Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

SLF:

Aren't churches 501 (c)(3) and thus treated the same as any other non-religious non-profit? And in this case are the schools that were eligible for aid paying taxes? Of course not. Churches were treated differently because of religion. That's textbook.

[SeattleLionsFan]

I've thought that churches have taken the position that they are exempt from taxation because of their religious nature.

Does cake baking or contraception offering work better than taxation for these purposes?

[froot loops]

They have to meet certain requirements to be a 501c3

[iam416]

IRS Guide for Churches: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

Note -- it's 501(c)(3). Add it to the list of things you should but won't read. :-)

Does cake baking or contraception offering work better than taxation for these purposes?

I'm not particularly sure what your agenda is, but if I had to guess it would be to shit on christianity -- to be blunt.

The Supreme Court took up the cake baking issue. I can wait until they decide it to talk at length about it.

[whodean]

The Supreme Court took up the cake baking issue. I can wait until they decide it to talk at length about it.

prediction?

[SeattleLionsFan]

Talent,
I was just looking to see if you had some expertise you could share, I wasn't looking to have a fucking debate or "shit on Christianity." You can leave your negative assumptions for Hack.

I just see religious groups pushing what I think are dangerous theories and was wondering if I missed something. The "wall between church and state" protects CHURCHES not the state. Wearing away at that wall by arguing that churches are entitled to all the benefits of the state damages that. It is hard to argue that churches are of this world when accepting benefits, and not of this world when fighting its burdens. I didn't know if there was an important distinction I missed. I guess there's not one you know of.

[iam416]

I think I laid it out pretty clearly. So far you've suggested that churches get special treatment from the Constitution or something -- they don't -- they're treated like every other non-profit. And you've suggested that they shouldn't get taxpayer money because they don't pay taxes which is odd b/c the Missouri case involved providing benefits to schools which, you know, don't pay taxes.

So, if you have a concrete example to support your position I suggest you provide it.

I just see religious groups pushing what I think are dangerous theories and was wondering if I missed something.

Yeah, my negative assumption was WAAAAAY off.

prediction?

I dunno, Whodean. Given Hobby Lobby, I tend to think the cake-bakers win and, IMO, rightly so. The bakers in this case are remarkably sympathetic, so it's a good set of facts. We'll see. I certainly don't think that a baker who refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding should pay over $100,000 in damages, but that's the state of things.

[whodean]

I can see both sides of the cake thing, so it seems really interesting to me. Which set of rights prevail?

[THE_WIZARD_]

prediction?

[froot loops]

Hah

[iam416]

Clubber Lang is always the right answer to any prediction question.

I can see both sides of the cake thing, so it seems really interesting to me. Which set of rights prevail?

Yeah, it's an interesting question. To date, homosexuality isn't a protected class under the Equal Protection Clause (or so I think -- Kennedy's marriage opinion, I believe, was mostly airy nonsense anchored to nothing other than "love wins" -- great outcome; hilarious opinion). So, unlike the case re restaurants not serving AAs, you're not dealing with a protected class and, in any event, you're not dealing with the super-protected class of race.

SLF:

I should also say, to be clear, I'm card-carrying atheist. Religion, IMO, is gooblygook. I don't, however, begrudge anyone their religion and, on the whole, I think religion is more of a positive force than a negative one -- I think churches go a very long way to establishing community and accompanying standards which probably net out positive. I think you see this, in particular, in small town America and in AA communities. That's my 30,000 foot take on it, which affects the law in no way, shape or form.

[froot loops]

I think where the rubber meets the road is if you insert temple, mosque or synagogue in any of these type of cases. I think the Supreme Court would be pretty agnostic about the religion but some of the public advocates would do a 180. I've kind of seen it in the Detroit area with a lawyer who is a family acquaintance, you switch religions in the case and he is arguing the other side.

[iam416]

Whodean:

One final point re christian bakers. The case that gets cited the most is the case about restaurants refusing to serve AAs (Katzenbach v. McClung). The key point about that case is that the law was being enforced was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Supreme Court was deciding if Congress had authority under the Commerce Clause to force restaurants to serve AAs. The Court unanimously concluded that Congress had such authority.

That case was NOT a constitutional case. So, in looking at the bakers, the "rights" on the other side are massively different. First, there is no act of Congress to this point. Second, there is no EPC grounds. So it's really almost a bare question of free exercise -- it's almost no different than a Democrat cake baker refusing to bake a cake for Trump celebration. There are, of course, differences, but in terms of actual Constitutional and statutory rights -- not really.

So, the more I think about, the more I think it goes for the bakers, but Kennedy is a wildcard.

I think the Supreme Court would be pretty agnostic about the religion but some of the public advocates would do a 180. I've kind of seen it in the Detroit area with a lawyer who is a family acquaintance, you switch religions in the case and he is arguing the other side.

Well, the most important point -- and the one I absolutely agree with -- is the point about the Court. I don't think the actual religion matters a lick to them. I agree on the advocates -- you replace christian with muslim and and you both lose AND gain advocates. There are a horde of advocates that are fundamentally pro-christian and horde of advocates that are fundamentally pro-anything-but-christians.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Man sits in jail for 90 days before lab tests show he had drywall dust in his car, not cocaine.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/crime--law/just-florida-man-jailed-after-police-mistake-drywall-for-cocaine/WS1n1xlCHoIShGkRJHbEMN/

[Dr. Strangelove]

RE: Katzenbach v. McClung

If that decision were made today, would the Court unanimously uphold it? I wonder about Thomas and Alito...