2 of 3
2
Court Rules Against Some Tax Breaks for Churches
Posted: 26 November 2013 02:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26

This separation thing is getting out of hand.

Now Businesses want exemptions from ACA provisions for birth control on religious grounds and as corporations are persons they can ask for exemptions on religious grounds.

The justices agreed to consider whether for-profit corporations whose owners oppose abortion on religious grounds must abide by the law’s mandate that health insurance policies include free coverage of government-approved forms of contraception.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/11/26/supreme-court-obamacare-contraception-religion-corporation/3700813/

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 November 2013 03:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5190
Joined  2010-06-16

Well, I’d be willing to accept that if, and only if, any organization that wants to avoid covering any particular procedure for its workers, as long as they also pay those workers the amount that it would cost.  Then the worker can decide whether or not to have the procedure.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 November 2013 06:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  815
Joined  2009-10-21

First off, it’s ridiculous on the face of it. A corporation, that receives all sorts of benefits for being a corporation, thinks it can participate in the normal worker marketplaces EXCEPT it thinks it has the right to deny them certain benefits that are completely legal.

But really, my question is, are there group insurance policies that are marketed to these weirdos? Insurance vehicles that specifically eliminate certain benefits based on Biblical principles?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 November 2013 07:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2245
Joined  2012-10-27
Thevillageatheist - 26 November 2013 06:12 AM

Only Congress can propose a Constitutional amendment and it has to be a joint resolution, requiring a majority in both houses. Then it has to be ratified by the states.  I can’t see Congress voting to propose such an amendment. There has never been a Constitutional amendment proposed regarding a tax exemption.  I can’t imagine it happening.

No Lois, there is yet another way. 2/3rds of the States may submit a petition to Congress on a particular issue. This is called an Article V amendment. it’s only been done once if I recall (18th Amendment) off the top of my head. Now the likelihood of that happening in today’s secessionist climate is practically nil. Especially a tax exempt issue for religious institutions in the deep South.


Cap’t Jack

Yes,  know about that but it’s even less likely than a Congressional proposal.  I didn’t think it was worth mentioning.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 November 2013 08:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  374
Joined  2012-02-02
Thevillageatheist - 26 November 2013 06:12 AM

Only Congress can propose a Constitutional amendment and it has to be a joint resolution, requiring a majority in both houses. Then it has to be ratified by the states.  I can’t see Congress voting to propose such an amendment. There has never been a Constitutional amendment proposed regarding a tax exemption.  I can’t imagine it happening.

No Lois, there is yet another way. 2/3rds of the States may submit a petition to Congress on a particular issue. This is called an Article V amendment. it’s only been done once if I recall (18th Amendment) off the top of my head. Now the likelihood of that happening in today’s secessionist climate is practically nil. Especially a tax exempt issue for religious institutions in the deep South.


Cap’t Jack

I think its far more likely that you’d see the States submitting a petition to carve out an exemption for religious organizations than the South attempting to secede again.  Whether you’d get 2/3rds of the states agreeing to that, is another matter.  Politics are a fickle beast, and the 2014 elections are still a long ways off, in political terms.  2016 is even farther away, and speculation as to what the public might be feeling at that time is futile.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 November 2013 10:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11

And what is going to happen when such exemptions include no blood transfusions(JW), or only homeopathy, or only healing prayers(CS), or no psychiatric treatment(scientology)? There are probably plenty of other religions with quirky health requirements the rest of us ignore. What if your employer refused to allow you to use pepper or drink coffee (7th day adventist) or alcohol, and caffeine (mormom), pork (jews and muslims) beef (hindi)  forced you to be vegetarian (7th day adventist, jains). It can border on the ridiculous.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 November 2013 04:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2890
Joined  2011-08-15

Thevillageatheist - 26 November 2013 06:12 AM
Only Congress can propose a Constitutional amendment and it has to be a joint resolution, requiring a majority in both houses. Then it has to be ratified by the states.  I can’t see Congress voting to propose such an amendment. There has never been a Constitutional amendment proposed regarding a tax exemption.  I can’t imagine it happening.

No Lois, there is yet another way. 2/3rds of the States may submit a petition to Congress on a particular issue. This is called an Article V amendment. it’s only been done once if I recall (18th Amendment) off the top of my head. Now the likelihood of that happening in today’s secessionist climate is practically nil. Especially a tax exempt issue for religious institutions in the deep South.


Cap’t Jack

Yes,  know about that but it’s even less likely than a Congressional proposal.  I didn’t think it was worth mentioning.

Even though the possibility of it happening in today’s volatile political climate is almost impossible, I was speaking to your statement that the Only way the Constituton may be amended is via Congress. I do agree with you that it would be considered extreme to amend the Constitution for a special tax exemption even though there have been wackier amendments proposed e.g.English as the official language. Thankfully legislators block these. 1787-2013 and only 27 Amendments.


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 November 2013 05:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2890
Joined  2011-08-15

I think its far more likely that you’d see the States submitting a petition to carve out an exemption for religious organizations than the South attempting to secede again.  Whether you’d get 2/3rds of the states agreeing to that, is another matter.  Politics are a fickle beast, and the 2014 elections are still a long ways off, in political terms.  2016 is even farther away, and speculation as to what the public might be feeling at that time is futile.

Personally I’m more concerned that this case could become a rallying cry for the arch conservatives to take control of the Senate in the near future and essentially make Obama a lame duck for the remainder of his term. Religious freedom (and guns) is a hot button issue and will further polarize the South and Midwest. Gerrymandering has put conservative govs in half of the states and now this challenge to ACA. We could be marching back to the Bush era next election and a return to jesusland no matter how the court rules.


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 November 2013 11:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  815
Joined  2009-10-21
asanta - 26 November 2013 10:06 PM

And what is going to happen when such exemptions include no blood transfusions(JW), or only homeopathy, or only healing prayers(CS), or no psychiatric treatment(scientology)? There are probably plenty of other religions with quirky health requirements the rest of us ignore. What if your employer refused to allow you to use pepper or drink coffee (7th day adventist) or alcohol, and caffeine (mormom), pork (jews and muslims) beef (hindi)  forced you to be vegetarian (7th day adventist, jains). It can border on the ridiculous.

border?

I think you summed up the ridiculousness quite well. If they were not allowing their customers to do these things, then I might understand. Or if they weren’t using the roads that all of our taxes pay for to get to work, or for their customers to get there, then it would make perfect sense. I think some non-vegetarian condom using politicians might have voted for the clean air act, so they might want to check if they are breathing air that conforms to their beliefs too. Totally logical.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 November 2013 05:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  374
Joined  2012-02-02
asanta - 26 November 2013 10:06 PM

And what is going to happen when such exemptions include no blood transfusions(JW), or only homeopathy, or only healing prayers(CS), or no psychiatric treatment(scientology)? There are probably plenty of other religions with quirky health requirements the rest of us ignore. What if your employer refused to allow you to use pepper or drink coffee (7th day adventist) or alcohol, and caffeine (mormom), pork (jews and muslims) beef (hindi)  forced you to be vegetarian (7th day adventist, jains). It can border on the ridiculous.

And if you notice, that’s the current tack they’re taking to kill the ACA.  If the people in question were rational, they wouldn’t subscribe to half the beliefs they have.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 November 2013 06:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2245
Joined  2012-10-27

It just occured to me today that Muslims, if they had any political power here, could object to any insurance policy that pays male doctors for treating women. Religious Muslims do not allow male doctors to treat women, so why should they be forced to pay for other women to be treated by male doctors when such a thing is against their religion? It’s the same rationale behind Catholics refusing to pay for other people’s birth control. As far as I know, Muslims have not spoken up about it and Jehovah’s Witnesses have not demanded that blood transfusions be excluded. They apparently have more sense than certain Catholics (not a difficult category to inhabit).

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 November 2013 12:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1396
Joined  2010-04-22
Coldheart Tucker - 24 November 2013 08:05 PM
TromboneAndrew - 24 November 2013 07:23 PM

Ah, some good news on that front.

I doubt that the “average” middle class worker would agree that a minister deserves to be tax-exempt whereas they are not. Why make an exception for “modest” income?

I’m willing to give those guys the benefit of the doubt and say that the majority of them spend their time selflessly helping others (you know, checking up on the lonely old people, giving money to the poor, etc.).  While I doubt have any objections to the credit being removed altogether, I think that leaving it in place for moderate income pastors would blunt the impact of the inevitable cries of “Help!  Help!  I’m being repressed!” that are no doubt being heard in response to this ruling.

I selflessly dedicate myself to playing good music for people’s enjoyment, and depend on their willingness to come out to whatever establishments I happen to be performing at for income derived from such gigs. I get taxed.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 November 2013 08:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  374
Joined  2012-02-02
TromboneAndrew - 30 November 2013 12:40 AM
Coldheart Tucker - 24 November 2013 08:05 PM
TromboneAndrew - 24 November 2013 07:23 PM

Ah, some good news on that front.

I doubt that the “average” middle class worker would agree that a minister deserves to be tax-exempt whereas they are not. Why make an exception for “modest” income?

I’m willing to give those guys the benefit of the doubt and say that the majority of them spend their time selflessly helping others (you know, checking up on the lonely old people, giving money to the poor, etc.).  While I doubt have any objections to the credit being removed altogether, I think that leaving it in place for moderate income pastors would blunt the impact of the inevitable cries of “Help!  Help!  I’m being repressed!” that are no doubt being heard in response to this ruling.

I selflessly dedicate myself to playing good music for people’s enjoyment, and depend on their willingness to come out to whatever establishments I happen to be performing at for income derived from such gigs. I get taxed.

But you’re not doing it for Jebus!  Sun Tzu’s sage advice is to pick your battles carefully.  We might have history on our side, but there’s a risk of delaying the effort by going after everything all at once.  If you attack both the fat cat preachers and the little guys, the media will focus on the little guys, and pull out the tear jerker stories.  Go after the guys with the gold plated toilets and air conditioned dog houses alone, and the media can’t devote air time to the humble preacher who spends his money on things like soup kitchens.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 November 2013 02:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2245
Joined  2012-10-27
Coldheart Tucker - 30 November 2013 08:01 AM
TromboneAndrew - 30 November 2013 12:40 AM
Coldheart Tucker - 24 November 2013 08:05 PM
TromboneAndrew - 24 November 2013 07:23 PM

Ah, some good news on that front.

I doubt that the “average” middle class worker would agree that a minister deserves to be tax-exempt whereas they are not. Why make an exception for “modest” income?

I’m willing to give those guys the benefit of the doubt and say that the majority of them spend their time selflessly helping others (you know, checking up on the lonely old people, giving money to the poor, etc.).  While I doubt have any objections to the credit being removed altogether, I think that leaving it in place for moderate income pastors would blunt the impact of the inevitable cries of “Help!  Help!  I’m being repressed!” that are no doubt being heard in response to this ruling.

I selflessly dedicate myself to playing good music for people’s enjoyment, and depend on their willingness to come out to whatever establishments I happen to be performing at for income derived from such gigs. I get taxed.

But you’re not doing it for Jebus!  Sun Tzu’s sage advice is to pick your battles carefully.  We might have history on our side, but there’s a risk of delaying the effort by going after everything all at once.  If you attack both the fat cat preachers and the little guys, the media will focus on the little guys, and pull out the tear jerker stories.  Go after the guys with the gold plated toilets and air conditioned dog houses alone, and the media can’t devote air time to the humble preacher who spends his money on things like soup kitchens.

Hpwever, if there is a law that no one gets exemptions for housing (the only way such a law could pass constitutional muster) it will have to affect the humble preacher who spends his money on things like soup kitchens as well as the mega-church preachers who live in luxury,  and journalists will choose to illustrate their stories by showing how oppressive such a law is to the humble preacher. They are less likely to write about the ones shamelessly exploiting the system.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 November 2013 06:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11

That particular Judge has made secular friendly common sense rulings before, backed by pages upon pages of documentation, only to be overturned by the SCOTUS in favor of religion.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2