Pope: Catholics should ask gay people for forgiveness

[Bereta_Eder]

We played 50 questions with the SO.
I had the sea shell and a byzantine cross from the paligenessis of the nation.

All I got was religious questions.

She laughed.

I got the cross off and I won

[Bereta_Eder]

true story

[Giancarlo]

Yes, that is what the penalty is about. You've been arguing that Christian bakers should be forced to cater homosexual weddings contrary to their conscience rights.

Lying once again. You simply don't understand that businesses are bound by laws.

And that's my point -if you're arguing that 'marriage is a secular institution', what you are arguing is, "the sacrament of marriage should have nothing to do with the Church and everything to do with the state. This is a religious argument, in the sense that you are making claims about what the sacrament of marriage entails.

Marriage is a civil institution. What you are talking about is a religious wedding. Are you against atheists getting married?

Or rather they do everything in the ceremony except have it in the church. I have been to many weddings, Gian.

I know many couples that simply file out the paperwork at the county. Straight couples too who forgo the often expensive religious ceremony.

[Berzerker]

where certain things (churches, hospitals, museums, etc) obviously do not count towards that income

Churches are supposed to be private

[Ben Kenobi]

You simply don't understand that businesses are bound by laws.

Then you have no issues with "things being forced down your throat" because they are laws.

Marriage is a civil institution. What you are talking about is a religious wedding. Are you against atheists getting married?

Nothing, but I have a beef with the argument that marriage is a secular institution.

Straight couples too who forgo the often expensive religious ceremony

My two best friends are atheists and all of them had ceremonies, just didn't have a priest officiating.

[Berzerker]

Forcing people to pay for abortion is wrong.

Forcing people to pay for religion is wrong

As for war - national defense is a legitimate expense of the state. No state can exist without it.

Forcing people to pay for the killing of pregnant women in other countries is wrong... You jumped from morality to the needs of "the state"... Who gets to decide what the state needs? What if they decide abortion funding is needed? Two wars in Iraq were not about national defense and we were lied into both, hardly legitimate... Nevertheless, you still support forcing opponents of war to fund them. It doesn't matter if you think thats legitimate, morality is not defined by the needs of the state - thats fascism (or communism?)

One, it's not a subsidy if it's an exemption from taxation.

A subsidy is a benefit given by the government to groups or individuals, usually in the form of a cash payment or a tax reduction. The subsidy is typically given to remove some type of burden, and it is often considered to be in the overall interest of the public.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp

if your church doesn't pay taxes somebody else is, there's no difference between that and a cash payment to churches to cover their share of the tax burden

Two, the reason this is done is because of the charitable activities done by the Church. Money spent on property taxes would be taking away from these charitable activities. The Church is also way more efficient, which is why this is a sensible law.

Shouldn't the flock pay for that stuff? Why are they slipping their fingers into our wallets? And the flock even gets to deduct their financial support from their taxes so the rest of us get hit again. Is it still charity if you're getting paid for it?

There are all kinds of nonsense subsidies for 'green' boondoggles. Like I said, 'Green' is a religion these days and it has official state support.

So now you complain about subsidies for religion

[Ming]

Yes, that is what the penalty is about.

Keep on lying BK... FACT, the fine was for the vicious action of posting the "victims" personal information online with the intent to harass the couple.
FACT... the fine was not for refusing to bake the cake.

No longer do we have to listen to your continued and erroneous statement about being fined soooo much money for refusing to bake a cake.
It simply isn't true, and you are simply lying yet again. So why are you continuing to do so? I guess this "bullet" in your arsenal is no longer a valid one.
You are shooting blanks.

And you keep whining about how the Bakers were threatened... but who started that? OH THAT'S RIGHT, the "christian" bakers posted personal information of the gay couple online with the intent to harass them. Their vicious actions caused people to not like them... Gee, what a surprise.

So please keep bringing up this wonderful example of how these vicious and criminal bakers acted. It reminds us all just what kind of bigots many Christians can be, and why the Pope wants Catholics to apologize for the way they have been treating gays... His message of peace and love needs to be heard by bigots like you.

[kentonio]

If you want to be exempt from tax, then you should be bound by the requirements of the state for treating all citizens equally and providing your services to everyone. If you want to only cater to a chosen few, then everyone else shouldn't be required to fund your tax exemption.

[Ben Kenobi]

Forcing people to pay for religion is wrong

Who is being forced to pay for religion?

Who gets to decide what the state needs?

This is actually an excellent question. In the united states, it would be the constitution - which provides for national defense. In other countries they also have provisions, so I would argue that no nation state can be maintained without some military presence for national defense. Ergo - that means that funds for national defense are a legitimate state expense.

There are other things on this list, but many things which I'm sure you'd regard as 'bedrock', such as schools, are not.

What if they decide abortion funding is needed?

That wouldn't change the fact that they are forcing people to participate in the murder of children.

Two wars in Iraq were not about national defense and we were lied into both, hardly legitimate... Nevertheless, you still support forcing opponents of war to fund them. It doesn't matter if you think thats legitimate, morality is not defined by the needs of the state - thats fascism (or communism?)

I support funding national defense. How that money is spent is a legitimate complaint, but that the money is expropriated for that purpose is legitimate.

A subsidy is a benefit given by the government to groups or individuals, usually in the form of a cash payment or a tax reduction. The subsidy is typically given to remove some type of burden, and it is often considered to be in the overall interest of the public.

We've been here before. Cutting people's taxes is not a subsidy.

if your church doesn't pay taxes somebody else is

This principle is false. Why not tax 100 percent?

, there's no difference between that and a cash payment to churches to cover their share of the tax burden

There is a considerable difference. In cutting taxes, people keep their own money in their pocket. In direct funds you are taking other people's money and redistributing it (after taking a 50 percent cut, natch).

Shouldn't the flock pay for that stuff?

We do.

Why are they slipping their fingers into our wallets?

Why is the state dipping it's fingers in the tithe? We all know why.

And the flock even gets to deduct their financial support from their taxes so the rest of us get hit again. Is it still charity if you're getting paid for it?

Some sure, again the principle behind it is that the money should not be taxed so that more can be given. Personally I disagree with claiming charity.

So now you complain about subsidies for religion

Sure. Solyndra was 535 million dollars.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you want to be exempt from tax, then you should be bound by the requirements of the state for treating all citizens equally and providing your services to everyone. If you want to only cater to a chosen few, then everyone else shouldn't be required to fund your tax exemption.

Our school had a choice. We chose to go fully private. As a result, we got better students and have more freedom. It wasn't the Church that put this in place, but LBJ. There's a reason LBJ did that because he didn't want the churches preaching against him from the pulpit.

Be careful what you wish for?

[Ben Kenobi]

So please keep bringing up this wonderful example of how these vicious and criminal bakers acted. It reminds us all just what kind of bigots many Christians can be, and why the Pope wants Catholics to apologize for the way they have been treating gays... His message of peace and love needs to be heard by bigots like you.

You really think Melissa is the only example of this, when earlier in the thread you thought I was referring to the Colorado baker?

There has also been a 135k fine (funny that number keeps coming up) against a Washington florist.

Given that this isn't an isolated incident, and that all three of them have one element in common, logic would suggest that the actual issue is the refusal to bake a cake for the homosexual wedding. All three plaintiffs are Christian, and all three plaintiffs are opposed to homosexual marriage.

[Jon Miller]

If you want to be exempt from tax, then you should be bound by the requirements of the state for treating all citizens equally and providing your services to everyone. If you want to only cater to a chosen few, then everyone else shouldn't be required to fund your tax exemption.

Everyone can go in and take the services. Just like a University or Hospital or Museum.

If you don't want to receive services, you can't be forced to take them. If their services isn't the sort you are interested, the same is true for many schools, universities, hospitals, museums, etc.

JM

[Jon Miller]

A subsidy is a benefit given by the government to groups or individuals, usually in the form of a cash payment or a tax reduction. The subsidy is typically given to remove some type of burden, and it is often considered to be in the overall interest of the public.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp

if your church doesn't pay taxes somebody else is, there's no difference between that and a cash payment to churches to cover their share of the tax burden

Income taxes are taxes on profit. Churches don't make profits.

It was decided that most non-profits shouldn't pay property tax, by similar reasoning.

All of those that argue that churches should pay taxes are arguing that churches are a special class that should pay taxes when other institutions that are similar in every way (or worse in the areas that people are complaining about here) but that are not 'religious' do not pay taxes.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Churches are supposed to be private

Private that provides a public service. Just like museums and hospitals and schools so on (that are often private too).

JM

[Jon Miller]

Government run organizations could pay taxes.....to the government.....to fund government run organizations.

Yes, and that is part of the reason why non-profits are not taxed (on things other than income). If non-profits were taxed, the government would have a huge advantage over private for providing most every service. People prefer many things to be private (churches definitely, hospitals and schools and museums and so on often too) and so do not prefer that the government be given a huge advantage.

JM
(Yes I know that many europeans have government churches, I note that I don't prefer that and I think that many europeans do not either. And obviously those government churches get a huge advantage due to being a government church.)