I guess I'll hop in here and say that I just didn't vote in that election. But I remember a lot of people in my classes who voted for the ammendment who are now of the opposite view point.

 

I don't know how or why they changed, but I used to be one of the most liberal in my social circles, and now numerous people think I am far too conservative. For the under 30ish crowd, I would say that the Internet had a lot to do with the change, but that's just speculation.

Not a great analogy, my friend.

 

People consider 2+2=4 to be an absolute.

 

People do not have that some absolute feeling about every religious belief.

 

 

"One and one don't make two. One and one make one."

 

- Pete Townshend

I guess I'll hop in here and say that I just didn't vote in that election. But I remember a lot of people in my classes who voted for the ammendment who are now of the opposite view point.

 

I don't know how or why they changed, but I used to be one of the most liberal in my social circles, and now numerous people think I am far too conservative. For the under 30ish crowd, I would say that the Internet had a lot to do with the change, but that's just speculation.

 

I have a friend that moved here from the Seattle area. Here he is a flaming liberal, there he is a moderate.

I'm callin baloney in that. No tangent. If churches choose not to recognize those unions there are tons of other options. Folks choose to belong to or use a church to wed. The clerk is elected to do so. I think that point is wholly valid. So to say that you would be opposed to their tax status for that reason is bunk IMO.

 

I fully support any Church that doesn't want to take part in any same sex marriage/celebration.

 

However, when the government subsidizes your business, church, cause, etc. and you don't follow all the rules/laws of the land that is a form of subversion.

I fully support any Church that doesn't want to take part in any same sex marriage/celebration.

 

However, when the government subsidizes your business, church, cause, etc. and you don't follow all the rules/laws of the land that is a form of subversion.

 

Exempting churches is a way to ensure that the state cannot control churches. Providing a tax exemption for churches is a less intrusive option under the Constitution than requiring churches to pay taxes. This reasoning is also in additional to the "social benefits" and "intangible benefits" that churches provide the community that warrant the tax exemption. @theguru, you have it backwards. The churches provide such a value to the country (and all 50 states recognize it too) that they are rewarded with this benefit. Ordinary citizens and companies (like you and I) do not provide this same benefit on a consistent basis...hence, we pay taxes. The default thought process of the land since its beginnings involving taxation is that you should start with NOT having to paying them and have a good reason to pay them! Not the other way around. Liberal thinking is to say EVERYBODY should pay taxes and you should have a good reason NOT to pay them. That is the basis for churches keeping tax exemption. That is also why discussion of religious liberty privileges (such as a specific church not wanting to hold same sex marriage rites) has nothing to do with tax exemption.

Exempting churches is a way to ensure that the state cannot control churches. Providing a tax exemption for churches is a less intrusive option under the Constitution than requiring churches to pay taxes. This reasoning is also in additional to the "social benefits" and "intangible benefits" that churches provide the community that warrant the tax exemption. @theguru, you have it backwards. The churches provide such a value to the country (and all 50 states recognize it too) that they are rewarded with this benefit. Ordinary citizens and companies (like you and I) do not provide this same benefit on a consistent basis...hence, we pay taxes. The default thought process of the land since its beginnings involving taxation is that you should start with NOT having to paying them and have a good reason to pay them! Not the other way around. Liberal thinking is to say EVERYBODY should pay taxes and you should have a good reason NOT to pay them. That is the basis for churches keeping tax exemption. That is also why discussion of religious liberty privileges (such as a specific church not wanting to hold same sex marriage rites) has nothing to do with tax exemption.

 

I see social/intangible benefit side of it, as I pointed out in post 50 (http://bluegrasspreps.com/kentucky-national-politics/did-scotus-decision-306903.html#post5565126).

 

However, our country spends more than it takes in and we either have to spend less money or raise taxes. With that in mind you have to look at the whole financial structure of the country and any subsidized entity that doesn't play ball is certainly on the short list.

I fully support any Church that doesn't want to take part in any same sex marriage/celebration.

 

However, when the government subsidizes your business, church, cause, etc. and you don't follow all the rules/laws of the land that is a form of subversion.

 

It isn't a subsidy. They are separate. The government doesn't tax religion because the Constitution dictates their separation.

I see social/intangible benefit side of it, as I pointed out in post 50 (http://bluegrasspreps.com/kentucky-national-politics/did-scotus-decision-306903.html#post5565126).

 

However, our country spends more than it takes in and we either have to spend less money or raise taxes. With that in mind you have to look at the whole financial structure of the country and any subsidized entity that doesn't play ball is certainly on the short list.

 

Yep taking money from organzations such as religious organzations who spend most their money on helping the community wouldn't have a long term negative impact.

 

The church spends a much larger percentage of the money it takes in on helping the surrounding community than most charitable organzations in this country .

 

Your very argument is what some people fear and your stance is giving that fear credence.

It isn't a subsidy. They are separate. The government doesn't tax religion because the Constitution dictates their separation.

 

Yep taking money from organzations such as religious organzations who spend most their money on helping the community wouldn't have a long term negative impact.

 

The church spends a much larger percentage of the money it takes in on helping the surrounding community than most charitable organzations in this country .

 

Your very argument is what some people fear and your stance is giving that fear credence.

 

Either way you look at it, it is a slippery slope.

I have a friend that moved here from the Seattle area. Here he is a flaming liberal, there he is a moderate.

 

I feel his pain.

Either way you look at it, it is a slippery slope.

 

If there is a slope it might be about one degree. I'm all ears if anybody can come up with anything, but I can't think of a single instance where the Supreme Court has forced a church to do something. I know they have told individuals they can't speak peyote, and told local schools and governments not to intertwine with religion, but there is absolutely no chance they would ever make a church perform a same sex ceremony if they don't want to.

 

At the same time, the SCOTUS is the only opportunity to progress on that slippery slope because as Lipton Bash said, and law or any withholding of funds, etc... limits the "free exercise" and would never fly.

If there is a slope it might be about one degree. I'm all ears if anybody can come up with anything, but I can't think of a single instance where the Supreme Court has forced a church to do something. I know they have told individuals they can't speak peyote, and told local schools and governments not to intertwine with religion, but there is absolutely no chance they would ever make a church perform a same sex ceremony if they don't want to.

 

At the same time, the SCOTUS is the only opportunity to progress on that slippery slope because as Lipton Bash said, and law or any withholding of funds, etc... limits the "free exercise" and would never fly.

 

I guess that depends on how you define free exercise.

 

I found this:

 

Do religious institutions have a free-exercise right to tax exemptions?

 

The Supreme Court has been clear that the simple act of taxation is not in and of itself a violation of either the First Amendment’s free-exercise or establishment clauses. This does not mean, however, that it is impossible for a tax to violate either or both of the First Amendment’s religion clauses. If a tax were targeted in discriminatory ways or became so oppressive that it substantially constrained a religious group’s ability to function, then it could possibly violate the free-exercise clause. Likewise, the administrative details of enforcing a taxation scheme could become so intricate and require so much interaction between the state and a religious organization that a court would find sufficient entanglement to violate the establishment clause, as interpreted through the Lemon test.

 

Frequently Asked Questions - Religion | First Amendment Center ? news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition

Not a great analogy, my friend.

 

People consider 2+2=4 to be an absolute.

 

People do not have that some absolute feeling about every religious belief.

 

Oh, but it is. God is an absolute, whether some people want to believe that or not.

I see social/intangible benefit side of it, as I pointed out in post 50 (http://bluegrasspreps.com/kentucky-national-politics/did-scotus-decision-306903.html#post5565126).

 

However, our country spends more than it takes in and we either have to spend less money or raise taxes. With that in mind you have to look at the whole financial structure of the country and any subsidized entity that doesn't play ball is certainly on the short list.

 

And that's the fault of churches how? So your argument for non-tax exempt status is because the nation spends more than it takes in so churches should be taxed?:no:

I guess that depends on how you define free exercise.

 

I found this:

 

Do religious institutions have a free-exercise right to tax exemptions?

 

The Supreme Court has been clear that the simple act of taxation is not in and of itself a violation of either the First Amendment’s free-exercise or establishment clauses. This does not mean, however, that it is impossible for a tax to violate either or both of the First Amendment’s religion clauses. If a tax were targeted in discriminatory ways or became so oppressive that it substantially constrained a religious group’s ability to function, then it could possibly violate the free-exercise clause. Likewise, the administrative details of enforcing a taxation scheme could become so intricate and require so much interaction between the state and a religious organization that a court would find sufficient entanglement to violate the establishment clause, as interpreted through the Lemon test.

 

Frequently Asked Questions - Religion | First Amendment Center ? news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition

 

I guess then I don't really understand your point. Books have been written and courses been taught on this one sentence in the constitution, but as I understand it, the conflict of he First Amendment is balancing "establishment" vs. "free exercise." Establishment meaning the government shouldn't favor one individual faith and free exercise meaning the government can't limit how individuals practice.

 

As I understand your argument, the bolded above completely counters it. You seem to be saying that down the road the government can withhold tax exempt status or impose a tax in order to indirectly force churches to do whatever they wish. By attempting to move pieces, the legislature would essentially be establishing he church of the US which isn't allowed, and violates the free exercise by telling individuals what they have to do.