(04-30-2015 08:51 AM)Paul M Wrote:  It's already a consideration. Seriously, your arguments of the last several days didn't hold up before. Now they have been shattered. Don't you get it? How do you deny one group after giving in to the whining of another?

The Supremes are telling you what I told you. "So what".

What are you talking about? In no way has my argument been even seriously addressed by any conservative poster here or alito in the above quotes. Hell, alito simply asked, the quote and argument are cut off from the transcript. You're getting to the point that, as a poster, you're not even worth responding to, because you clearly have no concerns with the accuracy of your statements.

The Supremes are asking how do you deny one group after granting another group. Don't know how you can't understand that. But the simple things always stump you.

(04-30-2015 08:43 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  And that proves what? You sort of cut off where he would be explained the differences and why that's a losing argument.

From my understanding of what Oral Arguments are, it's essentially legal brainstorming. HOD and Frank can correct me if that's an incorrect interpretation. But the point is that you are stating that the nature of contract associated with same sex marriage constitute a bridge to far for the federal gov't to recognize. All I see Alito asking is why that is the case considering the previous hurdles that have been cleared.

I thought marriage was supposed to be about commitment. Polygamy blatantly spits in the face of that.

I think polygamists are a laughable segment of people, but I suppose they can't be denied marriage rights as well...

(04-26-2015 03:57 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Hillary called it a "fundamental bedrock of society" that existed back into the "mists of history."

The Dems are just searching for votes and they will use the fruit population to get those votes.

Bingo.

(04-30-2015 09:20 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-30-2015 08:43 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  And that proves what? You sort of cut off where he would be explained the differences and why that's a losing argument.

From my understanding of what Oral Arguments are, it's essentially legal brainstorming. HOD and Frank can correct me if that's an incorrect interpretation. But the point is that you are stating that the nature of contract associated with same sex marriage constitute a bridge to far for the federal gov't to recognize. All I see Alito asking is why that is the case considering the previous hurdles that have been cleared.

Which makes me ask, where are the rest of the comments? Was there no retort to this?

(04-30-2015 11:48 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 03:57 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Hillary called it a "fundamental bedrock of society" that existed back into the "mists of history."

The Dems are just searching for votes and they will use the fruit population to get those votes.

Bingo.

Or maybe there is a little more nuance among the tens of millions of democrats? Nah, this is easier.

(04-30-2015 01:42 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-30-2015 11:48 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 03:57 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Hillary called it a "fundamental bedrock of society" that existed back into the "mists of history."

The Dems are just searching for votes and they will use the fruit population to get those votes.

Bingo.

Or maybe there is a little more nuance among the tens of millions of democrats?

No, no there really isn't. They are that simple to lock down.

"Support gay marriage? You've got my vote even though I know not any of your other stances on anything! One love!"

(04-30-2015 01:46 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(04-30-2015 01:42 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-30-2015 11:48 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 03:57 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Hillary called it a "fundamental bedrock of society" that existed back into the "mists of history."

The Dems are just searching for votes and they will use the fruit population to get those votes.

Bingo.

Or maybe there is a little more nuance among the tens of millions of democrats?

No, no there really isn't. They are that simple to lock down.

"Support gay marriage? You've got my vote even though I know not any of your other stances on anything! One love!"

That's simply untrue, but again, I understand that it's easier for you if there is no nuance.

(04-30-2015 02:06 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-30-2015 01:46 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(04-30-2015 01:42 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-30-2015 11:48 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 03:57 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Hillary called it a "fundamental bedrock of society" that existed back into the "mists of history."

The Dems are just searching for votes and they will use the fruit population to get those votes.

Bingo.

Or maybe there is a little more nuance among the tens of millions of democrats?

No, no there really isn't. They are that simple to lock down.

"Support gay marriage? You've got my vote even though I know not any of your other stances on anything! One love!"

That's simply untrue, but again, I understand that it's easier for you if there is no nuance.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen (not verbatim obviously) "I like Rand Paul but I disagree with his views on gay marriage so there is no way I can vote for him. Looks like Hillary 2016."

Stuff that makes you want to pound your head against a brick wall.

(04-30-2015 02:38 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(04-30-2015 02:06 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-30-2015 01:46 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(04-30-2015 01:42 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-30-2015 11:48 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Bingo.

Or maybe there is a little more nuance among the tens of millions of democrats?

No, no there really isn't. They are that simple to lock down.

"Support gay marriage? You've got my vote even though I know not any of your other stances on anything! One love!"

That's simply untrue, but again, I understand that it's easier for you if there is no nuance.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen (not verbatim obviously) "I like Rand Paul but I disagree with his views on gay marriage so there is no way I can vote for him. Looks like Hillary 2016."

Stuff that makes you want to pound your head against a brick wall.

I would assume that's just as much an issue of your hearing what you assume to be the case, as much as it being a person just not being able to effectively convey the nuances of their ideology within what appears to be a quick exchange between acquaintances. Regardless, if you want to focus on the idiots who do vote based on gay marriage alone, have fun, but it's hard to ignore the fact you're purposefully not addressing those democrat leaning posters whose views differ from that.

Meaning, you talk about the way these mythical 'dems' act, as if there aren't some right here decidedly not acting that way. I get that it's easier to ridicule a vague memory of arguments with people who can't defend themselves to it, but that's not really a way to confirm your own ideology. It's just mental masturbation.

(04-30-2015 01:46 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(04-30-2015 01:42 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-30-2015 11:48 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 03:57 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Hillary called it a "fundamental bedrock of society" that existed back into the "mists of history."

The Dems are just searching for votes and they will use the fruit population to get those votes.

Bingo.

Or maybe there is a little more nuance among the tens of millions of democrats?

No, no there really isn't. They are that simple to lock down.

"Support gay marriage? You've got my vote even though I know not any of your other stances on anything! One love!"

Here are the 3 groups where this becomes an impact decision.

1) For much of the LGBT community, they are largely voting on issues related to their citizenship rights. A tax cut is kind of pointless if they want to deport your husband simply because he can't be married to you because you're both male, for example. Or if you lose hundreds of thousands of dollars due to punitive measures designed to lock you, solely by virtue that you are Gay, out of social security, pension, and estate tax mitigation schemes. But that's only 5% of the voting population (at most). And its largely a voting block that isn't really in play.

2) That's not where this gets ugly for the GOP. Few non-LGBT voters that would be open to voting for a GOP candidate are going to vote solely on those issues....but those issues do impact how people vote and the impact of how those issues drive vote decisions is increasing. The question of how continuing anti-Gay advocacy by the GOP will play out with this, crucial group is unknown at this point. But given the loud, widespread, and persistent outrage at Indiana (led by GOP business leaders btw), this might start to have a real impact. I suspect that a moderate GOP candidate could diffuse this problem...but none of the GOP candidates are acting moderate on this issue right now.

3)I would also like to add, that there are some candidates that are seen as so anti-Gay that many straight supporters of LGBT persons won't vote for them period. These voters probably consist of 5% of the tottal voting block. And these are voters that would generally be open to voting for a Republican. This is the real danger for the GOP. A 5% voting block that you never had and have no chance of gaining...not really a loss. A 5% voting block that you could have had, but leave to your competition simply because you have to go full hate against LGBT persons...thats a problem. There are a lot of people that once theyve been convinced that candidate A is a homophobe who endorses or enables discrimination against LGBT persons....then there's really no message that they can send on other issues that will overcome that. And yes, the Democrats and HRC will be trying to paint every GOP candidate into that corner. But right now, the Dems really don't have to do much painting...the GOP candidates are painting themselves into a corner.

The administration attorney's addressing the court on the impact of religious liberties admits churches that don't fall in line with gay marriage WILL lose their tax status.

Quote:Verrilli’s pauses no doubt indicate that he understood the importance of what he was saying — “It’s going to be an issue.”

But there's no gay agenda.

(04-30-2015 06:02 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  The administration attorney's addressing the court on the impact of religious liberties admits churches that don't fall in line with gay marriage WILL lose their tax status.

Quote:Verrilli’s pauses no doubt indicate that he understood the importance of what he was saying — “It’s going to be an issue.”

But there's no gay agenda.

This is mostly in the interests of the long term goal of tearing down the institutions that made this country unique and great at the same time. Religious freedoms, freedom of speech, freedom of THOUGHT, our Courts, Churches, marriage, family and if they have too, Apple Pie itself.

These are just the short term markers or goals to that eventual end.

Drip, by drip, by drip. Rust never sleeps.

Guys, there's no right for preferential tax treatment for private clubs. Does anyone think that Creflo Dollar's 65 million dollar lear jet serves a justifyable charitable purpose? Or the land for Country Club?

My issue isn't that churches shouldn't get preferential tax treatment because they are anti-Gay, but because no private club should receive a tax break.

So long as they are not discriminating in HIRING, benefits, employment, or service provision, I have no problem with charitable treatment for the portion that is used for CHARITY without discrimination. But I see no benefit for a tax break for Hometown Country Club or some mega pastors second home.

---

You guys are welcome to argue that taxpayer subsidized entities should receive preferential treatment while they act as an exclusionary club that discriminates. That actually might be somewhat popular in some sectors at this point. But once the debate is engaged fully, your side will lose in the court of public opinion.

(04-30-2015 07:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Guys, there's no right for preferential tax treatment for private clubs. Does anyone think that Creflo Dollar's 65 million dollar lear jet serves a justifyable charitable purpose? Or the land for Country Club?

My issue isn't that churches shouldn't get preferential tax treatment because they are anti-Gay, but because no private club should receive a tax break.

So long as they are not discriminating in HIRING, benefits, employment, or service provision, I have no problem with charitable treatment for the portion that is used for CHARITY without discrimination. But I see no benefit for a tax break for Hometown Country Club or some mega pastors second home.

---

You guys are welcome to argue that taxpayer subsidized entities should receive preferential treatment while they act as an exclusionary club that discriminates. That actually might be somewhat popular in some sectors at this point. But once the debate is engaged fully, your side will lose in the court of public opinion.

With a few exceptions, churches are CHARITABLE organizations so your argument is BS. Most serve all communities but do require you accept their beliefs to be a member.

The fact that AARP is tax exempt should be more concerning same for NAACP. Why is/was the NFL ever granted tax exempt status?

Say what you want, but the intolerant Gay Agenda crowd wants to FORCE ALL churches to change their beliefs going directly against Biblical doctrine and accept sin (homosexuality) as Biblical. It wasn't more than a couple of years ago that all the pro-gay crowd on this board said it is not the intention of the Gay Marriage Movement to FORCE churches to perform gay marriages.

(04-30-2015 07:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Guys, there's no right for preferential tax treatment for private clubs. Does anyone think that Creflo Dollar's 65 million dollar lear jet serves a justifyable charitable purpose? Or the land for Country Club?

My issue isn't that churches shouldn't get preferential tax treatment because they are anti-Gay, but because no private club should receive a tax break.

So long as they are not discriminating in HIRING, benefits, employment, or service provision, I have no problem with charitable treatment for the portion that is used for CHARITY without discrimination. But I see no benefit for a tax break for Hometown Country Club or some mega pastors second home.

---

You guys are welcome to argue that taxpayer subsidized entities should receive preferential treatment while they act as an exclusionary club that discriminates. That actually might be somewhat popular in some sectors at this point. But once the debate is engaged fully, your side will lose in the court of public opinion.

That's mentioned in the Oral Brief as well...

Quote:JUSTICE ALITO: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax-exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?

GENERAL VERRILLI: You know, I -- I don't think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it's certainly going to be an issue. I -- I don't deny that. I don't deny that, Justice Alito. It is -- it is going to be an issue.

(04-30-2015 07:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Guys, there's no right for preferential tax treatment for private clubs. Does anyone think that Creflo Dollar's 65 million dollar lear jet serves a justifyable charitable purpose? Or the land for Country Club?

My issue isn't that churches shouldn't get preferential tax treatment because they are anti-Gay, but because no private club should receive a tax break.

So long as they are not discriminating in HIRING, benefits, employment, or service provision, I have no problem with charitable treatment for the portion that is used for CHARITY without discrimination. But I see no benefit for a tax break for Hometown Country Club or some mega pastors second home.

---

You guys are welcome to argue that taxpayer subsidized entities should receive preferential treatment while they act as an exclusionary club that discriminates. That actually might be somewhat popular in some sectors at this point. But once the debate is engaged fully, your side will lose in the court of public opinion.

Tax code is at the perrogative of congress. Congress gives churches preferential tax treatment, not the constitution and not the courts. Congress can take that away as well. Call your congressman and tell him/her to submit a bill that all churches will pay taxes. I don't think that is a political fight you'll win, but it is a legitimate debate and that is the process written into the constitution. What you can't do is say that you can only get the tax status if you believe x, y, and z. You give the status to all or none. That is why we have the 1st amendment, not to mention the 14th.

(04-30-2015 07:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Does anyone think that Creflo Dollar's 65 million dollar lear jet serves a justifyable charitable purpose?

That guy is just another Jim Baker wannabe. He's a fraud fooling thousands of people into giving him lots and lots of money. I'm glad someone called him out on the jet, even if he thinks it was the devil. lol

(04-30-2015 07:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Guys, there's no right for preferential tax treatment for private clubs. Does anyone think that Creflo Dollar's 65 million dollar lear jet serves a justifyable charitable purpose? Or the land for Country Club?

Churches are not clubs...