Thursday, October 17, 2019
Gay Marriage and the Tax Exempt Status of Churches
Beto's O'Rourke's kind of political correctness (wanting to take tax exempt status away from churches who take a stance against gay marriage) is going to hurt the Democrats badly if it takes over. It doesn't really respect equal rights, if you insist that gay people are "being who they are," then religious people who find homosexual conduct morally unacceptable are being who they are, and you can't end one kind of discrimination by supporting another. Having an opinion and expressing it does not deprive anyone of their rights.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Having an opinion and expressing it does not deprive anyone of their rights.....
Unless you have the wrong opinion and try to express it on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc.
Right or wrong, if the Democrats are foolish enough to run on that idea, they will be CRUSHED in 2020.
O'Rourke has gone past his sell-by date, and needs to return to local Texas politics. And swiftly. The sooner the nation forgets about his recent boneheaded statements, the better for everyone.
I suspect O'Rourke is simply the most honest of the bunch.
I happen to agree with Beto on the matter of gun confiscation, but I also realize such a stance is political suicide - something I am not in favor of.
As for taxation of churches, if we were all honest we'd admit that it's not a "black and white" issue. There are churches that get away with blatantly commercial enterprises being shielded from taxation under the thinnest of justifications. But to say that you have to deny your core beliefs in order to not be taxed seems (to me at least) to be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.
It seems Beto thinks Amendments to the Constitution are meaningless anyway. So why not ignore the 1st as long as people let you get away with ignoring the 2nd?
One can argue that since so-called assault weapons are not required for self-defense, that their high rate of fire and ammo capacity means they are only good for killing lots of people in a short amount of time, thus civilians shouldn't own them and government should confiscate them.
The problem is that even if that point is conceded, giving the government that authority would be a giant invitation to deprive all people of all means of effective self-defense. Such a thing is a great evil, which is why I'm forced to defend ownership of "assault weapons" as well. Democrats are not to be trusted with an inch when there is more than an inch available to steal.
"So why not ignore the 1st as long as people let you get away with ignoring the 2nd?"
Oh, I don't ignore the 2nd Amendment. I would just like to see it abolished. It deserves a place alongside the "3/5ths of a human being" clause in the dustbin of history.
By the way, amongst other ridiculous anachronisms in our 18th Century Constitution, were you aware that it gives Congress the right to allow people to be pirates? (Article 1, Section 8, Clause II)
I have no problems with churches being able to discriminate when limiting themselves to church functions and services. I don't object to them stating this position publicly.
However, all non-profits are supposed to keep out of the political arena. That goes for churches, Planned Parenthood, Goodwill, and the Freedom from Religion Foundation. That's part of the deal: you don't do taxes and you don't do politics. Why should churches get license to break that deal?
Oh, I don't ignore the 2nd Amendment. I would just like to see it abolished.
I was speaking of Beto and people like him who just want to ignore the Bill of Rights.
Nothing wrong with trying to get rid of amendments or establishing new ones through Constitutionally allowable means.
"However, all non-profits are supposed to keep out of the political arena."
According to the IRS, "The IRS has published Revenue Ruling 2007-41 (PDF), which outlines how churches, and all 501(c)(3) organizations, can stay within the law regarding the ban on political activity. Also, the ban by Congress is on political campaign activity regarding a candidate; churches and other 501(c)(3) organizations can engage in a limited amount of lobbying (including ballot measures) and advocate for or against issues that are in the political arena. The IRS also has provided guidance regarding the difference between advocating for a candidate and advocating for legislation. See political and lobbying activities. https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/charities-churches-and-politics
Post a Comment