- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: A little nugget about this same sex marriage bill
Posted on 11/29/22 at 5:47 pm to Eli Goldfinger
Posted on 11/29/22 at 5:47 pm to Eli Goldfinger
Uh there’s a little thingy about church snd state that will knock that BS down.
1
Posted on 11/29/22 at 5:49 pm to Swazla
quote:
Uh there’s a little thingy about church snd state that will knock that BS down.
It's not in the bill to begin with.
quote:
—Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to deny or alter any benefit, status, or right of an otherwise eligible entity or person, including tax-exempt status, tax treatment, educational funding, or a grant, contract, agreement, guarantee, loan, scholarship, license, certification, accreditation, claim, or defense, provided such benefit, status, or right does not arise from a marriage.
Posted on 11/29/22 at 5:51 pm to Mickey Goldmill
This is from the bill. It specifically protects tax-exempt status from being impacted by this bill.
Right, as I said, that just means that this bill does not require revocation of tax-exempt status. It doesn't say that the IRS may not revoke the tax-exempt status of an institution because of its view of marriage, only that the IRS cannot rely on the bill when doing so. The IRS does not need specific statutory authorization to do any of this, though. It already has the authority to revoke tax-exempt status. It can just revoke and see what the courts do.
Mike Lee's amendment would have forbidden revocation because of views about marriage. So why did the Democrats oppose it, if revocation for that reason is already forbidden by the bill? Because they know that it isn't, and they want to be able to eventually use the IRS to threaten religious institutions.
Again, maybe the courts will say that it is unconstitutional to revoke the tax-exempt status of a school because of their views of same-sex marriage. We don't know. We do know that in the past the Court has said that revocation is okay (the Bob Jones case), and we also know that a statutory prohibition would (probably) prevent it from happening.
Right, as I said, that just means that this bill does not require revocation of tax-exempt status. It doesn't say that the IRS may not revoke the tax-exempt status of an institution because of its view of marriage, only that the IRS cannot rely on the bill when doing so. The IRS does not need specific statutory authorization to do any of this, though. It already has the authority to revoke tax-exempt status. It can just revoke and see what the courts do.
Mike Lee's amendment would have forbidden revocation because of views about marriage. So why did the Democrats oppose it, if revocation for that reason is already forbidden by the bill? Because they know that it isn't, and they want to be able to eventually use the IRS to threaten religious institutions.
Again, maybe the courts will say that it is unconstitutional to revoke the tax-exempt status of a school because of their views of same-sex marriage. We don't know. We do know that in the past the Court has said that revocation is okay (the Bob Jones case), and we also know that a statutory prohibition would (probably) prevent it from happening.
This post was edited on 11/29/22 at 6:05 pm
Posted on 11/29/22 at 5:56 pm to mikeybates
frick Anthony Kennedy with an AIDS dick.
Posted on 11/29/22 at 6:01 pm to mikeybates
So to summarize, this bill does nothing to change the current status quo regarding tax exempt status.
You're looking for something unrelated to what this bill is about.
You're looking for something unrelated to what this bill is about.
Posted on 11/29/22 at 6:04 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
So to summarize, this bill does nothing to change the current status quo regarding tax exempt status
The status quo clearly changes with this bill. Whether it results in action by a hyperpoliticized IRS is an open question. It affords ZERO protection to individuals/businesses from BAKE THE frickING CAKE assholes.
This post was edited on 11/29/22 at 6:04 pm
Posted on 11/29/22 at 6:07 pm to CommieTiger
quote:
Registered on: 11/11/2022
Posted on 11/29/22 at 6:09 pm to udtiger
quote:
The status quo clearly changes with this bill. Whether it results in action by a hyperpoliticized IRS is an open question. It affords ZERO protection to individuals/businesses from BAKE THE frickING CAKE assholes.
It doesn't protect them or harm them. This bill requires the fed govt and each state to recognize a gay marriage from a state that permits such marriages. That's it.
Posted on 11/29/22 at 6:10 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
It doesn't protect them or harm them. This bill requires the fed govt and each state to recognize a gay marriage from a state that permits such marriages. That's it.
You are either hopelessly naive, or intentionally ignorant.
Posted on 11/29/22 at 6:12 pm to udtiger
Or I read the actual bill itself.
Posted on 11/29/22 at 6:13 pm to PUB
quote:
Wow and the typical RINOs voted for it too.
Cassidy voted against it bc his vote doesn't even matter!
Posted on 11/29/22 at 6:13 pm to Mickey Goldmill
So to summarize, this bill does nothing to change the current status quo regarding tax exempt status.
You're looking for something unrelated to what this bill is about.
Well because the Democrats apparently want to revoke tax-exempt status in the future (Beto O'Rourke said as much in 2019 during a primary debate) they will not vote for a bill to protect it. So yeah, part of leverage with this bill should have been to protect tax-exempt status in a compromise bill.
More than that, the IRS will not claim that the law requires revocation: there is no need to "construe" it to do so, so the fact that there is a provision saying it cannot be so construed is not meaningful. Instead, the IRS will argue that it indicates 'fundamental public policy' on the issue, and that would be part of their justification for revocation.
As I said, though, if the supporters of the bill did not want tax-exempt status revoked, why wouldn't they just agree to the amendment preventing that?
You're looking for something unrelated to what this bill is about.
Well because the Democrats apparently want to revoke tax-exempt status in the future (Beto O'Rourke said as much in 2019 during a primary debate) they will not vote for a bill to protect it. So yeah, part of leverage with this bill should have been to protect tax-exempt status in a compromise bill.
More than that, the IRS will not claim that the law requires revocation: there is no need to "construe" it to do so, so the fact that there is a provision saying it cannot be so construed is not meaningful. Instead, the IRS will argue that it indicates 'fundamental public policy' on the issue, and that would be part of their justification for revocation.
As I said, though, if the supporters of the bill did not want tax-exempt status revoked, why wouldn't they just agree to the amendment preventing that?
Posted on 11/29/22 at 6:18 pm to Eli Goldfinger
quote:Same sex marriage was deemed into law by SCOTUS. this isn’t a “same sex marriage” bill. It’s an anti-religion bill. But… for many thst was the goal all along.
It turns out that the new bill allows the IRS to revoke the tax exempt status of churches who hold fast to biblical doctrine on this issue.
Posted on 11/29/22 at 6:22 pm to mikeybates
quote:
As I said, though, if the supporters of the bill did not want tax-exempt status revoked, why wouldn't they just agree to the amendment preventing that?
To keep the bill focused on its intent and not get into areas that aren’t impacted by the bill in the first place?
Posted on 11/29/22 at 6:24 pm to Eli Goldfinger
Why can’t we just have a clean bill that allows tax benefits to household cohabitants?
This post was edited on 11/29/22 at 6:26 pm
Posted on 11/29/22 at 6:28 pm to Vacherie Saint
This bill is like 4 pages long. It’s pretty concise.
Posted on 11/29/22 at 6:39 pm to Mickey Goldmill
Apparently not concise enough if it goes after churches for political wrongthink.
Just drop the marriage moniker and allow household cohabitants to file jointly. It’s “one page” simple.
Just drop the marriage moniker and allow household cohabitants to file jointly. It’s “one page” simple.
Posted on 11/29/22 at 6:43 pm to Mickey Goldmill
To keep the bill focused on its intent and not get into areas that aren’t impacted by the bill in the first place?
Okay, but if they opposed revocation, they would have agreed to it. It's common for bills to have many different provisions, including unrelated provisions. And almost all of the Republicans who voted in favor of the bill voted for Mike Lee's amendment, too.
Again, if your view is that the IRS should revoke the tax-exempt status of Christian schools, because they have specific dating or housing policies, then it would make sense to oppose a provision to prevent that.
Maybe that won't happen, I guess we'll see. The Civil Rights Act was supposed to prevent quotas -Hubert Humphrey said he would eat his hat if it did- but of course it eventually produced quotas. Laws have all sorts of unintended consequences, unless specific language is included to prevent those consequences.
Okay, but if they opposed revocation, they would have agreed to it. It's common for bills to have many different provisions, including unrelated provisions. And almost all of the Republicans who voted in favor of the bill voted for Mike Lee's amendment, too.
Again, if your view is that the IRS should revoke the tax-exempt status of Christian schools, because they have specific dating or housing policies, then it would make sense to oppose a provision to prevent that.
Maybe that won't happen, I guess we'll see. The Civil Rights Act was supposed to prevent quotas -Hubert Humphrey said he would eat his hat if it did- but of course it eventually produced quotas. Laws have all sorts of unintended consequences, unless specific language is included to prevent those consequences.
This post was edited on 11/29/22 at 6:44 pm
Posted on 11/29/22 at 7:46 pm to Eli Goldfinger
quote:Mittons. You're up.
It turns out that the new bill allows the IRS to revoke the tax exempt status of churches who hold fast to biblical doctrine on this issue.
Posted on 11/29/22 at 7:56 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Apparently not concise enough if it goes after churches for political wrongthink.
It doesn’t. The only language in the bill about religion is a protection for religion from this very bill.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News