Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Beta O'Dork craps on the Constitution for votes again!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Beta O'Dork craps on the Constitution for votes again!

    This time it's to illegally discriminate against faith communities for following their scriptures! Note Don Lemon's crowd of frothing lunatics loudly applauds this tripe.

    This clown is going out of his way to make himself unelectable. Revoking tax exempt status due to religious belief against gay marriage is NOT legal! Anyone who follows this guy is either horribly ignorant or a bloodthirsty nutjob out to burn the US Constitution.

    https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/stat...79613290831878

    As summarized in Reason Magazine,


    1. The Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that tax exemptions can't be denied based on the viewpoint that a group communicates. This was first made clear in Justice Brennan's opinion in Speiser v. Randall (1958), which struck down a denial of a property tax exemption to people and organizations that "advocate[] the overthrow of the Government of the United States . . . by . . . violence . . . or who advocate the support of a foreign government against the United States in the event of hostilities"...

    2. The Court has also made equally clear that excluding speech that manifests or promotes "hate" is forbidden viewpoint discrimination.

    3. The law may treat groups differently based on their actions, but not based on the views they express.

    4. Groups may be denied tax exemptions for deliberately engaging in speech that falls within one of the few narrow exceptions to the First Amendment, such as true threats of criminal attack, or incitement intended to and likely to cause imminent criminal conduct. But "hate speech" writ large doesn't fall within any such exceptions, as cases such as Matal and Christian Legal Society make clear.

    5. Tax exemptions cannot be limited (as the IRS once tried to limit them) to groups that "present[] a sufficiently full and fair exposition of the pertinent facts as to permit an individual or the public to form an independent opinion or conclusion. Any such test, the D.C. Circuit has held, "lacks the requisite clarity, both in explaining which applicant organizations are subject to. the standard and in articulating its substantive requirements."

  • #2
    A tRump fellatrice moralizing about “crapping on the Constitution?”

    L0L!

    That’s like Pol Pot climbing on a high horse to moralize about human rights abuses.

    Priceless.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN View Post
      waaaaaaaaaaah!!!!!
      Yeah so this drive-by ad hom doesn't change what I just posted. The link provided shows a number of legal rulings which show that in fact to attempt to revoke tax exempt status based on creed IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

      Now go cry!

      Comment


      • #4
        Pretend to give a **** about the Constitution some more.

        Those are tears of laughter.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN View Post
          Pretend to give a **** about the Constitution some more.

          Those are tears of laughter.
          Trying to change the subject to the messenger isn't a defense of Beto.

          And those tears are of grief because you know your field is ****ed in 2020.

          Comment


          • #6
            We will he hearing less from Francis as time goes on I think, but as you can see his ideas are dangerous and about as anti-American as it gets. He's a pandering politician in the mold of John Edwards.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Garcia Bronco View Post
              We will he hearing less from Francis as time goes on I think, but as you can see his ideas are dangerous and about as anti-American as it gets. He's a pandering politician in the mold of John Edwards.
              No kidding. He's saying outrageous crap trying to overcome the color of his skin or something. He could at least keep his grandstanding constitutional.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by nyuk nyuk View Post

                Trying to change the subject to the messenger isn't a defense of Beto.

                And those tears are of grief because you know your field is ****ed in 2020.
                Who's defending Beto?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Paladin View Post

                  Who's defending Beto?
                  Trying to change the subject off Beto's unconstitutional grandstanding is a form of defense. It's "look somewhere else." Of course, one would need a modicum of adult-level education to pick up on that, so I forgive you.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by nyuk nyuk View Post

                    Trying to change the subject off Beto's unconstitutional grandstanding is a form of defense. It's "look somewhere else." Of course, one would need a modicum of adult-level education to pick up on that, so I forgive you.
                    Again. Who's defending Beto. Just one adult (me) to and old bag (you).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      they should be protected to preach whatever they want, in their church... but don’t bleed out and try to craft public policy to restrict the rights of others... most of the country is now in the 21st century, the fundamental religious stance on marriage is a dying soon to be dead notion... except in their Church.. I’m fine with that.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by B-Large View Post
                        they should be protected to preach whatever they want, in their church... but don’t bleed out and try to craft public policy to restrict the rights of others... most of the country is now in the 21st century, the fundamental religious stance on marriage is a dying soon to be dead notion... except in their Church.. I’m fine with that.
                        What I find most interesting about these types of arguments is how they're strictly made against churches and not synagogues or mosques.

                        There's nothing in the Constitution that requires people of faith to be forcibly silenced and only enjoy 1st Amendment rights in the four calls of their houses of worship. Clearly this country isn't for you. Why do you stay here?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by nyuk nyuk View Post

                          What I find most interesting about these types of arguments is how they're strictly made against churches and not synagogues or mosques.

                          There's nothing in the Constitution that requires people of faith to be forcibly silenced and only enjoy 1st Amendment rights in the four calls of their houses of worship. Clearly this country isn't for you. Why do you stay here?
                          Because when those voices extend outside of church, infiltrate the government and schools to start telling everyone else what to do, how to behave, who is good and who is evil, they are promoting religious tyranny the exact opposite of the principle upon which this country was founded.

                          You know what I’ve never had? I’ve never had a Muslim try to convert me to Islam. I’ve never had anyone try to convert me to Judaism. I’ve never been demeaned or made to feel that I am lost and will go to hell by anyone from those religions. I have had that experience with someone from every version of Christianity.

                          You can take your Pat Robertson’s and the rest of the money grubbing evangelicals and shove them and Trumps mandate from heaven straight up your ass. With a 2x4.
                          Last edited by ghwk; 10-19-2019, 11:06 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Why don't you, babe, go back to where you came from? Bless your little heart, you just keep showing your limited abilities. Whataboutism and you are a real match.

                            PS. Make that a rough cut 2x4.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X