My point which you already agreed to still stands from post #305 (Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it? (PART II)). The stawman in this case had a purpose - to show stupidity has many forms (which was my point and you agree); just as stupid as calls for changing the definition of marriage between a man and a woman to a "union" of two people because one group doesn't think it's fair. Taken to the extreme in the 15 cases of overt stupidity.Originally Posted by AGENT J
Thanks for the support. Appreciate it.
“I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.
There is a portion of the religion part of the first amendment that goes something like this: gov't shall not set up a gov't religion... Well, if under the exact same circumstances, gov't allows certain tax breaks to religions, while disallowing tax breaks to other religions, gov't is, in essence, setting up a gov't religion...... Like I said in another post. You don't care about the religion part of the first amendment of the Constitution.
You said in another post that this couldn't happen? Well, it happened to the Methodist Church of New Jersey.
Last edited by cabse5; 09-09-13 at 10:41 AM.
if the building was used for PROFIT and COMMERCIAL or public access yes and the government should do that
just cause its owned by a religion doesnt mean it gets to discriminate outside the religious realm
try again, CHURCHES are in no danger of being forced to marry anybody
and please give us all a FACTUAL link to what exactly happened to this "church". I want to see the facts
my guess is this church owned something like a pavilion, rented out to people to uses and then when somebody wanted to use it they didnt like on religious grounds the discriminated against them and were either fined, made to rent it out anyway etc etc
ill be waiting for the link
like i said religious marriage has nothing to do with legal marriage.
like i said, you and the gov't don't care about the religion portion of the first amemment with the demand that unions be marriages.
Here's your link.
The last line of the link states that, before tax exempt status of the Ocean Grove pavillion was revoked (supposedly), Ocean Grove, NJ. was the leading light for gay tolerance and that’s not the case anymore,” Mr. Goldstein said. Ocean Grove NJ. (a gov't) is certainly not the leading light for religious tolerance. All The Methodist Church of NJ has to do is forsake their canon and they will get tax exempt status for their pavillion. In other words, the canon of the Methodist Church of NJ is wrong when attempting to achieve tax status as deemed by the gov't of Ocean Grove NJ.
Last edited by cabse5; 09-09-13 at 03:01 PM.
i called it i knew the story you were talking about it was about a publicboardwalk pavillion they owned and rented out ane let the public use.
Im familiar with this story from back in the day, i believe it was found out that the church even let other religious things go on like Bar mitvas but then didnt allow a gay ceremony which is the epitome of bigotry
the move was 100% right because a boardwalk public pavilion is NOT the church. ANd per your story just the pavilion couldnt be claimed as tax exempt, the group itself lost nothign
thanks for proving me right and my statement stands
like i said religious marriage has nothing to do with legal marriage and no CHURCH is in danger of being forced to marry anybody
So you also agree with the NJ gov't. The canon of the NJ Methodist Church is wrong when attempting to achieve tax exempt status.... Did I get that right from you?
Last edited by cabse5; 09-09-13 at 03:06 PM.
And that boardwalk pavillion in Ocean Grove, NJ is 100 percent (or was) operated and maintained by the Methodist Church of New Jersey?