Though I applaud the idea it would pass constitutional muster.

even pass the mustard at a Hot Dog stand...

Beto is doing a bang up job of confirming just about every stereotype folks have of Dems:

- Gun grabber

-Hostile to religion


What’s next?

I'm so scared of what the GOP thinks.

POTUS is going to come down to a handful of states, and those messages do resonate with a bloc swing voters that if it comes down the wire could make all the difference.

He's also lost the one HUGE thing he was bringing to the table.. the potential to turn Texas into a real battleground. I was 100% for Beto early on. Still think he'd make a great POTUS, but also realistic enough to know what would/wouldn't help turn my state from reddish-purple to bluish purple. "guns and god" are indeed a stupid thing to vote for imo, but it's something that many do.

Worry about all those seats we won BY RAZOR THIN MARGINS in 2018 in reddish to red districts that are coming up for re-election next year. Worry about the voters in places like Wisconsin and Ohio where the population is deeply religious and gun rights are very popular.

You know damn well that the GOP is going to run non stop ads with Beto's words in battleground states like Kentucky and all it takes is to win over a few thousand voters to keep Turtle in the Senate and Trump sycophant Bevin in the governor's mansion.

Such a ridiculous proposal makes him seem shallow and unserious.

I wonder how he'd feel about revoking the tax exempt status of churches that support the same sex marriage...

Hostile to civil rights and human rights abuses.

Lets not promote right wing talking points.

if you wish I’m just telling you how many folk see it.

Lots of people call abortion murder. I still fight for women to have unfettered access to the medical procedure. I'm not as swayed by what the right says.

and a violation of the Constitution.

However, speaking of the Constitution, our Founding Fathers
provided for this eventuality but MONEY, MONEY and even MORE
MONEY, made diluting the Constitutional prescription for regulating
religions a political windfall and a wedge in our society.

FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION!

If RELIGIONS were to be held liable under the CONSTITUTION
we wouldn't have this GIANT FIGHT elevating christians over
the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT of a CITIZEN!

Nowhere in the CONSTITUTION, and I challenge ANYONE to show
me where the CONSTITUTION specifically excludes "classes of people"
such as gays, lesbians, transexuals, etc., the RIGHT of ANYONE to
discriminate against PEOPLE who have existed in the HUMAN HISTORY
at least from as far back as the development written records.

Christians made this happen. Christians violated the CONSTITUTION.

NO religion should have no domain in the making of our laws as by they
discriminate against the LGBT and all the other religions of the world, they
like the republicans ONLY SERVE to DIMINISH the freedom CONSTITUTIONALLY
provided to ALL Americans!

Last edited Fri Oct 11, 2019, 06:55 PM - Edit history (1)

Where in the Constitution is there a "prescription" (what ever that means) for as you say.."regulating religions"..... "made diluting the Constitutional prescription for regulating religions ...."

I'm looking at my copy right now and I can't find that.

type in the subject line:

The Separation of Church and State

Not in the Constitution...not in Common Law....not anywhere you can source.
Try.

"Separation of church and state" is paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson and used by others in expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The phrase "separation between church & state" is generally traced to a January 1, 1802, letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Jefferson wrote,

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

This is supposed to be happening already under the current laws. Taking the initiative by not stopping the IRS or whatever other agency needs to be involved would be a step forward. Then there’ll probably be more than one counrt case fighting the resumption of the law being enforced. Black churches tend to have events where the minister runs down voting suggestions or has someone running for office speak from the altar.. In less liberal times it was the only place they had to congregate, That’s why Biden gave a strong anti fascist speech from an altar. It’s tradition.

If religious groups meddle in politics they shouldn’t be tax exempt. I don’t think this would actually happen, but I’m glad he’s taking such a strong stand

He's not saying that religious institutions that meddle in politics shouldn't be tax exempt. He's saying that certain religious institutions shouldn't be tax exempt based on whether he agrees with their particular religious beliefs.

Otherwise, why limit it to churches that oppose same-sex marriage? Why not say any church that takes a position on same-sex marriage - pro or con - should lose their tax exempt status?

or any one of a number of things.

Dumb, bad precedent. Handing a hell of a big club to the Republicans.

We have a lot of inner city churches that strongly support Democratic politicians and Democratic policies.

But Gay rights as a religious belief is still pure bigotry. Promoting laws to protect this bigotry should not be tax exempt. I get what you’re saying though

As long as the self-righteous control the powers that be. no religion, other
than christianity will have a seat at the table of the 1%.

And why you ask? Because christianity was the first transactionalized
religion and remained that way.

And should be the law of the land.

The reason the Catholic Church, The Holy Roman Empire if you will, so feared Russian incursion
in the Second World War, they remained silent to the execution of the Jewish population for sole the
purpose and hope, that Nazi's would defeat the "godlessness"of communism. Religion is antithetical
to the practice of communism. Thereby preserving the future of the Church.

By turning his back on the Kerd's and Europe with their millions of faith, any faith, was just the
Birthday Candle on Putin's Cake.

If you doubt it, just imagine what will befall the religions of the world if America falls.

If a church refuses to follow what would be the law of the land (i.e., anti-discrimination laws against the LGBTQ community), then they should have their tax-exempt status revoked if they refuse to follow our nation's laws. I'm pretty sure we don't allow churches to discriminate against other protected classes (e.g., race, nationality) so why should LGBTQ be any different? It should be noted that the same people hiding behind their religion to discriminate against the LGBTQ community today are the same types of people that hid behind their religion to justify their discrimination against black people pre-Civil Rights era.

And yes, churches are allowed to discriminate against protected classes.

Beto didn't say that churches that refuse to follow anti-discrimination laws should have their tax-exempt status revoked. He said churches that don't support same-sex marriage should. That's unconstitutional. A church has every right to have whatever beliefs it chooses and the state can't offer and withhold benefits based on those beliefs.

They ARE allowed to discriminate in favor of their religion (e.g., hiring a Christian over an atheist) but they most certainly are NOT allowed to discriminate against protected classes just for the hell of it.

Because I'd like to report them.

The Church Cops......

Although I'm not sure a discrimination case would get very far with *this* corrupt DOJ, but under a normal DOJ...

A church that believes that same-sex marriage is sinful has a right not to perform same-sex marriages.

No, they can't discriminate "just for the hell of it" if the discrimination is unrelated to their religious activity or if they are engaging in ministerial acts that are not religion based. But that's not what we're talking about here.

Beto O'Rourke said that churches that oppose same-sex marriage should have their tax exempt status revoked. That's unconstitutional.

...is not a protected class at the federal level.

For example, a Catholic church can refuse to hire a non-Catholic, a synagogue can admit only Jewish children to its schools, and a Baptist church can limit its deacon board just to men.

But, again, that's beside the point. Beto wasn't talking about tax-exempt status for churches that discriminate. He said that a church should be denied tax-exempt status because of what they believe. Denying tax exempt status to a church because it opposes gay marriage while giving tax-exempt status to churches that support gay marriage is per se unconstitutional.

They are allowed to discriminate in favor of their religion (e.g., wanting to hire a Catholic instead of an atheist) but they can't otherwise discriminate against protected classes (e.g., a Christian church can't discriminate against black Christians based on the color of their skin).

And it's not beside the point because Beto's entire message on this subject is that he believes that sexual orientation should be a protected class at the federal level, so, it goes hand-in-hand with what he is promoting.

Saying that churches who oppose gay marriage should have their tax-exempt status revoked is a completely different thing that does not go hand-in-hand with making sexual orientation a protected class.

It was a stupid and poorly-thought-out comment. And if he was trying to make the point you're claiming he was trying to make, it was a really dumb thing to say because not only didn't it make that point, it stepped all over the point he was supposedly trying to make.

Watch his full town hall or listen to his full thoughts on the subject.

that churches whose clergy make political speeches and tell people how to vote should have their tax exempt status revoked.

He's calling for churches that oppose same sex marriage to be treated differently than churches that support it.

You can’t just start taxing churches because of their beliefs. It defeats the whole concept of keeping government out of religion and vice-versa.

Could you imagine if Trump started taxing Islamic mosque just because he could? Hell, once he started taxing them, he’d run the taxes up to 90% just to force them to shut down.

since they *technically* could be found to be breaking federal law; and while a city or state might have sanctuary laws, the IRS doesn't need to pay any attention to that.