(04-04-2015 02:02 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Withholding special benefits isn't persecution.

(04-04-2015 03:30 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 01:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 09:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I really don't have a problem with the idea that if you hold yourself out as a business, you must serve everybody willing to pay your price.

My problem is that I don't think the objective is to stop at commercial activity. The ultimate objective is a court order that churches have to conduct gay marriages regardless of their religious tenets. This is why I posed the question earlier about weighing the equities between gay rights and sincerely held religious beliefs.

I would be totally supportive of a statute that said on the one hand you can't discriminate against gays in commercial businesses, but on the other hand the right of a church to set its doctrine is not subject to statute or litigation. That is the kind of separation of church and state that I support, and that I believe the founders intended. For the life of me, I can't understand why a gay couple would WANT to get married in a church that refused to perform same-sex weddings (or for that matter why they would want a wedding cake from a gay-unfriendly baker).

I don't see that. What I see is the following:

1) The Principle in Dale v Boy Scouts holds.
2) But no discriminatory group or organization can have any benefit from the state
3) Private clubs are prohibited from engaging in commerce. Including commercial real estate holdings

---

Why should Joel Osteen have a property tax exemption on his mansions? Or Second Baptist Church be allowed to own and operate shopping centers containing a Cafe Express tax free? What benefit accrues to the taxpayers from River Oaks Country Club's tax deductible status?

---

By the way, much of this wouldn't be a problem if the Federal government had a law expressly forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for all commercial entities, all recipients of taxpayer dollars or subsidies, in housing, and in benefits.

Like I said in another thread. The move will be to fiscally punish people who don't line up for the leftist agenda. That way they put a tax on religion.

Making private clubs/churches pay property taxes isn't discrimination. Those groups should have never had those special benefits in the first place.

(04-04-2015 03:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 03:30 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 01:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 09:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I really don't have a problem with the idea that if you hold yourself out as a business, you must serve everybody willing to pay your price.

My problem is that I don't think the objective is to stop at commercial activity. The ultimate objective is a court order that churches have to conduct gay marriages regardless of their religious tenets. This is why I posed the question earlier about weighing the equities between gay rights and sincerely held religious beliefs.

I would be totally supportive of a statute that said on the one hand you can't discriminate against gays in commercial businesses, but on the other hand the right of a church to set its doctrine is not subject to statute or litigation. That is the kind of separation of church and state that I support, and that I believe the founders intended. For the life of me, I can't understand why a gay couple would WANT to get married in a church that refused to perform same-sex weddings (or for that matter why they would want a wedding cake from a gay-unfriendly baker).

I don't see that. What I see is the following:

1) The Principle in Dale v Boy Scouts holds.
2) But no discriminatory group or organization can have any benefit from the state
3) Private clubs are prohibited from engaging in commerce. Including commercial real estate holdings

---

Why should Joel Osteen have a property tax exemption on his mansions? Or Second Baptist Church be allowed to own and operate shopping centers containing a Cafe Express tax free? What benefit accrues to the taxpayers from River Oaks Country Club's tax deductible status?

---

By the way, much of this wouldn't be a problem if the Federal government had a law expressly forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for all commercial entities, all recipients of taxpayer dollars or subsidies, in housing, and in benefits.

Like I said in another thread. The move will be to fiscally punish people who don't line up for the leftist agenda. That way they put a tax on religion.

Making private clubs/churches pay property taxes isn't discrimination. Those groups should have never had those special benefits in the first place.

Non profits Tom. They get treated differently. Good luck changing that.

(04-04-2015 03:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Making private clubs/churches pay property taxes isn't discrimination. Those groups should have never had those special benefits in the first place.

I did not say you would discriminate against them Tom, I said you would punish them..

(04-04-2015 03:36 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 03:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Making private clubs/churches pay property taxes isn't discrimination. Those groups should have never had those special benefits in the first place.

I did not say you would discriminate against them Tom, I said you would punish them..

If equal tax treatment for private property not open to equal use by the public and private club/church property not open to equal use by the public is 'punishing', then so be it.

(04-04-2015 03:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Making private clubs/churches pay property taxes isn't discrimination. Those groups should have never had those special benefits in the first place.

Why not?

Because you are greedy and can't stand for them to have money that you can't get your hands on?

(04-04-2015 03:29 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 02:12 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 02:02 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 01:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So, Tom, you believe that "separation of church and state" is a one-way street?

If you are a private club or association (including a church), you shouldn't be using the extra protections you get from that format in order to cover commercial or government subsidized activities?

There is no benefit to society at large from tax deductible donations going to by Rev. Fred a new mansion. None. Its not just about churches. There's little, if any, benefit for tax deductible donations going to the Houston Polo Club either.

There's a difference between having the state not interfere with what you do on your property and having the state subsidize the purchase of that property.

---

Again, I agree with the decision in Dale v Boy Scouts. But I also agree that that the state should provide no benefit to them, as they are a private, discriminatory, organization.

Withholding special benefits isn't persecution. The state wouldn't be interfering with Ed Young's religious practice if they said "you'll have to pay property taxes on the property you control".

I ignore all of these posts because they are useless but sometimes you get a real gem.



Irony

Yea, Alabama's LGBT population has all kind of special benefits. I'll bet Billy Jack Gaither and Scotty Weaver would tell you all about them. Oh wait - they can't. By the way, those aren't the only two.

Life is so easy for LGBT Alabamians. That's why virtually all of them move away. Because it'd just be too easy to stay (sarcasm). All those out LGBT Alabamians working for silk stocking law firms (I actually do know one - one ! - who does). All those out LGBT administrators at Alabama's hospitals. My primary care physician is another Alabama expatriate. He had to leave his job at an Alabama hospital (not even a 'religious' one) because the anti-Gay harassment was so bad he couldn't do his job. Why not sue? Today he might be able to make an Oncale case. Back then he certainly couldn't. If they just said, you're fired, there'd be no recourse for him, today.

Its really so easy to live in a state where this happens... http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/02...ended.html (if the court hadn't gotten involved, that witch of a mother would have won).

And it must comforting to know that you can lose your kids simply because you are Gay, even if the other partner is an awful parent. And the state has tried (and succeeded for years) in blocking any visitation for Gays after a divorce (struck down by the activist courts - Thank God). http://www.salon.com/2013/08/01/a_victor...n_alabama/

And when you need access to justice, its also comforting to know that you will be going to a court where the Chief Justice and the other justices hate you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore (See DH vs HH)

But then again, does your esteemed law school even hire LGBT employees? Do they teach you that LGBT persons have a wonderful, privileged life in Alabama?

---

The situation in Alabama isn't as bad as Mississippi, but its' pretty dire.

I'm not going to bother to read this. I'm sure it's full of your usual ramblings.

I hope you have a good day.

(04-04-2015 03:50 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 03:36 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 03:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Making private clubs/churches pay property taxes isn't discrimination. Those groups should have never had those special benefits in the first place.

I did not say you would discriminate against them Tom, I said you would punish them..

If equal tax treatment for private property not open to equal use by the public and private club/church property not open to equal use by the public is 'punishing', then so be it.

Taxing authorities grant real estate tax abatements for personal and for profit owned corporations every day. Should State U, non profits, pay real estate taxes?

(04-04-2015 03:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 03:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Making private clubs/churches pay property taxes isn't discrimination. Those groups should have never had those special benefits in the first place.

Why not?

Because you are greedy and can't stand for them to have money that you can't get your hands on?

Why should I have to pay property taxes and they be exempted?

Exactly what is the benefit to society of allowing some pastor the ability to stick the other taxpayers with the costs of servicing property that isn't providing a public benefit?

Actually, in Houston, its even worse than that. A mega church pastor here (Ed Young) got the Texas legislature to exempt him from paying his water/sewer bill. All of the other water customers in Houston have to cover his bill.

(04-04-2015 04:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Why should I have to pay property taxes and they be exempted?
Exactly what is the benefit to society of allowing some pastor the ability to stick the other taxpayers with the costs of servicing property that isn't providing a public benefit?
Actually, in Houston, its even worse than that. A mega church pastor here (Ed Young) got the Texas legislature to exempt him from paying his water/sewer bill. All of the other water customers in Houston have to cover his bill.

Again why not, other than your own greed?

That pastor has probably done more good for more people than you have ever thought about. I'm no fan of Joel Osteen or Ed Young. But I know many people that are leading much happier lives because of their influence. I have to give them that.

If it's a problem at all, and I'm not sure it is, it's way down the list.

(04-04-2015 04:11 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 03:50 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 03:36 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 03:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Making private clubs/churches pay property taxes isn't discrimination. Those groups should have never had those special benefits in the first place.

I did not say you would discriminate against them Tom, I said you would punish them..

If equal tax treatment for private property not open to equal use by the public and private club/church property not open to equal use by the public is 'punishing', then so be it.

Taxing authorities grant real estate tax abatements for personal and for profit owned corporations every day. Should State U, non profits, pay real estate taxes?

Not all non-profits should be exempt.

Here are the bars that one would need to meet in my world

1) They must not discriminate in hiring, access, or service provision.
2) They must demonstrate a demonstrable benefit accruing to society and must show that the benefit is open to all
3) Since the taxpayers are, in effect, picking up the extra payments so that this group does not, the taxpayers should be able to see that organizations DETAILED income statement and BALANCE SHEET. This requirement shall only be used for groups claiming in excess of 100,000 in tax mitigation or tax deductions.
4) Payments in excess of 5x the national wage average shall be disclosed to the public. That number will be based upon total payments during the year to the entire family.
5) Every group claiming such benefits must hold non-provision wage expense to less than 5% of revenue.
6) Housing used outside of the provision of services (e.g., a housing used as a homeless shelter would be allowed), would be excluded from tax deductibility. The same goes for vehicles. Ferrying leaders of organizations shall not be allowed as tax deductible events (so all those private jets and car allowances are out).
7) Travel should be disclosed by person attending, cost, location, and trip purpose. Travel can only be deductible if for a legitimate provision of services. Officials of the group may not receive any outside money resulting from that trip and retain deductibility.
8) Renumerative activities are to be banned in exempt properties. That includes marketing, rental income, etc. Groups can hold property, but they have to be taxed on it no differently than for a commercial business (because that's what they are in this case).

----

And in my world, this would apply to every private group, not just churches.


---

Most state Universities would have no problem qualifying for tax exemptions under the new rules (although a couple of their foundations might have to change some rules and disclose a lot more). Many charities would have no problem under the new rules (which really helps them with transparency).

Country Clubs, Churches (liberal and evangelical), and nominal charities (basically tax dodges masquerading as charities) would have some issues.

(04-04-2015 04:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 03:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 03:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Making private clubs/churches pay property taxes isn't discrimination. Those groups should have never had those special benefits in the first place.

Why not?

Because you are greedy and can't stand for them to have money that you can't get your hands on?

Why should I have to pay property taxes and they be exempted?

Exactly what is the benefit to society of allowing some pastor the ability to stick the other taxpayers with the costs of servicing property that isn't providing a public benefit?

Actually, in Houston, its even worse than that. A mega church pastor here (Ed Young) got the Texas legislature to exempt him from paying his water/sewer bill. All of the other water customers in Houston have to cover his bill.

A Pastor isn't receiving the exemption, the non profit entity is. Churches and religious organizations do so much good for their communities I would not know where to start.

(04-04-2015 04:31 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Not all non-profits should be exempt.
Here are the bars that one would need to meet in my world
1) They must not discriminate in hiring, access, or service provision.
2) They must demonstrate a demonstrable benefit accruing to society and must show that the benefit is open to all
3) Since the taxpayers are, in effect, picking up the extra payments so that this group does not, the taxpayers should be able to see that organizations DETAILED income statement and BALANCE SHEET. This requirement shall only be used for groups claiming in excess of 100,000 in tax mitigation or tax deductions.
4) Payments in excess of 5x the national wage average shall be disclosed to the public. That number will be based upon total payments during the year to the entire family.
5) Every group claiming such benefits must hold non-provision wage expense to less than 5% of revenue.
6) Housing used outside of the provision of services (e.g., a housing used as a homeless shelter would be allowed), would be excluded from tax deductibility. The same goes for vehicles. Ferrying leaders of organizations shall not be allowed as tax deductible events (so all those private jets and car allowances are out).
7) Travel should be disclosed by person attending, cost, location, and trip purpose. Travel can only be deductible if for a legitimate provision of services. Officials of the group may not receive any outside money resulting from that trip and retain deductibility.
8) Renumerative activities are to be banned in exempt properties. That includes marketing, rental income, etc. Groups can hold property, but they have to be taxed on it no differently than for a commercial business (because that's what they are in this case).
----
And in my world, this would apply to every private group, not just churches.

I agree with your #2. That's all.

And I thank God we don't live in your world.

As I said above, separation of church and state inherently means we accept some level of discrimination. Think about it. Every religion to at least some extent believes that we are God's people and you're not (OK, maybe an exception for Buddhism, but that's not at issue here). That's inherently discriminatory. But if we are truly going to separate church and state, we have to accept that.

(04-04-2015 04:34 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  A Pastor isn't receiving the exemption, the non profit entity is. Churches and religious organizations do so much good for their communities I would not know where to start.

One thing for sure, they do a whole lot more good for their communities than Tom does.

Yea, but it isn't about doing good or helping people; it's about getting your way and getting those that you disagree with to shut up.

It's degenerates v hypocrites and no honest or decent human being agrees with either of the extremes on this.

(04-04-2015 04:34 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 04:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 03:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 03:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Making private clubs/churches pay property taxes isn't discrimination. Those groups should have never had those special benefits in the first place.

Why not?

Because you are greedy and can't stand for them to have money that you can't get your hands on?

Why should I have to pay property taxes and they be exempted?

Exactly what is the benefit to society of allowing some pastor the ability to stick the other taxpayers with the costs of servicing property that isn't providing a public benefit?

Actually, in Houston, its even worse than that. A mega church pastor here (Ed Young) got the Texas legislature to exempt him from paying his water/sewer bill. All of the other water customers in Houston have to cover his bill.

A Pastor isn't receiving the exemption, the non profit entity is. Churches and religious organizations do so much good for their communities I would not know where to start.

Please, if the government was buying its employees houses and cars and jets like the mega churches are, you'd (rightly) be screaming 'bloated government'. Exactly how can these 'charities' pay for all of those goodies and still provide services efficiently?

And its not just churches.

(04-04-2015 04:56 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 04:34 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 04:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 03:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 03:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Making private clubs/churches pay property taxes isn't discrimination. Those groups should have never had those special benefits in the first place.

Why not?

Because you are greedy and can't stand for them to have money that you can't get your hands on?

Why should I have to pay property taxes and they be exempted?

Exactly what is the benefit to society of allowing some pastor the ability to stick the other taxpayers with the costs of servicing property that isn't providing a public benefit?

Actually, in Houston, its even worse than that. A mega church pastor here (Ed Young) got the Texas legislature to exempt him from paying his water/sewer bill. All of the other water customers in Houston have to cover his bill.

A Pastor isn't receiving the exemption, the non profit entity is. Churches and religious organizations do so much good for their communities I would not know where to start.

Please, if the government was buying its employees houses and cars and jets like the mega churches are, you'd (rightly) be screaming 'bloated government'. Exactly how can these 'charities' pay for all of those goodies and still provide services efficiently?

And its not just churches.

Churches are supported by people giving voluntarily. Government is supported by taxing by force. I think you are jealous of Olsteen and his success.

(04-04-2015 05:02 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 04:56 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 04:34 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 04:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 03:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why not?
Because you are greedy and can't stand for them to have money that you can't get your hands on?

Why should I have to pay property taxes and they be exempted?
Exactly what is the benefit to society of allowing some pastor the ability to stick the other taxpayers with the costs of servicing property that isn't providing a public benefit?
Actually, in Houston, its even worse than that. A mega church pastor here (Ed Young) got the Texas legislature to exempt him from paying his water/sewer bill. All of the other water customers in Houston have to cover his bill.

A Pastor isn't receiving the exemption, the non profit entity is. Churches and religious organizations do so much good for their communities I would not know where to start.

Please, if the government was buying its employees houses and cars and jets like the mega churches are, you'd (rightly) be screaming 'bloated government'. Exactly how can these 'charities' pay for all of those goodies and still provide services efficiently?
And its not just churches.

Churches are supported by people giving voluntarily. Government is supported by taxing by force. I think you are jealous of Olsteen and his success.

Jealousy. And greed.

And as I stated above, I'm pretty sure those churches and their pastors have provided far more help to far more people in their communities than Tom has.

(04-04-2015 05:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 05:02 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 04:56 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 04:34 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 04:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Why should I have to pay property taxes and they be exempted?
Exactly what is the benefit to society of allowing some pastor the ability to stick the other taxpayers with the costs of servicing property that isn't providing a public benefit?
Actually, in Houston, its even worse than that. A mega church pastor here (Ed Young) got the Texas legislature to exempt him from paying his water/sewer bill. All of the other water customers in Houston have to cover his bill.

A Pastor isn't receiving the exemption, the non profit entity is. Churches and religious organizations do so much good for their communities I would not know where to start.

Please, if the government was buying its employees houses and cars and jets like the mega churches are, you'd (rightly) be screaming 'bloated government'. Exactly how can these 'charities' pay for all of those goodies and still provide services efficiently?
And its not just churches.

Churches are supported by people giving voluntarily. Government is supported by taxing by force. I think you are jealous of Olsteen and his success.

Jealousy. And greed.

And as I stated above, I'm pretty sure those churches and their pastors have provided far more help to far more people in their communities than Tom has.

It's been discussed here ad nauseum here before, but we all know red states are more generous than blue states as far as charity goes. The more churches and parishioners, the better.

(04-04-2015 09:17 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 08:15 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I am still amazed that so much time and effort is spent in America dealing with the needs and wants of such a small segment of the population. Something tell me no matter what we do....they will never be happy.

Why is a majority of the news about minorities?

For clarity...My comment was direct to the LGBT paradigm solely.