beto's attack on Christian beliefs

[Basil the Great]

Beto was not very clear in his answer, which I saw on live television. I do not think that he was referring to churches, but rather to institutions run by churches, like day care centers, adoption agencies, etc.

 

[miggles]

what if a mosque refuses to marry a homosexual couple? would it get the same treatment?

 

[Silverback]

what if a mosque refuses to marry a homosexual couple? would it get the same treatment?

No, they would get an exemption, because it violates their faith. Christian faith does not matter. This is not just O'Roark, every one of the Democrats feel this way, or, worse. However, persecution will come, we are told to endure.

 

[SkyWriting]

Beto O'Rourke: Religious Institutions Will Lose Tax Exemption If They Oppose Same-Sex Marriage | Breitbart

thoughts?

Scripture says to submit to local government.
Jesus went to the cross on that "platform."
But I don't see that he has a legal case at all.
Churches that refuse to employ people because
of their sexual choices would be a stronger case.

 

[SkyWriting]

what if a mosque refuses to marry a homosexual couple? would it get the same treatment?

Marriage ceremonies are not a legal requirement
or a public paid service. No church is "required"
to perform them.

 

[Hank77]

So a President Beto can just tell the IRS to start collecting taxes on Christian churches. He would not be breaking any laws.

A change in tax law is up to the Congress first. No President can do that on their own.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

can't these people go get hitched at the vegas casino?

why do the alphabet people have this insatiable need to knock down the doors of a church and force the pastor to marry them?

 

[mkgal1]

Quoting from article: For purposes of U.S. tax law, churches are considered to be public charities, also known as Section 501(c)(3) organizations. As such, they are generally exempt from federal, state, and local income and property taxes. "Exempt" means they don't have to pay these taxes. This is so even though they may earn substantial amounts of money.

The bottom line is that private foundations get much worse tax treatment than public charities.

The main difference between private foundations and public charities is where they get their financial support. A private foundation is typically controlled by an individual, family, or corporation, and obtains most of its income from a few donors and investments--a good example is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Because they are controlled by such a small group, private foundations can easily be misused and abused. This is why the tax law is so tough on them.
- Are Churches Always Exempt?​

ISTM that in order to exercise tax exemption status - a church must function as a *public* charity - not as a private club or foundation. That would/should include all religions (according to unbiased law) - so it couldn't be considered "Christian persecution". His "attack" seems to be on organizations that don't pay taxes - yet also don't support the needs of their community outside their approved members.

 

[hedrick]

Here's a detailed analysis from CNN: Beto O'Rourke said religious institutions should lose tax-exempt status if they oppose gay marriage. Is that legal? - CNNPolitics. It's possible to say he was talking about organizations such as schools, or that he was referring to actions such as discrimination in hiring. But the actual question he said yes to was about viewpoint, and it included churches. What he agreed to is unconstitutional. (The article gives a review of the relevant legal history.) "religious institutions like colleges, churches, charities, should they lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage?"

There was a later clarification from the campaign: "Beto was referring to religious institutions who take discriminatory action." It's hard to judge that. In the middle of a debate it's hard to think carefully about all the implications of a question. But what he agreed to went beyond that clarification.

 

[Sistrin]

That article is from Breitbart. Is there any other source for that information or is this just an effort to get people up in arms against Beto?

Beto is it? You two are personal friends? Regardless, O'Rourke and people like him are why we need instructions on shampoo bottles. O'Rourke has no concept of what the First Amendment actually says or assures, and apparently...

ETA: I now see that other news sources have also reported on this. I agree with Cimorene - he'd merely be upholding the law.

Neither do either of you.

 

[Sistrin]

How do you see this as defending the law? I'm in favor of same-sex marriage, but this strikes me as an out-right violation of the Establishment Clause, since the government pressuring religious institutions to not "oppose same-sex marriage" entails a very clear attempted state interference in religious doctrines. That is absolutely unconstitutional.

Absolutely correct.

If O'Rourke were more specific about what types of opposition do and do not count as discrimination, perhaps he could get around the clear constitutional issues with a comment like this, but the statement as it stands is extremely broad. It could apply to any church that so much as refused to perform same-sex marriages.

Which means his dictate would include all Mosque and Synagogues as well. But that is the norm of the American left in general, to dictate what people are allowed to believe and enforce that dictate via penalty of law. Or just the mob.

 

[mkgal1]

Which means his dictate would include all Mosque and Synagogues as well. But that is the norm of the American left in general, to dictate what people are allowed to believe and enforce that dictate via penalty of law. Or just the mob.

This has nothing to do with infringing on the beliefs of *anyone*. It's merely a matter of tax exemption status.

Beto is from Texas. That's where there were recently a lot of people in need of emergency shelter due to flooding from Hurricane Harvey and a well known [very wealthy] mega church wouldn't open their doors to the people in need (even though they use the tax exemption meant for public charities). ISTM that is what the "attack" is on. An organization can't be considered "public" if it's only serving a select (and pre-approved) group of people.

 

[redleghunter]

This has nothing to do with infringing on the beliefs of *anyone*. It's merely a matter of tax exemption status.

Beto is from Texas. That's where there were recently a lot of people in need of emergency shelter due to flooding from Hurricane Harvey and a well known [very wealthy] mega church wouldn't open their doors to the people in need (even though they use the tax exemption meant for public charities). ISTM that is what the "attack" is on. An organization can't be considered "public" if it's only serving a select (and pre-approved) group of people.

Which mega church? Joel Osteen? He did not close his church off because gay people would be in there. He was told his church would be under water. At least that is his excuse. For all we know he didn’t not want anyone to soil his church. No fan of his prosperity gospel but he gave an excuse and to this day don’t know if it was a correct assessment.

 

[Yarddog]

Beto O'Rourke: Religious Institutions Will Lose Tax Exemption If They Oppose Same-Sex Marriage | Breitbart

thoughts?

I think that he's wrong. I believe that gay marriage should be legal but religion is protected under the law and a church being opposed to gay marriage does not violate their right to marry.

 

[Silmarien]

Which means his dictate would include all Mosque and Synagogues as well. But that is the norm of the American left in general, to dictate what people are allowed to believe and enforce that dictate via penalty of law. Or just the mob.

I actually am a leftist, so there is no need to get partisan about this. Politicians on both sides can and often do make stupid comments that fly in the face of constitutional law, especially on campaign. I prefer to call them on it than to make excuses for them.

 

[Sistrin]

This has nothing to do with infringing on the beliefs of *anyone*. It's merely a matter of tax exemption status.

No, it is absolutely a matter of squashing dissent, dissent defined as any belief which does not conform with leftist ideology. From the cited article, quote:

“This is from your LGBTQ plan. This is what you write. Freedom of religion is a fundamental right, but it should not be used to discriminate. Do you think religious institutions like colleges, churches, charities, should they lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage?"

The "your" found in line one refers to O'Rourke himself, meaning as stated this is from his plan. O'Rourke responds in the affirmative.

The First Amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion, not the free exercise thereof as defined by some politician whose only real accomplishment is he can ride a skateboard. O'Rourke has no concept of what the First Amendment says or what it means, he is simply revealing his true nature because within every progressive there is a totalitarian screaming to get out.

Beto is from Texas. That's where there were recently a lot of people in need of emergency shelter due to flooding from Hurricane Harvey and a well known [very wealthy] mega church wouldn't open their doors to the people in need (even though they use the tax exemption meant for public charities). ISTM that is what the "attack" is on. An organization can't be considered "public" if it's only serving a select (and pre-approved) group of people.

Even if true what does this have to do with the issue at hand? O'Rourke clearly stated his intentions: believe as we, meaning the State, want you to believe or we will punish you.

 

[Sistrin]

I actually am a leftist, so there is no need to get partisan about this.

I did say "in general." However I did not make this partisan, as I didn't have to. Every issue addressed by the Democrat Presidential Candidates is articulated a partisan manner, Left versus Right, Us versus Them. It is a trademark of the institution.

 

[Yarddog]

I did say "in general." However I did not make this partisan, as I didn't have to. Every issue addressed by the Democrat Presidential Candidates is articulated a partisan manner, Left versus Right, Us versus Them. It is a trademark of the institution.

It is a trade mark of both left and right. Everything Trump says is partisan just as Beto is partisan.

 

[jgarden]

Given that the Founding Fathers were adamant concerning the separation of Church and State, an argument could be made that providing tax exempt status for churches is in itself unconstitutional!

Providing tax exemptions for churches is a means whereby the government becomes engaged in the business of subsidizing religion with money that would otherwise have reverted back to the State!

 

[miggles]

can't these people go get hitched at the vegas casino?

why do the alphabet people have this insatiable need to knock down the doors of a church and force the pastor to marry them?

to be able to sue.