Page 102 of 122 FirstFirst ... 25292100101102103104112 ... LastLast
Results 1,011 to 1,020 of 1212

Thread: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

  1. #1011
    Guru
    Mustachio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,582

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    What if the car drives itself and all the person has to do is collect the fees? Then what?
    then i apply to be a cab driver
    A working class hero is something to be

  2. #1012
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    yep many things like this are DRENCHED in hypocrisy and bigotry

    there was a case where a church owned a pavilion on a separate piece of public access property at a boardwalk and rented it out all the time. They tried to deny a gay wedding there and tried to claim because of religious reasons which is complete crap lol

    a pavillion is not a church
    and they rent it out as a business

    and the best part is when it was checked into they rented it out to other nonreligious weddings, non religious events and jewish events too LMAO what big dummies they were lying and trying to claim religion as a reason, you shouldnt lie to a judge

    well the judge granted usage of the pavillion and then took thier tax exempt status away from them just for that piece of property

    justice served

    Your thinking of the Ocean Grove Pavilion, but you got a couple of things wrong.

    1. The pavilion was owned not by the Methodist Church, but the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. The OGCMA is not a church it is a civic nonprofit organization incorporated not under the Church provisions of the tax code, but under the non-religious, non-profit portion.

    2. Since the Church didn't own the pavilion, the Church didn't loose it's tax exemption. Hell the OGCMA didn't loose it's tax exemption.


    The OGCMA had applied for and received a special program in NJ called the Green Acres program. Under this program individuals and organizations which would have normally paid property tax (and since the pavilion was owned by the OGCMA and not the Church the property was subject to property tax) would be exempt from the property tax under the agreed upon conditions of the exemptions. One of which was that the property would be open and accessible to the public. The OGCMA even had to periodically renew the agreement to stay eligible.

    The result of the case was that the OGCMA was found in violation of their agreement and the property tax exemption status of the pavilion only was revoked (but not the accompanying boardwalk area).


    ****************************

    You should be very careful when discussing this case. Some use it to try to show that a Church was sued for not holding a gay wedding and lost their tax exempt status. That IS NOT the case.


    >>>>

  3. #1013
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,798

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    Your thinking of the Ocean Grove Pavilion, but you got a couple of things wrong.

    1. The pavilion was owned not by the Methodist Church, but the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. The OGCMA is not a church it is a civic nonprofit organization incorporated not under the Church provisions of the tax code, but under the non-religious, non-profit portion.

    2. Since the Church didn't own the pavilion, the Church didn't loose it's tax exemption. Hell the OGCMA didn't loose it's tax exemption.


    The OGCMA had applied for and received a special program in NJ called the Green Acres program. Under this program individuals and organizations which would have normally paid property tax (and since the pavilion was owned by the OGCMA and not the Church the property was subject to property tax) would be exempt from the property tax under the agreed upon conditions of the exemptions. One of which was that the property would be open and accessible to the public. The OGCMA even had to periodically renew the agreement to stay eligible.

    The result of the case was that the OGCMA was found in violation of their agreement and the property tax exemption status of the pavilion only was revoked (but not the accompanying boardwalk area).


    ****************************

    You should be very careful when discussing this case. Some use it to try to show that a Church was sued for not holding a gay wedding and lost their tax exempt status. That IS NOT the case.


    >>>>
    hmm interesting and awesome



    that seems just like the story i was referring to and of course it almost has to be because what are the oods of the stories that i was reading and that were being discussed here different.

    but i swore there was an articles talking about a pavilion and the church lost its tax status but just on the property. Ill have to see if i can find it now to make sure its the same.
    do you have any articles on it?
    also i thought this was years ago, equal rights for gays was only just recent in NJ or was the wedding a non legally sanction wedding or did NJ have laws about sexual orientation before it had gay rights?

    anyway THANK YOU for providing that!
    like i said it has to be the case just not sure

    and yes any idiot using that as an example of a "church" being sued is severely wrong
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  4. #1014
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    hmm interesting and awesome



    that seems just like the story i was referring to and of course it almost has to be because what are the oods of the stories that i was reading and that were being discussed here different.

    but i swore there was an articles talking about a pavilion and the church lost its tax status but just on the property. Ill have to see if i can find it now to make sure its the same.
    do you have any articles on it?
    also i thought this was years ago, equal rights for gays was only just recent in NJ or was the wedding a non legally sanction wedding or did NJ have laws about sexual orientation before it had gay rights?

    anyway THANK YOU for providing that!
    like i said it has to be the case just not sure

    and yes any idiot using that as an example of a "church" being sued is severely wrong

    NJ didn't have Same-sex Civil Marriage at the time, the couple was performing a non-civil wedding - also referred to as a commitment ceremony.


    http://www.adfmedia.org/files/OGCMA-...ookieSupport=1



    >>>>

  5. #1015
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    ... probably learned that trick from Fox News..

    ObamaCare could lead to loss of nearly 2.3 million US jobs, report says | Fox News

    (only an illustration... not meant to be debated... there are plenty of threads for that)
    It never fails. Whenever I criticize the MSM some lib jumps up and shouts, "OH YEAH, WHAT ABOUT FOX".

  6. #1016
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,798

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    NJ didn't have Same-sex Civil Marriage at the time, the couple was performing a non-civil wedding - also referred to as a commitment ceremony.


    http://www.adfmedia.org/files/OGCMA-...ookieSupport=1



    >>>>
    awesome thanks for the info thats what i guessed

    if i cant find the other one, which you are right its probably this one ill save this one
    thanks again
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  7. #1017
    Sage
    Kreton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Last Seen
    11-13-17 @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,118

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

    I dont think any business should be forced to do business with anyone they dont want to. That said, I am fine with these types of bills.
    “Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”
    Stephen R. Covey


  8. #1018
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    This fight against liberalism it taking root in many parts of Europe. I'm not sure what your point is - liberals are going to fight back by calling their opponents names. What you don't see from liberals, because they're mostly emotionally driven people, is a rebuttal to the charge of liberals stomping their jackboots on the throat of liberty and gutting the Right of Free Association. They don't rebut the charge because they can't, and so instead they resort to name-calling.

    You pointing to instances of name calling is supposed to accomplish what?
    You might wish to rethink your support for the fascist group in the Ukraine, the red and black flag seen at the beginning of your embedded video belongs to a party that sided with the Nazis during WWII. In Israel, they are worried about this group and its outspoken anti-Semitism to the point warnings have been sent to the Jewish community in the Ukraine.

    Op Ed: Tea with Neo-Nazis

    The most worrisome and largely overseen factor of the ongoing Ukrainian tragedy, to me, is the mighty Neo-Nazi presence among the opposition hard-core militants from ultra-right nationalistic parties and movements. The threat posed by those forces should be not under-estimated, especially in the context of rapidly rising ultra-national forces all over Europe, the current. new ugly ‘fashion’.
    The Return of the Ukrainian Far Right
    pg. 237
    By recruiting Tiahnybok, who had run as an independent candidate, into the Nasha Ukraina faction of the VerkhovnaRada, Yushchenko provided Svoboda a certain legitimacy. A few month slater, Tiahnybok gave an inflammatory speech in which he celebrated the OUN-UPA for having “fought against the Muscovite [moskali], Germans, Jews [zhydy] and other scum, who wanted to take away our Ukrainian state!” and asserted that Ukraine was ruled by a “Muscovite-Jewish [moskal’s’ko-zhydivs’ka] mafia.”
    Telling the Truth About Ukraine’s Rising Anti-Semitic ‘Svoboda’ Party: An Eye-Opening Experience – With Portents for Ukraine’s Future

    Maria Zubareva, president of a group called All-Ukrainian Association “Journalists Solidarity.” She attributes the high level of anti-Semitic attacks in Ukraine to the virulent campaign that landed Svoboda with almost 10% of the votes at last year’s parliamentary election. Svoboda legitimized racial and national intolerance, which led to increasing violence on the ground, she argued and concluded, “Svoboda [is] a real threat to the Jewish community of Ukraine.”
    <snip>
    Matthew Lina of the conservative-leaning Center for the Study of the Former Soviet Socialist Republics aptly called Svoboda “fascists (‘racist xenophobic national socialists’…)”
    Yeah, those "totalitarian liberals" must surely be the source of the problem in the Ukraine, we all know that it was the Jews who originated that liberal **** anyway - amirite?
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  9. #1019
    He's the most tip top
    Top Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,296

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Kreton View Post
    I dont think any business should be forced to do business with anyone they dont want to. That said, I am fine with these types of bills.
    Most haters under the guise of Christianity agree with you. And yet what would Christ do?

  10. #1020
    Sage
    Kreton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Last Seen
    11-13-17 @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,118

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    Most haters under the guise of Christianity agree with you. And yet what would Christ do?
    what?
    “Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”
    Stephen R. Covey


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •