So it Begins: This State Forces LGBT “Accommodation” Rules on Its Churches

[xbb]

http://freedomoutpost.com/so-it-begins-this-state-forces-lgbt-accommodation-rules-on-its-churches/

 

[xbb]

but not Mosques

 

[eyerami]

Any "church" worth its nails [pun intended] should have long ago began withdrawing as much/as far away as it possibly could from the draconian tidal waving affect of progressivism in the USSA today...

Yet, still, it's very simple to fully counter this particular nazi kindergartener-in-training move: just signify the church as "PRIVATE", alerting all who enter/attend any function/activity under its umbrella that their voluntary attendance itself constitutes full agreement to, and acceptance of that stipulation.

After all, that's exactly what all individual patriotic Americans should've have been doing for the last decade now: reannouncing themselves as "PRIVATE" citizens whose inalienable rights are superior to whatever government chooses to illegitimately rule over them.

That DEFENSIVE, AMERICAN REVOLUTIONARY stance is the ONLY one patriots can take today IF they still hold any hope at all to actually thwart the bastard progressives currently occupying America.

Of course, "PRIVATE"/withdraw means that individuals can no longer take personal advantage of all the comfort/security bones USSA progressivism so purposely tosses around to keep its lemmings at heel...

Keep fully funding what you love to whine about, busybody: it's inevitable that you get exactly what you pay for.

 

[Setanta84]

If you think these sorts of laws infringe on your ability to live a Christian life, you're a pretty shitty Christian and reader. When these people are clutching their pearls over letting gay people use the bathroom at a public event, do they ever bother to reflect on the basic themes and meaning of passages like "The Parable of the Good Samaritan?" Hint: Jesus was explicitly criticizing this type of person.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

If you think these sorts of laws infringe on your ability to live a Christian life, you're a pretty shitty Christian and reader. When these people are clutching their pearls over letting gay people use the bathroom at a public event, do they ever bother to reflect on the basic themes and meaning of passages like "The Parable of the Good Samaritan?" Hint: Jesus was explicitly criticizing this type of person.

I was once taken hostage by the Salvation Army. One of the peons forgot to make me sign in and the head peon wouldn't let me leave. I said, CALL THE COPS. They refused. I finally convinced the women, all were women, that they were flirting with legal trouble (I was a state agent on official business).

 

[eyerami]

In the beginning, it was The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America which announced to the world the resolve of a new nation being born. Today, individual patriotic Americans need to declare their "PRIVATE", self-government independence anew with the very same revolutionary spirit:

Resolved, That this individual is, and of right ought to be, free and independent; that I am absolved from all allegiance to the United Socialist State of America government, and that all political connection between myself and the occupying socialist state of America is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

Thus declaring, the self-governing individual American patriotic must then, naturally, stand stoutly upon their own revolutionary ground...

...and DEFEND it.

So that, if it's a war progressives want...

...they shall have it.

 

[eyerami]

I was once taken hostage by the Salvation Army.

And the Salvation Army paid his family a million bucks to take him back.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

In the beginning, it was The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America which announced to the world the resolve of a new nation being born. Today, individual patriotic Americans need to declare their "PRIVATE", self-government independence anew with the very same revolutionary spirit:

Resolved, That this individual is, and of right ought to be, free and independent; that I am absolved from all allegiance to the United Socialist State of America government, and that all political connection between myself and the occupying socialist state of America is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

Thus declaring, the self-governing individual American patriotic must then, naturally, stand stoutly upon their own revolutionary ground...

...and DEFEND it.

So that, if it's a war progressives want...

...they shall have it.

what a fucking parody of a human being you are. Go ahead, send that "Declaration" to your local and state government. When Jonny Law comes a-knockin to collect the taxes you owe on your bunker you'll be pissing down your leg.

 

[eyerami]

If you think these sorts of laws infringe on your ability to live a Christian life, you're a pretty shitty Christian and reader. When these people are clutching their pearls over letting gay people use the bathroom at a public event, do they ever bother to reflect on the basic themes and meaning of passages like "The Parable of the Good Samaritan?" Hint: Jesus was explicitly criticizing this type of person.

You should really stick to playground soapboxing:

"Jesus", totally unlike progressive USSA government, doesn't force anyone to do anything...

Which is the issue, wannabe.

 

[eyerami]

It always happens like that when a bozo fantasizes he can get by in life without his big, red nose...

I strategically choose to squat in the desert badlands of The Republic of Texas, a state which legislates absolutely no individual income tax, and where I automatically and instantly pay state and local sales taxes on everything I purchase and every service I employ.

I do not own anything that can be taxed in any way, shape, or form - "Jonny Law" here has no business with me.

Poor cuckolds must imagine everyone lives like chunky creampie and boot heel-loving slaves like them.

 

[BotanyBoy]

If you think these sorts of laws infringe on your ability to live a Christian life, you're a pretty shitty Christian and reader. When these people are clutching their pearls over letting gay people use the bathroom at a public event, do they ever bother to reflect on the basic themes and meaning of passages like "The Parable of the Good Samaritan?" Hint: Jesus was explicitly criticizing this type of person.

That's a nice opinion.

Why are you so supportive of the government forcing your opinion down everyone's throat under penalty of law?

Are you really so insecure in your beliefs?

 

[Mello_SixtyNine]

Any "church" worth its nails [pun intended] should have long ago began withdrawing as much/as far away as it possibly could from the draconian tidal waving affect of progressivism in the USSA today...

Yet, still, it's very simple to fully counter this particular nazi kindergartener-in-training move: just signify the church as "PRIVATE", alerting all who enter/attend any function/activity under its umbrella that their voluntary attendance itself constitutes full agreement to, and acceptance of that stipulation.

After all, that's exactly what all individual patriotic Americans should've have been doing for the last decade now: reannouncing themselves as "PRIVATE" citizens whose inalienable rights are superior to whatever government chooses to illegitimately rule over them.

That DEFENSIVE, AMERICAN REVOLUTIONARY stance is the ONLY one patriots can take today IF they still hold any hope at all to actually thwart the bastard progressives currently occupying America.

Of course, "PRIVATE"/withdraw means that individuals can no longer take personal advantage of all the comfort/security bones USSA progressivism so purposely tosses around to keep its lemmings at heel...

Keep fully funding what you love to whine about, busybody: it's inevitable that you get exactly what you pay for.

If churches want to keep their tax free status, they need to catch up to the rest of the 21st century.

 

[BotanyBoy]

If churches want to keep their tax free status, they need to catch up to the rest of the 21st century.

Bullshit.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

If you think these sorts of laws infringe on your ability to live a Christian life, you're a pretty shitty Christian and reader. When these people are clutching their pearls over letting gay people use the bathroom at a public event, do they ever bother to reflect on the basic themes and meaning of passages like "The Parable of the Good Samaritan?" Hint: Jesus was explicitly criticizing this type of person.

Muslims want to kill gays. They stone them for fun in their home countries. Should we force mosques to accommodate too?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Once again, we are a mere three hours into a typical BB panic thread and not the OP or a single respondent has bothered to actually research what the State of Massachusetts has actually done.

Why am I not the least bit surprised?

Here is the text of Massachusetts Senate Bill 2407 which will take effect on October 1. I defy anyone here to find any reference in the bill to a church or religious facility. https://legiscan.com/MA/text/S2407/id/1422505

Here is the text of Section 92A of Chapter 272 of the General Laws of Massachusetts which Senate Bill 2407 amends. I defy anyone here to find any reference in the statute to a church or religious facility under the legal definition of a place of "public accommodation." https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section92A

Here is a notice of "guidance" issued on September 1 by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) "to educate the public" with respect to passage of Senate Bill 2407. A single line from this notice of guidance is what apparently has everyone's panties in a twist. It says on page 4:

Even a church could be seen as a place of public accommodation if it holds a secular event, such as a spaghetti supper, that is open to the general public.

That declaration is itself qualified by a footnoted reference that reads:

All charges, including those involving religious institutions or religious exemptions, are reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

So what we have here is NO LAW WHATSOEVER............IN THE ARGUABLY MOST LIBERAL STATE IN THE UNION..................DEFINING A CHURCH AS A FACILITY OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION.............SUBJECT TO STATE LAW GOVERNING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF GENDER IDENTITY.

The only morsel of "substance" is an administrative opinion from a state agency as to the "applicable" scope of existing law WHICH IS UNSUBSTANTIATED BY A SINGLE PRIOR COURT RULING WITHIN THE STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!!!

Now it could be that the MCAD will someday be proved right. A church-sponsored Bingo night, picnic, festival, concert or golf tournament which CLEARLY targets or solicits the patronage of the general public might well be held to the existing standards of state law prohibiting discrimination in "public accommodations." And IF that should EVER PROVE to be the case, then Pastor Bob might have been better advised to have restricted his missionary outreach to Sunday school and sermons on the sabbath.

But until then, could we please find something more worthy of wetting your bed about?

 

[Mello_SixtyNine]

I'm kinda amazed their tax free status was not revoked years ago after the massive & systematic pedophile priest scandal. The scandal was even more fucked up in Milwaukee because then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the man who became Pope Benedict XVI) conspired with the Milwaukee Archdiocese on the matter.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I'm kinda amazed their tax free status was not revoked years ago

Well....the 1st Amendment is real, and would be VERY difficult to get rid of so IDK why you're amazed.

But until then, could we please find something more worthy of wetting your bed about?

It's a busybody thread on the GB.............
http://orig02.deviantart.net/969d/f/2013/300/8/2/no_rage_face_by_bluetaffy-d6s0gxr.png

 

[Mello_SixtyNine]

Well....the 1st Amendment is real, and would be VERY difficult to get rid of so IDK why you're amazed.





It's a busybody thread on the GB.............
http://orig02.deviantart.net/969d/f/2013/300/8/2/no_rage_face_by_bluetaffy-d6s0gxr.png

Oh, I didn't realize that the 1st amendment not only gives me the freedom of speech but also lets me abstain from paying taxes...sweet!

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Well....the 1st Amendment is real, and would be VERY difficult to get rid of so IDK why you're amazed.

-sigh- Probably because there is nothing in the tax code that "respect an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof" simply by the theoretical possibility of imposing a tax liability on the revenue generated by non-profit organizations, including churches.

The exemption is merely one of administrative law based on "enlightened" social policy. It has no Constitutional derivations whatsoever.

Come on, you're smarter than that.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Oh, I didn't realize that the 1st amendment not only gives me the freedom of speech but also lets me abstain from paying taxes...sweet!

If it's for worship/the church then it does.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

-sigh- Probably because there is nothing in the tax code that "respect an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof" simply by the theoretical possibility of imposing a tax liability on the revenue generated by non-profit organizations, including churches.

The exemption is merely one of administrative law based on "enlightened" social policy. It has no Constitutional derivations whatsoever.

Come on, you're smarter than that.

How can you have "free exercise thereof" if you're taxing the exercise thereof?

Kinda a direct infringement no?

 

[xbb]

Mosques are free from law

 

[phrodeau]

It always happens like that when a bozo fantasizes he can get by in life without his big, red nose...

I strategically choose to squat in the desert badlands of The Republic of Texas, a state which legislates absolutely no individual income tax, and where I automatically and instantly pay state and local sales taxes on everything I purchase and every service I employ.

I do not own anything that can be taxed in any way, shape, or form - "Jonny Law" here has no business with me.

Poor cuckolds must imagine everyone lives like chunky creampie and boot heel-loving slaves like them.

You'll be mailing in your little resolution, then?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

If it's for worship/the church then it does.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.




How can you have "free exercise thereof" if you're taxing the exercise thereof?

Kinda a direct infringement no?

No. Not in any way, shape or form. In fact, exemption from taxes imposed upon everyone else can be viewed as a violation of the "respecting an establishment" clause, at least philosophically. What could better establish religious practice than to free it from financial responsibility incumbent on everyone else? The law has held differently, of course.

The "free" exercise of religion clearly has a theological/philosophical context rather than a monetary one. Certainly that theological context should (and to my knowledge does) cover the giving of a tithe from practitioners to the larger church body or clergy, but it would clearly NOT cover any and all revenue generation practices, especially those NOT demonstrably related to the spiritual underpinnings of the religion.

God knows () many have tried that scam, some successful, some not. I, for one, have no sympathy for scammers who use the First Amendment as nothing more than a scheme. That does NOT include the overwhelming majority of religions, priests or pastors, but I'm not going to fault the IRS or Congress for holding people's feet to the fire.

 

[BotanyBoy]

No. Not in any way, shape or form. In fact, exemption from taxes imposed upon everyone else can be viewed as a violation of the "respecting an establishment" clause, at least philosophically. What could better establish religious practice than to free it from financial responsibility incumbent on everyone else? The law has held differently, of course.

So you don't think it's at all a violation of the Constitution for DIRECTLY TAXING people for worshiping their gods?

Wow.

The "free" exercise of religion clearly has a theological/philosophical context rather than a monetary one. Certainly that theological context should (and to my knowledge does) cover the giving of a tithe from practitioners to the larger church body or clergy,

Now I'm confused. Do you think it's constitutional for the government to tax people for worshiping their god(s) or not?

If the gov decides they need to charge a nickle per prayer is that an infringement?

but it would clearly NOT cover any and all revenue generation practices, especially those NOT demonstrably related to the spiritual underpinnings of the religion.

I'm not talking about not taxing the church on profiting which is wholly different than worshiping or maintaining a place for people to worship.

I'm talking about the direct taxation for worship individually or as a group.

God knows () many have tried that scam, some successful, some not. I, for one, have no sympathy for scammers who use the First Amendment as nothing more than a scheme. That does NOT include the overwhelming majority of religions, priests or pastors, but I'm not going to fault the IRS or Congress for holding people's feet to the fire.

Yea I have no sympathy for scammers selling "I <3 Jesus" T shirts for tax free profit getting nailed.

 

[xbb]

The guidance specifically mentions churches as falling under the “public accommodation” restrictions against “discrimination” on the basis of gender identity: “Even a church could be seen as a place of public accommodation if it holds a secular event, such as a spaghetti supper, that is open to the general public,” the MCAD explained.

The restrictions are massive. Any “public accommodation” must allow patrons to use men’s or women’s restrooms — and locker rooms and changing rooms— “consistent with their gender identity.” Such places must also “use names, pronouns, and gender-related terms appropriate to employee’s stated gender identity in communications with employee and with others.”

These are not small asks for churches, Christian schools, and other organizations which operate on Christian principles