing changes to an existing program to suit your wants.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Well that's being debated right now so we will see. However tax breaks are typically required to follow anti discriminatory laws, that is, you can't deny someone something because of sex, race, or religion.

What that has to do with law makers who want to specify how a particular tax break would affect every organization, I don't know.

But your double down on stupidity is admirable.

I don't think so.

E.g., last I checked churches are tax exempt and you cannot become a member of a church unless you agree to its principals and teachings.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

I don't think so.

E.g., last I checked churches are tax exempt and you cannot become a member of a church unless you agree to its principals and teachings.

Fern

Yes but that applies to all churches and the BSA is not a church so its not afforded the same protection.

 

[xBiffx]

the BSA is not a church so its not afforded the same protection.

Source?

Seems it still falls under the same Constitution.

 

[ivwshane]

Source?

The source for what? That all churches are tax exempt or that the BSA is not a church?

 

[xBiffx]

The source for what? That all churches are tax exempt or that the BSA is not a church?

That its not afforded the same protection. The thing that protects the church protects the BSA, as well as everyone else.

 

[ivwshane]

Source?

Seems it still falls under the same Constitution.

You edited your post so my quote is different.

I don't understand your point.

 

[xBiffx]

You edited your post so my quote is different.

I don't understand your point.

You claimed that the BSA is not afforded the same protection as a church. That simply is not true.

 

[ivwshane]

That its not afforded the same protection. The thing that protects the church protects the BSA, as well as everyone else.

No that is incorrect. There are requirements in order to meet the IRS definition of a church and as far as I know the BSA does not meet those requirements and the requirements may be different at the state level than it is at the federal level.

http://www.crown.org/library/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=701

Fern could probably answer better than I could on tax matters.


Also as a note there is a difference between the organization known as the BSA and local BSA units and they are not treated the same as it relates to taxes.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Yes but that applies to all churches and the BSA is not a church so its not afforded the same protection.

There are plenty of non-religious non-profit think tanks that enjoy tax exemption as well. No church affiliation whatsoever.

 

[xBiffx]

No that is incorrect. There are requirements in order to meet the IRS definition of a church and as far as I know the BSA does not meet those requirements and the requirements may be different at the state level than it is at the federal level.

http://www.crown.org/library/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=701

Fern could probably answer better than I could on tax matters.

You said nothing about IRS definitons. You said protection. Protection has nothing to do with the IRS.

 

[ivwshane]

There are plenty of non-religious non-profit think tanks that enjoy tax exemption as well. No church affiliation whatsoever.

You said nothing about IRS definitons. You said protection. Protection has nothing to do with the IRS.

Are you guys having trouble following along? I made a general statement about tax law and how it must adhere to anti descrimination laws, fern then points out that churches are exempt and I agreed and clarified that all churches are exempt from anti descrimination laws.

Protection as in the church is afforded unique rights not normally given to other organizations. The BSA is not a church, end of story.

 

[Darwin333]

And by discriminate you mean a private organization is able to decide criteria for who belongs to it.

So you would agree that the KKK's membership criteria and the Boy Scouts are extremely similar?

No actually its pretty simple. If there is no difference between giving tax-free status to an organization and the government funding the organization...

Then there would be no difference between giving tax-free status to a church and the government directly funding the church. Want to bet the left would pitch a fit if say Mississippi started funding the operation of the Baptist church?

It is a loss in revenue which no matter how you slice it costs the government money. If the money was spent in just about any other manner the .gov would have gotten a cut. This goes quadruple for property taxes.

My point still remains, why can't god carry his own weight? Why do we need to subsidize some omnipotent being? I am nowhere close to a god and I can and do pay my taxes, so either I can do something that god can't or god is a cheapskate who is relying on my tax dollars to ensure that his flock is able to pray to him. Is it to much to ask that he/she/it carry his own weight? I think its a perfectly reasonable request for a being with endless power.

And if the government was directly funding them the equation for how much the .gov was losing would be:

X = amount of money lost by tax free status
Y = amount of money spent directly funding them
Z = total amount .gov would have gotten otherwise

X + Y = Z

 

[Incorruptible]

Hey fucking moron! It's not about telling anyone what they can or can't say, it's about taxes and guess who has the right to levy taxes? Yep, it's the government and that's what they are doing.

You should understand the topic before you comment on it. I know it's hard not to comment when your "buddies" show up and you want them to like you but you should think before posting

The fact that you have to resort to insults shows you have lost the debate

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I don't think it's anything of the sort.

Youth programs, no matter the type, are always organized around certain principles and/or activities.

Should kids who want to swim be allowed to join the soccer club and then insist they use that club's time and resources to go swimming?

Should the young atheists club be compelled to admit Jews and redesigned to have study time of the Torah?

No. If you want a youth program designed around certain principles or activities and one doesn't exist, go start one instead of forcing changes to an existing program to suit your wants.

Fern

They aren't forcing anything. The Boy Scouts can carry on as they always have. They are just no longer eligible for tax exempt status in the state of California. If they don't like those terms, they can feel free to not operate the organization in California.

Aren't conservatives generally in favor of state's rights? Does that argument not apply when it's not a state voting in favor of "one man, one woman" or the like?