Canpol: Stick a fork in them, and congrats on the nuptials

[Wezil]

No, Durham School Board was appealing.

[KrazyHorse]

Durham School Board receives public monies.

[Wezil]

and your point is?

[KrazyHorse]

That I don't see how this can be compared to a church losing tax-exempt status for refusing to perform a gay wedding.

[KrazyHorse]

Being funded out of the public purse is a far cry from simply having tax-exempt status.

[Wezil]

Is not tax-exempt in reality the same as public monies? You and I pay higher taxes to support the government than we would have to if tax-emempt status didn't exist. We are still paying through a different means.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Wezil
Is not tax-exempt in reality the same as public monies?

No.

[Wezil]

Okay my friend. Suppose cigarettes become tax exempt tomorrow. Will your overall taxes increase (I assume you are a nonsmoker)?

[KrazyHorse]

Son, I understand what you're saying.

What I'm telling you is that legally, receiving a tax exemption as a nonprofit organisation has never carried with it the same sort of obligations that receiving public monies has.

[St Leo]

Well, you can't exactly fund your existence simply by not being taxed...

[KrazyHorse]

The SCoC has already ruled that churches cannot be forced to perform gay weddings, and they're on solid legal ground. Everybody knew that they'd rule that way because they have hundreds of years of common law precedent to back them up in that opinion.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Son, I understand what you're saying.

What I'm telling you is that legally, receiving a tax exemption as a nonprofit organisation has never carried with it the same sort of obligations that receiving public monies has.

That I can agree with. Duties required of the two may be different. However there is still a burden ($$) carried by the public in both cases. If I am asked to carry the burden then I have a say in what is being supported.

Btw, you can't call me son. I'm old enough to be yer daddy.

[KrazyHorse]

Trying to bootstrap your way from tax-exemption to public funding is ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Wezil
If I am asked to carry the burden then I have a say in what is being supported.

Not if you're "supporting" it simply through tax exemption. It's never worked that way, and it's not about to.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The SCoC has already ruled that churches cannot be forced to perform gay weddings, and they're on solid legal ground. Everybody knew that they'd rule that way because they have hundreds of years of common law precedent to back them up in that opinion.

\

What did the hundreds of years of common law say on "marriage"?