...on the grounds that they have exceeded the appropriate limits on lobbying as it pertains to their tax-exempt status. NC is arguing that the NCAA and ACC are going too far in their attempts to influence legislation that is not related to their core mission.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politic...20728.html

Personally I think it's a brilliant move. HB2 in and of itself did not create law or change the status quo in NC. It was an affirmation of the laws in NC prior to Charlotte's ordinance, and merely struck down Charlotte's attempt to supersede state powers. The argument is quite simple. If prior to HB2, the NCAA and ACC didn't have any 'problem' with NC's protections, yet a simple affirmation of existing laws was enough to cause the NCAA and ACC to move games, it indicates that the NCAA and ACC are attempting to influence NC legislation that is unrelated to NCAA and ACC charters. That alone would be sufficient evidence to have their tax exempt statuses revoked.

Good.

It's about time?

It would warm my heart to see the NCAA get the crap kicked out of it for meddling in this stuff.

If churches cannot lobby neither should these non profit organizations

(03-14-2017 07:48 AM)solohawks Wrote:  If churches cannot lobby neither should these non profit organizations

Churches can lobby. They have the same rules as other 501c3 organizations (charities/non-profits/etc). They cannot support/oppose candidates for office, but they can legally lobby for legislation and advocate for or against political issues.

(03-14-2017 08:06 AM)burkat Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 07:48 AM)solohawks Wrote:  If churches cannot lobby neither should these non profit organizations

Churches can lobby. They have the same rules as other 501c3 organizations (charities/non-profits/etc). They cannot support/oppose candidates for office, but they can legally lobby for legislation and advocate for or against political issues.

It must be VERY limited lobbying to the point that the IRS considers it insubstantial to the organizations stated organizational purpose.

I believe NC's argument will be that the legislation on which the NCAA and ACC lobbied against is wholly unrelated to the organizational purpose of their bodies. Additionally, NC will argue that the removal of games for no reason other than as a means to lobby against HB2 is more than an insubstantial amount of lobbying.

(03-14-2017 08:06 AM)burkat Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 07:48 AM)solohawks Wrote:  If churches cannot lobby neither should these non profit organizations

Churches can lobby. They have the same rules as other 501c3 organizations (charities/non-profits/etc). They cannot support/oppose candidates for office, but they can legally lobby for legislation and advocate for or against political issues.

That is a slippery slope with the churches trying to force Religious laws on the books. We are supposed to be separation between state and church. We do not want to see another Salem Witch Trials again.

(03-14-2017 08:36 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 08:06 AM)burkat Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 07:48 AM)solohawks Wrote:  If churches cannot lobby neither should these non profit organizations

Churches can lobby. They have the same rules as other 501c3 organizations (charities/non-profits/etc). They cannot support/oppose candidates for office, but they can legally lobby for legislation and advocate for or against political issues.

That is a slippery slope with the churches trying to force Religious laws on the books. We are supposed to be separation between state and church. We do not want to see another Salem Witch Trials again.

when has a church tried to force a religious law in the US? how would they go about that?

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(03-14-2017 08:36 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 08:06 AM)burkat Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 07:48 AM)solohawks Wrote:  If churches cannot lobby neither should these non profit organizations

Churches can lobby. They have the same rules as other 501c3 organizations (charities/non-profits/etc). They cannot support/oppose candidates for office, but they can legally lobby for legislation and advocate for or against political issues.

That is a slippery slope with the churches trying to force Religious laws on the books. We are supposed to be separation between state and church. We do not want to see another Salem Witch Trials again.

A. You do not understand the constitution when it comes to the separation of church and state. You might want to read up on that.

B. The Salem Witch Trials occurred prior to the formation of the country and the constitution. Separation of church and state would have nothing to do with that, nor would it in of itself have prevented that.

Scopes monkey trials

(03-14-2017 08:41 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 08:36 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 08:06 AM)burkat Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 07:48 AM)solohawks Wrote:  If churches cannot lobby neither should these non profit organizations

Churches can lobby. They have the same rules as other 501c3 organizations (charities/non-profits/etc). They cannot support/oppose candidates for office, but they can legally lobby for legislation and advocate for or against political issues.

That is a slippery slope with the churches trying to force Religious laws on the books. We are supposed to be separation between state and church. We do not want to see another Salem Witch Trials again.

when has a church tried to force a religious law in the US? how would they go about that?

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015...-gays-bill

https://www.au.org/church-state/april-20...n-uganda-s

The Pastor who helped get the kill the gay bill law past in Uganda and tried to get one through in Kenyon. Plus a law passed in Russia against gay people. This guy tried to get the same laws as a Republican platform for many years got frustrated.

http://www.metroweekly.com/2017/01/anti-...gbt-state/

Wants Trump to pass the same laws that were passed in Uganda.

A number of states have been embroiled in fights in recent years over the degree to which evolution and creationism should be included in their public school curricula. Residents in the South are more likely to believe in the creationist view of the origin of humans than are those living in other regions, making it clear why the fights to have creationism addressed in the public schools might be an important political issue in that region.

Still, few scientists would agree that humans were created pretty much in their present form at one time 10,000 years ago, underscoring the ongoing discontinuity between the beliefs that many Americans hold and the general scientific consensus on this important issue.

(03-14-2017 09:04 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  A number of states have been embroiled in fights in recent years over the degree to which evolution and creationism should be included in their public school curricula. Residents in the South are more likely to believe in the creationist view of the origin of humans than are those living in other regions, making it clear why the fights to have creationism addressed in the public schools might be an important political issue in that region.

Still, few scientists would agree that humans were created pretty much in their present form at one time 10,000 years ago, underscoring the ongoing discontinuity between the beliefs that many Americans hold and the general scientific consensus on this important issue.

Evolution and Creationism are two completely different things that deal with two completely different preiods of time. Whenever the dopes start throwing the word evolution out there when speaking of creation, it simply proves they dont know what they are talking about.

(03-14-2017 09:07 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 09:04 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  A number of states have been embroiled in fights in recent years over the degree to which evolution and creationism should be included in their public school curricula. Residents in the South are more likely to believe in the creationist view of the origin of humans than are those living in other regions, making it clear why the fights to have creationism addressed in the public schools might be an important political issue in that region.

Still, few scientists would agree that humans were created pretty much in their present form at one time 10,000 years ago, underscoring the ongoing discontinuity between the beliefs that many Americans hold and the general scientific consensus on this important issue.

Evolution and Creationism are two completely different things that deal with two completely different preiods of time. Whenever the dopes start throwing the word evolution out there when speaking of creation, it simply proves they dont know what they are talking about.

Tell that to the State of Delaware

Quote:Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3, of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."


Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (400 F. Supp. 2d 707, Docket No. 4cv2688) was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts testing a public school district policy that required the teaching of intelligent design. In October 2004, the Dover Area School District of York County, Pennsylvania, changed its biology teaching curriculum to require that intelligent design be presented as an alternative to evolution theory, and that Of Pandas and People, a textbook advocating intelligent design, was to be used as a reference book. The prominence of this textbook during the trial was such that the case is sometimes referred to as the Dover Panda Trial, a name which deliberately recalls the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee, 80 years earlier. The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

(03-14-2017 09:02 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 08:41 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 08:36 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 08:06 AM)burkat Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 07:48 AM)solohawks Wrote:  If churches cannot lobby neither should these non profit organizations

Churches can lobby. They have the same rules as other 501c3 organizations (charities/non-profits/etc). They cannot support/oppose candidates for office, but they can legally lobby for legislation and advocate for or against political issues.

That is a slippery slope with the churches trying to force Religious laws on the books. We are supposed to be separation between state and church. We do not want to see another Salem Witch Trials again.

when has a church tried to force a religious law in the US? how would they go about that?

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015...-gays-bill

https://www.au.org/church-state/april-20...n-uganda-s

The Pastor who helped get the kill the gay bill law past in Uganda and tried to get one through in Kenyon. Plus a law passed in Russia against gay people. This guy tried to get the same laws as a Republican platform for many years got frustrated.

http://www.metroweekly.com/2017/01/anti-...gbt-state/

Wants Trump to pass the same laws that were passed in Uganda.

I said on the US, dummy. First link... CA "court blocks bill". You think anybody here takes that fringe group seriously?

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(03-14-2017 09:14 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 09:02 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 08:41 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 08:36 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 08:06 AM)burkat Wrote:  Churches can lobby. They have the same rules as other 501c3 organizations (charities/non-profits/etc). They cannot support/oppose candidates for office, but they can legally lobby for legislation and advocate for or against political issues.

That is a slippery slope with the churches trying to force Religious laws on the books. We are supposed to be separation between state and church. We do not want to see another Salem Witch Trials again.

when has a church tried to force a religious law in the US? how would they go about that?

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015...-gays-bill

https://www.au.org/church-state/april-20...n-uganda-s

The Pastor who helped get the kill the gay bill law past in Uganda and tried to get one through in Kenyon. Plus a law passed in Russia against gay people. This guy tried to get the same laws as a Republican platform for many years got frustrated.

http://www.metroweekly.com/2017/01/anti-...gbt-state/

Wants Trump to pass the same laws that were passed in Uganda.

I said on the US, dummy. First link... CA "court blocks bill". You think anybody here takes that fringe group seriously?

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

I'm pretty sure all laws against homosexuality, abortion, and anti-evolution curriculum are backed by religious (and church) agenda. It's become so common in the US that no one bats an eye at it.

Fortunately, there are a lot of watch groups out there keeping the religious right in check, in accordance with the constitution.

(03-14-2017 09:13 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 09:07 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 09:04 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  A number of states have been embroiled in fights in recent years over the degree to which evolution and creationism should be included in their public school curricula. Residents in the South are more likely to believe in the creationist view of the origin of humans than are those living in other regions, making it clear why the fights to have creationism addressed in the public schools might be an important political issue in that region.

Still, few scientists would agree that humans were created pretty much in their present form at one time 10,000 years ago, underscoring the ongoing discontinuity between the beliefs that many Americans hold and the general scientific consensus on this important issue.

Evolution and Creationism are two completely different things that deal with two completely different preiods of time. Whenever the dopes start throwing the word evolution out there when speaking of creation, it simply proves they dont know what they are talking about.

Tell that to the State of Delaware

Quote:Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3, of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."


Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (400 F. Supp. 2d 707, Docket No. 4cv2688) was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts testing a public school district policy that required the teaching of intelligent design. In October 2004, the Dover Area School District of York County, Pennsylvania, changed its biology teaching curriculum to require that intelligent design be presented as an alternative to evolution theory, and that Of Pandas and People, a textbook advocating intelligent design, was to be used as a reference book. The prominence of this textbook during the trial was such that the case is sometimes referred to as the Dover Panda Trial, a name which deliberately recalls the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee, 80 years earlier. The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

No, Ill tell it to you, because you apparently dont get it either. ID and evolution deal with the same time period. Creation deals with the beginning.

Also, the premise of this request is idiotic. You want the IRS to investigate the NCAA and ACC for NOT holding events in your state because of a law that they don't agree with?

That's like a cake baker suing customers for not spending their money at his/her shop, because the customers disagree with the bakers stance on simple human rights.

(03-14-2017 09:18 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 09:13 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 09:07 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 09:04 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  A number of states have been embroiled in fights in recent years over the degree to which evolution and creationism should be included in their public school curricula. Residents in the South are more likely to believe in the creationist view of the origin of humans than are those living in other regions, making it clear why the fights to have creationism addressed in the public schools might be an important political issue in that region.

Still, few scientists would agree that humans were created pretty much in their present form at one time 10,000 years ago, underscoring the ongoing discontinuity between the beliefs that many Americans hold and the general scientific consensus on this important issue.

Evolution and Creationism are two completely different things that deal with two completely different preiods of time. Whenever the dopes start throwing the word evolution out there when speaking of creation, it simply proves they dont know what they are talking about.

Tell that to the State of Delaware

Quote:Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3, of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."


Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (400 F. Supp. 2d 707, Docket No. 4cv2688) was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts testing a public school district policy that required the teaching of intelligent design. In October 2004, the Dover Area School District of York County, Pennsylvania, changed its biology teaching curriculum to require that intelligent design be presented as an alternative to evolution theory, and that Of Pandas and People, a textbook advocating intelligent design, was to be used as a reference book. The prominence of this textbook during the trial was such that the case is sometimes referred to as the Dover Panda Trial, a name which deliberately recalls the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee, 80 years earlier. The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

No, Ill tell it to you, because you apparently dont get it either. ID and evolution deal with the same time period. Creation deals with the beginning.

You can't have intelligent design without the idea of creationism. Evolution exists apart from creationism. You can bandy words all you want, but that's the legal precedent set and the stance taken by the Supreme Court.

So bash your head on that wall for all I care. You're still wrong.