I see your point. I'd need to do some research to reply, and I don't have time today. Churches do get some specifics benefits now though (still don't understand why a church doesn't have to file a tax return. Makes no sense to me.) I can just see those being turned on their head.
The only two businesses he mentions in the video are Arlene's Flowers and the baker in Colorado. The SCOTUS has ruled in favor of both of them. The rest of Shapiro's talk is "just wait, you will see, next thing is this, this and this, and then they will take your kids out of your homeschool". I just see no evidence of this, at all. It is all alarmist reactionary stuff, no different than if we let people smoke weed we are going to have a country full of drug addicts, or if they listen to rock and roll, they will have sex, etc. Alarmist rhetoric. Could make for a good dystopian novel, but I think it remains in the realm of fiction.
Maybe I don't understand how this stuff works or am misreading, but where are you seeing that SCOTUS ruled in favor of Arlene's Flowers? Also, the Colorado baker has apparently since been sued again for refusing, on religious grounds, to bake a cake for a transgender person (pink interior, blue exterior, for the cake) to celebrate her (it could be "his," and if it is, I apologize for my ignorance) gender transition.
Bringing in line with other tax exempt status organizations I can see. But that isn't losing status, that is just saying that religious organizations are the same as other not for profit orgs. Because they are.
As far as I can tell, yes. EDIT: Sorry, misread your question. I googled it and don't have the link handy, but pretty sure it was resolved after the baker ruling came down. EDIT 2: My apologies, I failed to completely read article: Following the state high court's decision, Stutzman filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States, asking the Court to hear the case.[25] During this case, a similar case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, had made its way to the Supreme Court, and which was decided in early June 2018. The ruling was made on procedural grounds in that the bakery owner's religious views were treated with hostility by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and remanded that a new hearing be made. Stutzman, on this news, stated that she had also found her religious views treated with hostility by the state of Washington, and sought a similar rehearing. On June 25, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case to the Supreme Court of Washington for further consideration in light of the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision.[26][27] On June 6, 2019, the Washington Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Stutzman again, finding no evidence of religious animus.[28][29] Stutzman's attorneys have once again requested the U.S. Supreme Court to take her case.[30][31] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlene's_Flowers_lawsuit After the baker ruling, it was vacated and sent back to state supreme court that ruled against her again. She is now trying to take it back to the SCOTUS. And I can sue you right now for making my hair fall out. That is a tort reform issue, imho.
That's a whole law profession reform, which isn't gonna happen. Tell lawyers they don't get paid unless they win, and tell plantiffs they must pay what they sue for if they lose, and it would be fixed. But have to do both.
I think christianity will fair better without 501c3 than the multitude of small and insincere groups springing up to abuse it. I believe reform is possible. Can someone say with a straight face that Joel Olsteen is not organizing his activities for the benefit of his private interest? it is a mockery of a faith he alleges to have, which is one thing, but it is also a mockery of the intention of the law. there is nothing charitable about how he is operating in total. what is his cause? selling books? a bigger mansion to keep hurricane victims out of?
I think closing houses of worship against the will of its members is about as evil as it gets. I could debate those members every day on their beliefs, but their liberty is my liberty.
we at least agree on something. probably other things too but for the purposes of this post I’ll pretend it’s just this
He is who I had in mind a number of posts back when I mentioned that some of these people/groups probably don't deserve tax exempt status.
Idk how this stuff works but I assume there’d be some way/nothing wrong with separating out the Joel Osteens of the world vs the Wears Valley Missionary Baptists of the world
The issue is that this would be seen or sold as an attack on Christianity. Which is why I brought it up. It's not. Far from it, it might be a defense of it. And let's swing it around back to Bob Jones University. Is that a church? No. Was it being told what to believe, preach, etc? No, not really. It could not discriminate based on race AND remain considered charitable. It could still discriminate on race, it just doesn't mean the public definition of what charitable is. Does it alarm me that such a process could be extended to homosexuality, or the trans community, or such? Nope. A school rejecting people based on their identity is not charitable in nature. It isn't about "needs" and the "needy," then it is about advancing an ideology. The Jesuits have these things well in hand. They understand where charity lies in relation to their faith, and how to make the two work without tainting either. They're not the only ones, but they come to mind. The Ben Shapiros of the world do not have open hearts. They advocate for fiefdoms and call it liberty. And calling them on it is called tyranny. If a soup kitchen refused to serve people based on their identity, we'd be disgusted. That wouldn't be charity. So why would that same principle not be the same for any non profit? Is this not what the Good Samaritan story is getting at? Was that not the point of the parable? There is a tax exempt status entitlement feeling to this whole thing.
Who said a religious school or church would "reject" anyone based on being homosexual? And what does that rejection look like, in your mind? Rejecting an openly homosexual person from attending church services? Rejecting an openly homosexual couple's child from attending the school? Preventing openly homosexual teachers from working at the religious school? I don't really practice or anything, but I grew up Catholic. I can't see the church I attended preventing an openly homosexual person from attending church services. They probably wouldn't be allowed to receive communion, but any non-Catholic person isn't really supposed to receive communion either. Is that the sort of rejection you're talking about? What leads you to assert that Ben Shapiro doesn't have an "open heart?"
I believe Shapiro did. rejection would look like a school either not accepting or expelling someone for identifying as homosexual, to use the example YOU put forth with the Shapiro quote. You are now shifting the lines to make it about churches, when step one of my response was "a school/enterprise is not a church." A school preventing openly homosexual teachers from working at the school (as opposed to... openly heterosexual teachers? Not even sure what that means) from working at the religious school would, in my opinion, be in violation of employee discrimination laws if they did not serve a ministerial function and is a separate matter. A nonprofit must still follow labor laws.
Soooo does this change anything about your stance? You started by focusing on the 8-0 ruling on the Bob Jones University thing. I'd say the fact that these things are already reaching the Supreme Court now suggests that we are moving in the direction that doesn't favor the businesses. Furthermore you have a 7-2 decision for the baker and no decision yet for the flower lady. I guess I just don't understand how you can see all this and not believe there's a chance that, in the next 20-30 years, at the latest, we are looking at these cases going the other direction.
Of course there is a chance. There is a chance Trump becomes President again in 2024 and declares martial law and the First Emperor of the United States is crowned. Do I think it is likely? Hell no. Same with this whole shutting down churches and taking kids from people thing. It is all just hyperbolic nonsense. I have not seen enough evidence to show me there is some groundswell that is going to cause this, or even that the Democratic party is wanting to move in this direction. Show me more than just Shapiro banging a drum and two or three cases spread out over 50 years and I might be concerned.
Religious freedom cannot allow death, and be good law, I do not believe. And though the possibility may be small, the possibility does exist. If every where decides to refuse to sell food, water, clothing, shelter or make loans, ie: do business, to people, for some reason, that person will die. And that can't be good law. It just can't. Even unlikely, we're saying, yea, if it happens, it is still good law. And that is dumb.
