• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

Beto wants to force Churches to accept Same-Sex marriage or lose their Tax-exempt status.

Aug 24, 2016
8,172
7,261
1,125

During a CNN town hall on LGBT equality, Beto O’Rourke took a clearly unconstitutional position, saying that any church or religious organization that opposes same-sex marriage should lose its tax exemption. Christian right advocates were outraged, but so I am. It’s a terrible, terrible idea.
The former El Paso congressman made the comment Thursday night during a CNN town hall on LGBTQ rights. Anchor Don Lemon asked O’Rourke, “Do you think religious institutions — like colleges, churches, charities — should lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage?”

“Yes,” O’Rourke replied without hesitating, drawing a round of applause. “There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break, for anyone or any institution, any organization in America, that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us, and so as president, we are going to make that a priority and we are going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our fellow Americans.”

No, no, a thousand times no. First, it’s unconstitutional. You cannot offer a generally available government benefit only to those groups that agree with us. How trivially easy would it be to take the exact opposite position and deny a tax exemption only for those who are anti-equality? That would be equally unconstitutional. There may be specific circumstances in which an organization’s actions justify stripping them of their tax exemption or require legal coercion (like a Christian bakery refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding), but merely taking the position that same-sex marriage is morally wrong cannot be a constitutional basis for stripping an exempt organization of that exemption.

Yeah, so now the neutral Churches (that aren't fake state run churches) will be angry causing backlash that would have been avoided if the LGBT movement didn't keep trying to put Beto in the spotlight. This is the result.

When you look at successful movement in history for better lives and/or equality, usually you don't do the exact opposite of every single one of them, but the LGBT movement has found a way to create their own bad guys for no reason. Good job.

Also Beto has been given life support for awhile. The last debate had around 4 candidates name drop him for, he's been covered by almost every left-wing media outlet, and now he's being pushed as an LGBT hero, yet he has not gained in any poll.

I think it's time for him to drop out.

What's funny is he would still have some political value if he didn't run for President, the value he had after running against Ted Cruz is all diminished.
 

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
10,553
24,782
790
Which is why Beto is a non-starter as a candidate. At this point, dude's a walking meme of the Left.
 

Tesseract

Banned
Dec 7, 2008
61,384
69,746
1,875
idiot

go write some more moo milk warez poems, scrublet
 
Last edited:

Kataploom

Member
Jan 30, 2014
1,237
790
725
Colombia
Ok, I fully support same sex marriage, 100%, marriage is only a contract to get some benefits in today's world... Now, I don't like church, but they have their own rules and as long as their rules don't have any effect in actual law, they can should be allowed to do whatever they want internally.
 

rorepmE

Member
Jan 20, 2019
1,044
2,051
430
Republic of Val Verde
how about mosques?

would imagine it'd be something like this:

 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
13,888
28,177
1,040

I think Ben has an extremely interesting take on this. I disagree with Ben on many things, but I think he's dead on in regards to the ramifications of this and the ultimate end goal of state controlled leftist education by undermining and then criminalizing organizations that don't bend the knee.

Well worth watching. Ben is heated as fuck, and I don't blame him. This is an assault on religion [and the 1st], and i can't abide by that. Freedom of religion is effectively freedom of thought.
 
Last edited:

dionysus

Yaldog
May 12, 2007
7,258
1,789
1,450
Texaa
Current Democrat playbook seems to be looking up every slippery slope concern from conservatives over the past three decades and then implementing it.

In politics, slippery slope should not be considered a fallacy. I struggle to think of any examples where the slippery slope hasn't proved to be true. Patriot Act -> Domestic spying without probably cause. Roe v. Wade -> Government support and encouragement of abortion, removal of conscience protections for religious medical practictioners. Sex education with parental consent -> Removal of opt outs, scenes from schools that look more and more like pedophile porn. Check out the clown world thread. Gay marriage -> Removal of conscience protections in the business community. Clean air and clean water acts -> Massive regulatory expansion into areas never even considered in the original congressional acts: CO2 regulation, streams that are dry 10 months of the year being considered navigable waterways, etc. Iraq war/afghanistan/syria/etc. -> Have these limited engagements ever ended? No boots on the ground promised in some cases.

Humanity is not static. Ideologies and law do not remain static, they either strengthen (ideology) and grow in scope (law) or weaken and have their scope eroded. A lot of us agree with the original aim of these laws, but they inevitably expand in scope over time until the cultural backlash reverses the process.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,266
1,405
USA
dunpachi.com
In politics, slippery slope should not be considered a fallacy. I struggle to think of any examples where the slippery slope hasn't proved to be true. Patriot Act -> Domestic spying without probably cause. Roe v. Wade -> Government support and encouragement of abortion, removal of conscience protections for religious medical practictioners. Sex education with parental consent -> Removal of opt outs, scenes from schools that look more and more like pedophile porn. Check out the clown world thread. Gay marriage -> Removal of conscience protections in the business community. Clean air and clean water acts -> Massive regulatory expansion into areas never even considered in the original congressional acts: CO2 regulation, streams that are dry 10 months of the year being considered navigable waterways, etc. Iraq war/afghanistan/syria/etc. -> Have these limited engagements ever ended? No boots on the ground promised in some cases.

Humanity is not static. Ideologies and law do not remain static, they either strengthen (ideology) and grow in scope (law) or weaken and have their scope eroded. A lot of us agree with the original aim of these laws, but they inevitably expand in scope over time until the cultural backlash reverses the process.
In principle, the slippery slope fallacy is indeed a fallacy. Another term I'd use would be "alarmism", people who are needlessly screeching about the sky falling based on current decisions.

To your point, I would say that the modern habit of jumping straight to assumptions or jumping straight to skepticism is the source of our problem. The jumping is the problem, not the standpoint. It's easy to be skeptical. It's easy to think that our current behavior will not have an impact on the future. When you believe in a Righteous Crusade™ (like environmentalism, or progressive equity, or gov't welfare for all who want it) then you will have a much harder time seeing and acknowledging flaws in your approach.

When the end result is Righteous™, the little details of how to reach the goal become far less important. Suddenly you are making moral concessions for The Cause™ because the end result is good and we can't afford to let fascism win (or something).

This is where the slippery slope becomes true, predictably.
 

#Phonepunk#

Banned
Sep 4, 2018
18,562
36,243
885
39
This culture war stuff plays well on tv. But tv is not reality. Media and politicians still live in this fake bubble America

It is funny seeing these people pander to the people most likely to vote for them. Like I don’t get it, gay people aren’t going to vote Trump unless Dems sufficiently pander, so what gives? Or do they think the fraction of a percent of trans voters will vote GOP unless they pander sufficiently? Of course not

Then I realize the answer, the pandering isn’t actually for the gay people, it’s virtue signaling for the allies. Again, people most likely to already vote your way.

If Dems want to win they need to start doing things other than preaching to the choir
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,266
1,405
USA
dunpachi.com
If Dems want to win they need to start doing things other than preaching to the choir
Heh, but that would mean finding common ground with "bigots" and "nazis" and "deplorables"

No, the Democrats are very comfortable browbeating their opponents and strong-arming people to agree with them "or else". It is the nature of moral authoritarianism, and it is its downfall.
 

Zefah

Gold Member
Jan 7, 2007
44,532
25,521
1,805
This culture war stuff plays well on tv. But tv is not reality. Media and politicians still live in this fake bubble America

It is funny seeing these people pander to the people most likely to vote for them. Like I don’t get it, gay people aren’t going to vote Trump unless Dems sufficiently pander, so what gives? Or do they think the fraction of a percent of trans voters will vote GOP unless they pander sufficiently? Of course not

Then I realize the answer, the pandering isn’t actually for the gay people, it’s virtue signaling for the allies. Again, people most likely to already vote your way.

If Dems want to win they need to start doing things other than preaching to the choir

I hate to use the word virtue signalling, but I do think that's what's going on. In light of Trump's general crassness and often awful behavior, they seem to think that demonstrating that they are "the good guys" and virtuous in all respects will sway people to vote for them. I've voted democrat all my life, but if Hillary Clinton lost 2016 by taking the "high road" against the self-admitted pussy-grabber, I do not see how any of the current line-up has any better chance of winning through manufactured "goodness." If anything, they should be pushing a message for a return to normalcy, not broadcasting that Hillary didn't go far enough in being virtuous and they intend to go as far as they can.
 

Trey

Member
Mar 3, 2010
28,367
1,166
1,005
Stripping tax exempt from churches would probably get more play if it wasn't attached to LGBT community as a strong arm tactic. It makes way more sense as a corruption and separation of church and state issue, as it should be.
 
  • Fire
Reactions: <+)O Robido O(+>

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,266
1,405
USA
dunpachi.com
Stripping tax exempt from churches would probably get more play if it wasn't attached to LGBT community as a strong arm tactic. It makes way more sense as a corruption and separation of church and state issue, as it should be.
The tax exemption is specifically for the purpose of upholding the separation of church and state, and to avoid the loophole of the government being able to suppress, restrict, or otherwise hold a religious organization back by selectively taxing them. Taxation implies the organization is under the government's jurisdiction.
 

Trey

Member
Mar 3, 2010
28,367
1,166
1,005
The tax exemption is specifically for the purpose of upholding the separation of church and state, and to avoid the loophole of the government being able to suppress, restrict, or otherwise hold a religious organization back by selectively taxing them. Taxation implies the organization is under the government's jurisdiction.

Private ventures and organizations are appropriately taxed with respect to the tax code while maintaining complete autonomy just fine - tax-exempt and non-profit organizations are beholden to governmental oversight with respect to upholding the laws of this country.

I have little problem with tax-exempt status with church in and of itself (incetivizing cultural practices is as good as any reason to grant tax exempt), but said organization benefiting from a state tax break while also violating de facto law by discriminating against LGBTQ individuals is probably not ideal.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,266
1,405
USA
dunpachi.com
Private ventures and organizations are appropriately taxed with respect to the tax code while maintaining complete autonomy just fine - tax-exempt and non-profit organizations are beholden to governmental oversight with respect to upholding the laws of this country.

I have little problem with tax-exempt status with church in and of itself (incetivizing cultural practices is as good as any reason to grant tax exempt), but said organization benefiting from a state tax break while also violating de facto law by discriminating against LGBTQ individuals is probably not ideal.
You have a funny definition of "discriminating against LGBTQ".

If taxing an organization implies they are under the government's purview, wouldn't that also imply the org is not beholden to some of the government's other requirements?

What you call "benefitting from a state tax break" is actually just the state not putting its nose where it doesn't belong. The state doesn't get a pat on the head for staying out of the boundaries outlined by the constitution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shaqazooloo

Bolivar687

Banned
Jun 13, 2014
7,264
7,842
800
USA
Private ventures and organizations are appropriately taxed with respect to the tax code while maintaining complete autonomy just fine - tax-exempt and non-profit organizations are beholden to governmental oversight with respect to upholding the laws of this country.

I have little problem with tax-exempt status with church in and of itself (incetivizing cultural practices is as good as any reason to grant tax exempt), but said organization benefiting from a state tax break while also violating de facto law by discriminating against LGBTQ individuals is probably not ideal.

A huge part of religious tax exemption is excusing them from subsidizing policies that violate their creed. Otherwise, you don't really have true freedom of religion.
 

Super Mario

Banned
Nov 12, 2016
3,479
5,929
655
What a complete loser this guy is. Here is a Democratic field that any idiot is gaining ground with any pandering you want to do. Black people? Reparations. Poor people? Free everything. Yet, this moron can't reach deep enough for anything to gain support except for this.
 

KINGMOKU

Member
May 16, 2005
8,387
7,538
1,710
You have a funny definition of "discriminating against LGBTQ".

If taxing an organization implies they are under the government's purview, wouldn't that also imply the org is not beholden to some of the government's other requirements?

What you call "benefitting from a state tax break" is actually just the state not putting its nose where it doesn't belong. The state doesn't get a pat on the head for staying out of the boundaries outlined by the constitution.
The fact that this has to explained to some people is embarrassing.

Trey should be embarrassed in not understanding something so fundamental.
 

dionysus

Yaldog
May 12, 2007
7,258
1,789
1,450
Texaa
This culture war stuff plays well on tv. But tv is not reality. Media and politicians still live in this fake bubble America

It is funny seeing these people pander to the people most likely to vote for them. Like I don’t get it, gay people aren’t going to vote Trump unless Dems sufficiently pander, so what gives? Or do they think the fraction of a percent of trans voters will vote GOP unless they pander sufficiently? Of course not

Then I realize the answer, the pandering isn’t actually for the gay people, it’s virtue signaling for the allies. Again, people most likely to already vote your way.

If Dems want to win they need to start doing things other than preaching to the choir

The demographics of primary voters explain this behavior. They aren't trying to win the general election yet, they are trying to be the chosen Democratic candidate. Primary voters skew heavily towards your hardcore base. The Democratic party's base is also skewed heavily to identity groups instead of ideologies. So they throw red meat to various groups that make up the Democratic tent, trying to outdo each other with pandering.

Typically they will try to moderate the message for mass consumption once they become the clear frontrunner in the primary. I have no idea how they are going to moderate no limits on illegal immigration, free healthcare for immigrants, college loan forgiveness, etc. I feel like the democrat party is taking crazy pills, but then again they still win elections so what do I know.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,266
1,405
USA
dunpachi.com
The fact that this has to explained to some people is embarrassing.

Trey should be embarrassed in not understanding something so fundamental.
Well, when someone wants to take a protection we have from the government and pretend we owe our government subservience as if it is some kind of benevolent dispensation, I begin to suspect they have bad motives or are being used as suckers for bad motives.

Even moreso, when the government keeping its nose out of our business is viewed to be something that should implictly require the org to follow the government's other rules, I get pretty skittish.

Trey, what do you mean by this?

said organization benefiting from a state tax break while also violating de facto law by discriminating against LGBTQ individuals is probably not ideal.

Should a church be under threat of "losing" tax exemption status if it doesn't abide by the discrimination laws imposed by the state? The whole point of separation of church and state is to prevent the church from imposing moral guidelines upon the state, and from the state controlling the operation of the church.

So a historical example would be when the Pope imposed laws upon all nations within Christendom and the kings were forced to comply on threat of being excommunicated or otherwise ostracized by their spiritual leader. This happened a lot. In fact, there were some people who got so fed up with it, they began leaving their homelands and sailing across the ocean. I hope you are starting to realize how this relates to our topic of discussion...
 

Kenpachii

Member
Mar 23, 2018
6,965
8,368
765
Church and State live side by side. State doesn't rule church, and the church doesn't rule the state.
 

Cato

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
5,405
8,479
755



Yeah, so now the neutral Churches (that aren't fake state run churches) will be angry causing backlash that would have been avoided if the LGBT movement didn't keep trying to put Beto in the spotlight. This is the result.

When you look at successful movement in history for better lives and/or equality, usually you don't do the exact opposite of every single one of them, but the LGBT movement has found a way to create their own bad guys for no reason. Good job.

Also Beto has been given life support for awhile. The last debate had around 4 candidates name drop him for, he's been covered by almost every left-wing media outlet, and now he's being pushed as an LGBT hero, yet he has not gained in any poll.

I think it's time for him to drop out.

What's funny is he would still have some political value if he didn't run for President, the value he had after running against Ted Cruz is all diminished.

Would that apply only to Christian Churches? or would it also apply to Mosques?
 

#Phonepunk#

Banned
Sep 4, 2018
18,562
36,243
885
39
Churches should be taxed like every other business.
Other businesses don’t feed and house the homeless, open hospitals, community building, etc.

The tax free status is largely due to all the charity work. People that shit on religion love to forget all that stuff. Like Mr Robert Slave Money O’Rourke here

You aren’t going to see Apple or Valve running a soup kitchen
 
Last edited:
Aug 24, 2016
8,172
7,261
1,125
Would that apply only to Christian Churches? or would it also apply to Mosques?

Churches, Beto has already let Islam slide, and he's triples, and 4x-5x downed on Churches removing tax exempt status.

Also Pete supports this as well but he's supposed to be a gay Christian (non-existent) which shows he's nothing but a pawn, but he hasn't even climbed the polls since the start so he's been done for awhile, just like Beto.
 

TheContact

Gold Member
Jan 22, 2016
6,481
6,155
860
I like Beto but this doesn't make sense. The point is that Church and State is separated. If Churches want to be bigots for the rest of their lives, they have that right to do so.
 
Nov 17, 2012
2,181
142
560
Ohio
This just shows how people don't understand why Religious Institutions are not taxed. Religious Institutions can't be taxed as they are separated from the state. Taxation is a function of the state and so to then say if you don't do what we say we will start taxing you is showing a misunderstanding of the system in the first place as you lack the ability to tax the religious institutions for the same reason you can't tell them what to do.
 
Last edited:

TheContact

Gold Member
Jan 22, 2016
6,481
6,155
860
Goddamn churches with their bigotted hospitals and charities 🙄

Goddamn churches with their bigoted pedophilia rings.
Goddamn churches with their bigoted torture of those who thought the Earth was round.
Goddamn churches with their bigoted burning of women they thought were witches.

Just because Churches can do good things doesn't mean they aren't capable of doing bad shit either.

If you don't evolve and adapt, you die. Let them be bigots, idc.
 

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
Feb 9, 2009
37,903
4,869
1,905
Ok, I fully support same sex marriage, 100%, marriage is only a contract to get some benefits in today's world... Now, I don't like church, but they have their own rules and as long as their rules don't have any effect in actual law, they can should be allowed to do whatever they want internally.
I'll add into this that the churches that only exist for profit and self-enrichment of money should not be taxed exempt. Go after them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kataploom

Cucked SoyBoy

Banned
Dec 18, 2018
627
917
325
I like Beto but this doesn't make sense. The point is that Church and State is separated. If Churches want to be bigots for the rest of their lives, they have that right to do so.


Churches are quite correct to exclude gays. Allowing gays into the Catholic Church (and then covering for them) has virtually destroyed it. It's now lost all moral authority and is a figure of mockery worldwide.

And you wonder why we didn't want gays in the Boy Scouts....
 
  • Triggered
Reactions: Trojita

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
Feb 9, 2009
37,903
4,869
1,905
Churches are quite correct to exclude gays. Allowing gays into the Catholic Church (and then covering for them) has virtually destroyed it. It's now lost all moral authority and is a figure of mockery worldwide.

And you wonder why we didn't want gays in the Boy Scouts....
Gay people that love another adult within a consensual relationship is not the same as covering for pedo predators. The Catholic Church could have remedied some of the issues with who gets into the clergy by allowing Priests to marry. Even Popes in the past had children.

lllegitimate children of Popes even has its own wikipedia landing page

Not once do I remember Jesus telling his disciples that they should not marry wives and should not have children.
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
11,761
19,868
705
Goddamn churches with their bigoted pedophilia rings.
Goddamn churches with their bigoted torture of those who thought the Earth was round.
Goddamn churches with their bigoted burning of women they thought were witches.

Just because Churches can do good things doesn't mean they aren't capable of doing bad shit either.

If you don't evolve and adapt, you die. Let them be bigots, idc.
Oh no churches did bad things a thousand years ago. 🙄

We better tax them, and shut down their charities and hospitals. Hurting millions of Americans in the process. That will teach those bigots to try help people in 2019 America.

"I'm a narcissistic Democratic presidential candidate with no chance of winning, and I approve this message."
 

Cucked SoyBoy

Banned
Dec 18, 2018
627
917
325
Gay people that love another adult within a consensual relationship is not the same as covering for pedo predators. The Catholic Church could have remedied some of the issues with who gets into the clergy by allowing Priests to marry. Even Popes in the past had children.

lllegitimate children of Popes even has its own wikipedia landing page

Not once do I remember Jesus telling his disciples that they should not marry wives and should not have children.


Nope, they're just gay dudes, sorry. Ever wonder why it's always boys getting raped by priests? HMMMM....

Anyway allowing priests to marry at this point would just be used as a wedge to allow gay marriage. Basically the Church just needs to start over, fire absolutely all gay priests, and purge the seminaries of gays (because the seminary is full of gays, normal men stay away and don't join).
 

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
Feb 9, 2009
37,903
4,869
1,905
Nope, they're just gay dudes, sorry. Ever wonder why it's always boys getting raped by priests? HMMMM....
You do realize a lot of those raped were altar boys right? Vulnerable children they could get close to because of the system setup within the church. Alter girls weren't a thing.

Maybe you need to cut off the soy. You aren't getting enough protein to your brain.