Today's Washington Post (online) has an article about whether your employer (a church or religious entity) can terminate your employment when your belief sinks, if being a part of the religion has been an advertised qualification for your job. In short, yes they can.

The Comments are interesting.

I know people who stop by here have had similar personal struggles when working at the great and spacious office building, etc.

Here in Tennessee about two years ago Bryan College (https://www.bryan.edu) made a requirement for faculty that they must believe in creationism. If they failed to proclaim such belief, they were to voluntarily leave their jobs. This is the same city in Tennessee that had the Scopes trial. I live 30 minutes away. It made national news for a bit. So yes, religion and a strict religious interpretation of the Bible is required at some schools for employment.

You still study LDS Corp v. Amos in most Constitutional Law and Employment Law classes. It set the precedent.

"You want to clean our gym or sew our underwear? Show us the money. Err, I mean temple recommend."

Every employer in the US is prohibited from discriminating in employment on the basis of religious belief (or lack thereof).

Except religions. They can discriminate all they want to in employment.

What's wrong with this picture?

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What's wrong with this picture?

Religion is proving the last bastion for legal discrimination. Strange how saving people is such a problematic thing for not discriminating against them?

God is a jealous and angry god.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Every employer in the US is prohibited from
> discriminating in employment on the basis of
> religious belief (or lack thereof).
>
> Except religions. They can discriminate all they
> want to in employment.
>
> What's wrong with this picture?


There’s absolutely nothing wrong with this picture.

Religion is a constitutionally protected practice that specifically involves the embrace of certain dogma. That’s kinda what makes a religion a religion.

Are you really suggesting that religions should be required to employ those who reject their specific beliefs? So, atheists should be hired as pastors? Those who promote promiscuity and pro abortion positions must be considered by mainstream religions that reject promiscuity and abortion? Sorry, this is not a bakery serving cakes to whomever walks through the door. This is an institution specifically built around beliefs that it holds sacred. And because you personally reject those beliefs, you feel they have no right to insist that their employees embrace them?

And religions are not alone with these sorts of freedoms. In most instances, a business can refuse to hire or continue employment with any individual for any reason whatsoever as long as it’s not related to a protected class. A vegan restauraunt can openly discriminate against and refuse to hire all meat eaters because carnivores are not a protected class. Hooters is under no compulsion whatsoever to hire anything but beautiful buxom women and openly discriminate against women they feel are not attractive. Unattractive women are not a protected class (except maybe in Michigan).

The point is that organizations (religious and otherwise) have broad freedoms to choose who they employ and why. And that’s a good thing. As usual, you’re mostly concerned with stripping freedom from religions, because you don’t like them.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There’s absolutely nothing wrong with this
> picture.

We disagree heartily on that.

> Are you really suggesting that religions should be
> required to employ those who reject their specific
> beliefs?

I'm suggesting that all employers be held to the same rules. That an employer's religion not be an excuse for discrimination. That being a religion should not mean special treatment.

> And religions are not alone with these sorts of
> freedoms. In most instances, a business can refuse
> to hire or continue employment with any individual
> for any reason whatsoever as long as it’s not
> related to a protected class.

Yes, and religious belief (or lack thereof) is a "protected class." So the point above is completely irrelevant.

Religions get special treatment. I see no reason they should.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, and religious belief (or lack thereof) is a
> "protected class." So the point above is
> completely irrelevant.
>
> Religions get special treatment. I see no reason
> they should.


Honestly, Hie, your response is so disappointing. As you'll note from Aloysiuis below, you're suggesting that a small Evangelical Bible church seeking a new pastor in the midwest would be required to show cause why they failed to hire a fully-trained experienced Islamic Imam over a devoted and well-read Christian with no specific training. And I take if their only substantive response is, "the Imam doesn't believe in Christianity" you'd want them penalized.

Please, you're being absurd. Don't you ever peek through your crushing bias and seek to dwell in a world where even those who embrace something you abhor will be allowed the freedom to practice it unfettered?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2018 12:54PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Honestly, Hie, your response is so disappointing.
> As you'll note from Aloysiuis below, you're
> suggesting that a small Evangelical Bible church
> seeking a new pastor in the midwest would be
> required to show cause why they failed to hire a
> fully-trained experienced Islamic Imam over a
> devoted and well-read Christian with no specific
> training. And I take if their only substantive
> response is, "the Imam doesn't believe in
> Christianity" you'd want them penalized.

I suggested no such thing.
Please try reading what I write.

> Please, you're being absurd. Don't you ever peek
> through your crushing bias and seek to dwell in a
> world where even those who embrace something you
> abhor will be allowed the freedom to practice it
> unfettered?

I'm calling for religions to be treated like any other organization. You're insisting they continue to get special treatment. Now, who's biased?

Please clarify.

Should a religious organization be allowed to fire a pastor who leaves the faith?

I think we could discuss the relevancy of their gardner or maintenance man leaving the faith, but do you agree religions should be granted the right to only employ those who actually embrace the faith in any position where that faith is relevant?

This concept seems unavoidably true. Hooters was granted an exception from hiring male servers for the specific reason that attractive women were central to their business model. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act lets companies discriminate on the basis of "religion, sex, or national origin in those instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business or enterprise."

Do you agree this sort of discrimination is good and should be allowed?

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Please clarify.
>
> Should a religious organization be allowed to fire
> a pastor who leaves the faith?

Any organization can make membership in a particular professional organization a condition of employment. They can also make particular degrees and certifications a condition of employment. If a "pastor" loses membership in an organization, or loses certification (such as being no longer certified by the religious organization as a "pastor"), then that person no longer meets the conditions of employment, and can be let go.

> I think we could discuss the relevancy of their
> gardner or maintenance man leaving the faith, but
> do you agree religions should be granted the right
> to only employ those who actually embrace the
> faith in any position where that faith is
> relevant?

No, I do not agree.
I think they can and should be able to set the same kinds of conditions as other employers legally can, but they shouldn't get any special treatment when it comes to employment law. And it was regular employees I was talking about in the first place, not the straw-man "pastor" you brought up.

> This concept seems unavoidably true. Hooters was
> granted an exception from hiring male servers for
> the specific reason that attractive women were
> central to their business model. Title VII of the
> Civil Rights Act lets companies discriminate on
> the basis of "religion, sex, or national origin in
> those instances where religion, sex, or national
> origin is a bona fide occupational qualification
> reasonably necessary to the normal operation of
> the particular business or enterprise."

So, you've taken my side then?
That religions can use existing laws, like any other employer, and be subject to the same laws as any other employer? That's the justification you just used.

To the point, a teacher at a Catholic school who gets divorced shouldn't be able to be fired -- being divorced or not (marital status) is a "protected class," and being divorced or not doesn't affect that person's ability to teach. Now, if they can figure out a way to get a legal exemption, a church can make "not being divorced" a condition of employment -- but they'll have to do it the same way every other employer does, using existing law, rather than getting special treatment and being able to fire anybody for "faith violations" any time they want to.

> Do you agree this sort of discrimination is good
> and should be allowed?

What you described *isn't* discrimination. Showing that it isn't discrimination is what allows for exemptions.

Religion is above the law.

My old parochial high school had a married teacher and was the football coach.

When he got divorced, the school fired him in a heart beat. The basis was he wasn't upholding his Catholic beliefs.

Religion gets away with murder in this country. They should pay taxes.

donbagley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Religion gets away with murder in this country.
> They should pay taxes.


I believe you’ll find the Constitutional guarantee of “free exercise” is not merely metaphorical.

Good luck with that.

That is not true. "Freedom" does not mean "free" in a financial sense for the first amendment any more than for the second.

The constitution guarantees the right to exercise religion, not any particular tax status. That is why the federal and state governments each have its own laws on the subject. Moreover, the laws are interpreted by administrative agencies (the IRS), and those agencies' standards change over time. So too do the activities in which churches can engage without jeopardizing their tax-exemptions.

The fact that the tax status of religions is not enshrined in the constitution means it is possible, and over time increasingly likely, that additional limitations will be imposed on churches' various exemptions. It wouldn't be surprising if it is the states that start exploring those options much as they have with gay marriage, marijuana, etc.

I’m sure our attorneys here can offer a more weighty reply, but I believe you fail to address why we don’t tax these institutions to begin with.

Daniel Webster was cited by John Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819 with the principle that extends to taxing religion and why it should never happen: “The power to tax is the power to destroy.”

With this obvious principle in mind, it’s clear that your parsing of the term “free” is incorrect. Government, and its full power to tax (and enforce collection of taxes) is simply incompatible with an organization that is guaranteed free exercise. If you tax something, you must be prepared to enforce that taxation, and that’s where you’ll run afoul of this guarantee. Churches that refuse to pay taxes can be levied or repossessed.

The IRS also jails individuals for failure to pay taxes. If you think empowering the government to confiscate houses of worship, jail their leaders, and penalize them to the point of bankruptcy is compatible with “free exercise” I’d encourage you to find another lexicon.

But even more compeling is the concept of separation of church and state. We have a guiding priciple that there will be no taxation without representation. That’s one reason why corporations are allowed to participate politically. We tax them, and that purchases them a place at the table where those decisions are made. If you wish to tax churches, you’re piercing the wall of separation, and that opens up traffic in both directions. You can’t let the government tax churches while denying them a representative empowerment in the political process that makes tax decisions. And that destroys the separation of church and state.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2018 05:35AM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

That's not how judicial analysis works.

You claim that a statement by Marshall about banks applies to churches. It never has. That you like the principle does not give it any authority in first amendment jurisprudence. Look it up. You won't find any supreme court case that cites the Marshall logic as a basis for tax exemption for churches.

You likewise cite the principle of "no taxation without representation" out of context. That isn't even a constitutional argument. You might as way say "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" is a legal principle. It is not. It is a fine sentiment, and a principle by which we should all live, but any legal argument based on it would be laughed out of court.

The separation of church and state, by contrast, is an apposite issue, one that has constitutional and legal import. But it has never been interpreted in the way you claim. If it had been, there would be no need for states and DC and the federal government each to enact laws granting exemptions for churches. Why do they have such statutes? Because that is the only way the various governments could grant special tax status to religions. It is statutes, not the constitution, that provide the basis for the exemptions (which are in any case already limited).

And your final assertion that taxing churches would mean they get the participatory political rights that other entities enjoy raises the simple question: why? Where in the constitution does it say that? There are all sorts of people and entities that are taxed but don't get political rights. Moreover, the constitution explicitly constrains the POLITICAL connection between church and state. That establishment clause has constitutional status, which tax treatment does not; and changing the taxation rules has never--and never would--vitiate the establishment principle.

The flaw in your thinking is your apparent belief that nice principles automatically have constitutional validity. They simply don't. They only matter if they have accepted significance in the jurisprudence surrounding specific topics. You have offered two principles that have nothing to do with first amendment jurisprudence; and in the one instance where you do make a germane constitutional claim, you get it diametrically wrong. The establishment clause stands regardless of how governments choose to tax religions.


---------

I'm going to add that you made another strikingly erroneous statment. You wrote, "We have a guiding priciple that there will be no taxation without representation. That’s one reason why corporations are allowed to participate politically."

That is, again, patently false. Find one supreme court case that has ever said that corporations should be able to participate in political discussion because they are taxed. You take a principle that applied to individuals many years before the constitution was established and that has no endorsement in the constitution, then tell us that it applies to corporations. That is a monumental non sequitur.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2018 06:27AM by Lot's Wife.

But why are churches exempt from financial reporting requirements? That seems like an invitation to tax evasion. Or are some money laundering operations too big to regulate?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The establishment clause stands regardless
> of how governments choose to tax religions.
>
>



But this is where you'll run afoul of history and stare decisis. Once the Supreme Court ruled that the power to tax is the power to destroy, it set the principle in motion.

And regarding taxation piercing the wall of separation, the Supreme Court in Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York, the high court stated that a tax exemption for churches "creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. [An exemption] restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other."

In other words, if you want to maintain the separation between church and state, the best (and most Constitutionally sound method) is to refrain from taxing churches. Not my opinion, the SCOTUS's.

You're right there is no specific citation that taxation purchases a greater political presence, but that concept is woven through the Walz ruling.

Stare decisis only works in the context of the case. The statement by Marshall applies to interstate commerce. It does not apply to the first amendment.

To put the point the way I did before, your reading of "the power to tax is the power to destroy" would mean that the sale of firearms cannot be taxed. It would likewise mean that newspapers cannot be taxed, since they too enjoy constitutionally protected status. But gun and newspaper sales are taxed. That doesn't contradict stare decisis because the Marshall holding was in a case over banks and has no legal relevance to issues arising from the first and second amendments.

Your argument about Walz is likewise incorrect because it ignores context. The question before the court in that case was whether tax exemptions violate the establishment clause. The court ruled they do not. The converse notion that tax exemptions are compatible with the constitution, or perhaps even a good idea, is what is called a "dictum," meaning a statement in a judicial opinion that is not essential to the ruling and hence has no value as precedent.

The bottom line, again, is that constitutional jurisprudence contains no statement that tax exemption is essential to the first amendment. The Waltz observation that exemption "tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation" between church and state and may therefore be a good idea is binding on no court, district, appellate, or supreme. The opinion itself attests to this fact. Describing something as "tend[ing] to complement" a constitutional right is far from a binding statement.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The IRS also jails individuals for failure to pay
> taxes. If you think empowering the government to
> confiscate houses of worship, jail their leaders,
> and penalize them to the point of bankruptcy is
> compatible with “free exercise” I’d
> encourage you to find another lexicon.

The government can already, when dealing with religious individuals/church leaders, confiscate "houses of worship," jail their leaders, and penalize them to the point of bankruptcy if they engage in illegal behavior.

Currently they get special treatment when it comes to taxes. Were they subject to paying taxes, and illegally didn't, they would be treated just like anybody else who illegally didn't pay taxes. That would have nothing whatsoever to do with them being a religion, and everything to do with breaking the law. It also wouldn't interfere one whit with the "free exercise" of their religion, it would only have to do with them breaking the law.

By the way, the reason religions aren't taxed isn't because of fear of interfering with their "free exercise." They aren't taxed because an assumption is made that their activities are of sufficient charitable benefit to their community that they merit a tax break. We do the same with other charitable organizations that aren't religions -- but, again, religions get special treatment. Other charitable organizations have to demonstrate that the money they raise is being used for charitable purposes...religions don't. They get an *assumption* of "charitability." Even when it's not at all justified.

I'm all for ending the special treatment of religions. Those that use money raised for truly charitable work can continue to get a tax break. Those that don't lose the tax break. Like any other organization.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm all for ending the special treatment of
> religions. Those that use money raised for truly
> charitable work can continue to get a tax break.
> Those that don't lose the tax break. Like any
> other organization.

Especially government subsidizing a religious discrimination in both non-profit and for profit business. Imagine a secular non-profit where they can fire you because you changed your religious belief?

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Imagine a secular non-profit where they
> can fire you because you changed your religious
> belief?

Exactly. Doesn't exist. Religions get special treatment -- which is in direct violation of the establishment clause.

Hie, tax exemption does not violate the establishment clause. The supreme court, as TMSH has noted, explicitly found that that exemption is constitutional.

The key is that the court has never reached the opposite conclusion: that tax exemption is essential to religious freedom. That is what TMSH is arguing, and it is false.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/20/2018 07:19PM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hie, tax exemption does not violate the
> establishment clause. The supreme court, as TMSH
> has noted, explicitly found that that exemption is
> constitutional.
>
> The key is that the court has never reached the
> opposite conclusion: that tax exemption is
> essential to religious freedom. That is what TMSH
> is arguing, and it is false.

Wrong

The principle is sound and present in Walz. It is more heavily weighted toward maintaining the distance between church and state:

"It could be argued that enforced taxation is potentially more problematic than exemption, since in that case churches in effect would be financing government, thereby entangling government in religious affairs: The hazards of churches supporting government are hardly less in their potential than the hazards of government supporting churches; each relationship carries some involvement rather than the desired insulation and separation. We cannot ignore the instances in history when church support of government led to the kind of involvement we seek to avoid."


http://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2112&context=law-review

"It could be argued" is not how binding judicial holdings are phrased.

Moreover the statement is not essential to the decision and hence is dicta. Not familiar with that terms? Look them up. Black's Law Dictionary: obiter dictum, precedent.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... and hence is dicta. Not familiar with
> that terms? Look them up.


If someone else wrote the above, wouldn’t you be chiding them about subject verb agreement?

Very possibly, yes.

But when you impersonated me the other day, my purpose in pointing out your infelicity was to show that I was who I claimed to be and you were not. And there were so many errors from which to choose--like misusing the word "fallacy."

There are times when I regret being overly confrontational in exchanges, including sometimes with TMSH and Caffiend and some others, but that was not one of them.

Government is my religion. They have a hell of a tithing enforcement department. Maybe it is more like Trenthing or something. And kind of like Scientology, there is no way out.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By the way, the reason religions aren't taxed
> isn't because of fear of interfering with their
> "free exercise." They aren't taxed because an
> assumption is made that their activities are of
> sufficient charitable benefit to their community
> that they merit a tax break. We do the same with
> other charitable organizations that aren't
> religions -- but, again, religions get special
> treatment. Other charitable organizations have to
> demonstrate that the money they raise is being
> used for charitable purposes...religions don't.
> They get an *assumption* of "charitability." Even
> when it's not at all justified.

A point of historic context. Religious tax exemption goes back several millennia. The priests in the Israel Levite tribe were exempt from taxation in Old Testament. Allowing churches to operate tax free dates to the 4th century with Constantine and has continued pretty much uninterrupted in Western culture from that time.

And your suggestion that their charitable works is the reason for this is simply without merit. If you can show me somewhere that any legal foundation for a religious tax exemption is based upon their charitable works, I'd be grateful.

The problem with your position largely found in your animus (and the animus of those seeking this). Placing conditions on taxation based upon any subjective standard is simply a non starter for those of us in the religious world. Your insistence that proof of charitable activities sounds innocuous enough, but we have no reason to believe that once that criteria is implemented you'll insist that (your interpretation) of "no bigotry" follow. Therefore any religion that teaches traditional marriage will be easily branded with the usual host of "ists" and "isms" and found to be far too evil to warrant a tax exemption.

Sound far fetched? See what California just did with AB 2943, and explain how a religious text that promotes traditional marriage will now be subject to a ban within California. Freedom of speech is outlawed if that speech is not aligned with specific orthodoxy as dictated by California legislators.

Sorry, but we doubt your intentions. Religion is a constitutionally protected activity, and we'll insist that the government keep their hands off it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/20/2018 06:24PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Religion is a
> constitutionally protected activity, and we'll
> insist that the government keep their hands off
> it.


LOL! Governments historically never have kept "their hands off of it." They derived from it in many places.

Taxation of religion isn't the same as King Harry the Ateth or his desperate daughter draining the land of its religious treasures but you paint it that way and I don't know why?

Interesting to use historical pretext in defending religion from government and paint it as some Communistic freedom of speech killer in a religious context in The United States. The one developed country not derived from a religion supported rule or ruler.

Nothing is "protected" from death and taxes. Religions can compete with any other meme and revenue stream out there. If they are taxed in a country like ours doesn't mean the protection of practicing isn't. Why do you think it would be?

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Interesting to use historical pretext in defending
> religion from government and paint it as some
> Communistic freedom of speech killer in a
> religious context in The United States. The one
> developed country not derived from a religion
> supported rule or ruler.
>

Have you read the text of California's AB 2943? Do you realize that in California they've defined out of existence anyone who has a same-sex attraction and feels they would like help exploring the possibility that it's not a permanent part of their being? In California, it's essentially illegal for such a person to seek help, and anyone who would try to help such a mythical creature is subject to legal penalties. Books that may be written about the topic are banned, and anyone who discourages same-sex attraction is violating the law.

Please, tell me again how government is not seeking to kill free speech.

That is not at all what the bill does.

It simply makes conversion therapy subject to consumer protection laws. People who want to explore their sexuality, decide they are heterosexuals suffering from SSA, and seek treatment to overcome that "suffering" are free to do so.

The California bill merely stipulates that providers of conversion therapy be subject to the same laws as hair dressers and gardeners. There are roughly a dozen states that have similar laws on the books.

This has nothing to do with state suppression of freedom of speech, let alone the taxation of religion.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That is not at all what the bill does.
>
> It simply makes conversion therapy subject to
> consumer protection laws. People who want to
> explore their sexuality, decide they are
> heterosexuals suffering from SSA, and seek
> treatment to overcome that "suffering" are free to
> do so.
>
> The California bill merely stipulates that
> providers of conversion therapy be subject to the
> same laws as hair dressers and gardeners. There
> are roughly a dozen states that have similar laws
> on the books.
>
> This has nothing to do with state suppression of
> freedom of speech, let alone the taxation of
> religion.


Here's the link to the bill: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB2943

The salient portion is its outlawing of “sexual orientation change efforts” This is described as, "efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex."

Explain to me how a counselor should respond to a patient who presents herself as dissatisfied with her homosexual lifestyle and wanting to explore if she can change. The counselor is forbidden by law from suggesting she change behavior, reduce her sexual interactions, or even question her feelings.

Now tell me again how this is not an infringement on speech.

Well, you raise a couple of different points, both of which are problematic.

First, the new law does not impinge upon freedom of speech. As you know from reading the provision, the words just before the passage you quote state that the target of the law is "practices that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation." Practices, not speech. There is no way this provision will be ruled by the courts as unconstitutional because people remain free to talk about whatever they want.

Second, you assert that the bill would prevent a therapist from treating a patient who is "dissatisfied with her homosexual lifestyle and want[s] to explore if she can change." But if you read two sentences further, you will see that the law explicitly permits therapists to "support clients’ . . . identity exploration and development."

You omit key parts of the law and thereby reach an erroneous conclusion. No speech is being constrained, and the law does not prohibit "exploration" of sexual "identity" in either direction.

Your omission is the whopper. Did you read the final line?

"do not seek to change sexual orientation."

How exactly do you interact with a patient who seeks help exploring the option of changing their sexual orientation if you are expressly prohibited from engaging in ANY counseling that seeks "to change sexual orientation?"

And how do I deal with a person who wants to pay me to drive away evil spirits that are hiding her shoes?

The state has the authority to prohibit fraud. Helping a person discuss, explore, or come to terms with evil spirits and missing shoes is fine as therapeutic practice. Taking money to dispel those spirits is not.

Selling fraud is not covered by the first amendment.

Yes, so everyone deserves compassion and the ability to seek whatever help they want for whatever they're struggling with.

Except if you're gay. Your path is poured in cement. There's never been a gay person who wanted to explore the possibility that their orientation was not permanent or perhaps on an end of the gradient where it's not as strong. Because science says this never happens. Ever. Get back on your unicorn, ride away, and STFU.

Good talk.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/20/2018 09:48PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

People are free to explore their gender identity, even if they want to reverse that identity. Therapists are free to discuss the problem as much as either party wants. What the law prohibits is "practices" that are sold as cures for gender identities.

You keep confusing the freedom to talk about something with the freedom to sell fraudulent services. No individual, including you or I, gets to determine for society what services are "fraudulent."

That's not what the bill says. It explicitly says that if a counselor ever actually interacts with a patient and suggests they can change their orientation, it's a prohibited interaction.

Worse, if a counselor helps a patient resolve issues regarding their orientation and they revert to heterosexuality, the counselor cannot cite this example as part of their work. Any interaction with a patient that results in them abandoning homosexuality is prohibited.

"This bill intends to make clear that sexual orientation change efforts are an unlawful practice under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act."

Wrong place.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/20/2018 09:20PM by Lot's Wife.

TMSH offers us "a point of historic context. Religious tax exemption goes back several millennia. The priests in the Israel Levite tribe were exempt from taxation in Old Testament. Allowing churches to operate tax free dates to the 4th century with Constantine and has continued pretty much uninterrupted in Western culture from that time."

Again, a refusal to deal with factual nuance. In your legal arguments you found a couple of sentences from wise people, took them wildly out of context, and asserted that they gave tax exemption constitutional protection, which is not the case.

Now you assert that "religious tax exemption goes back several millennia" and ignore the fact that "religious taxation" likewise goes back several millennia." Moreover your insinuation that tax exemption is part of the Judeao-Christian tradition ignores the reality that for most of that period taxation of religion was not the exception but in fact the norm: it was just that the target of such taxation was minority religions. You know--the same religions that as part of the Judeao-Christian tradition were subject to inquisition, torture, and execution.

The only religions in the Christian period that enjoyed long periods of exemption were state religions. The custom that you are lauding is therefore the very identity of state and faith that the US constitution was designed AGAINST.

Constitional exemption is not part of the Anglo-American common law heritage, nor is it part of the US constitution. That is why the states and the federal government all had to pass laws explicitly providing for the exemption. To the Founders and the subsequent US government, tax status was not necessarily part of the freedom from religion.

You are of course perfectly free to argue in favor of tax exemption for churches, but please spare us the false constitutional and historical analysis. Make the argument on the merits, where you have a decent case.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> donbagley Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Religion gets away with murder in this country.
> > They should pay taxes.
>
>
> I believe you’ll find the Constitutional
> guarantee of “free exercise” is not merely
> metaphorical.

That freedom to practice/believe has NOTHING whatsoever to do with not paying taxes.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > donbagley Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Religion gets away with murder in this
> country.
> > > They should pay taxes.
> >
> >
> > I believe you’ll find the Constitutional
> > guarantee of “free exercise” is not merely
> > metaphorical.
>
> That freedom to practice/believe has NOTHING
> whatsoever to do with not paying taxes.

But they do as a matter of fact. Tax exemption has always been a part of religious freedom in this country.

I'm afraid you'll aways be saddled with the Supreme Court's recognition that the "power to tax is the power to destroy." Though it was issued in a different context, if you've ever know somebody who fell behind in tax payments, you know that this power to destroy is true in virtually every application where taxes are levied.

You simply cannot constitutionally guarantee a freedom then concurrently put into motion forces that can destroy it. If taxation has no negative impact on a constitutionally guaranteed activity, perhaps you can explain the need for the 24th Amendment?

Show us a single case in which the supreme court applied "the power to tax is the power to destroy" to a constitutional right.

Explain why the taxation of firearms sales hasn't destroyed the right to bear arms but will destroy the right to freedom of religion.

You are making assertions that have no basis in constitutional law or history.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Show us a single case in which the supreme court
> applied "the power to tax is the power to destroy"
> to a constitutional right.

24th Amendment.

>
> Explain why the taxation of firearms sales hasn't
> destroyed the right to bear arms but will destroy
> the right to freedom of religion.
>

We have the right to bear arms, but the government is not required to supply them. We also have the right to free speech, but the government is not compelled to provide free books.

Tangible products are an apples/oranges comparison.

And excessive taxation HAS been struck down as a burden on the Constitutional right to bear arms. https://www.range365.com/1000-gun-excise-tax-other-measures-struck-down


> You are making assertions that have no basis in
> constitutional law or history.

Supreme Court decisions carry the weight of the constitution. Do you honestly think the SCOTUS citation that "the power to tax is the power to destroy" would NOT be a part of any opposition to taxing churches?

Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York is a narrow application with no reason to believe it would not prove valid when interpreted more broadly. Churches are not to be subject to tax because that's the best way to preserve the separation of church and state.

Yes, I assuredly do believe that Marshall's statement about taxes on interstate commerce has no bearing on religious freedom. That is precisely why the statement has never been used in a free speech or second amendment case. You simply don't understand how precedent works.

The same is true of Waltz. You claimed it said that churches are constitutionally exempted from taxation. But Waltz actually said the opposite: that exemptions are not constitutionally INvalid. In an aside--dictum, again--the court said, "hey, exemption seems like a pretty good idea." That has no value as precedent.

I'll try to explain this simply. In jurisprudence, a final decision and the necessary findings supporting are considered precedent. Statements in cases from different fields and views that are not essential to the central conclusion in a directly relevant decision are irrelevant.

You can grab random quotations from any decision you like. That does render them binding authorities in other cases.

Black's Law Dictionary, the definitive source, defines "precedent" as "an adjudged case or decision of a court of justice, considered as furnishing an example or authority for an identical or similar case afterwards arising or a similar question of law."

"For an identical or similar case afterwards arising or a similar question of law." That is why Marshall's statement and Waltz are not germane.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Black's Law Dictionary, the definitive source,
> defines "precedent" as "an adjudged case or
> decision of a court of justice, considered as
> furnishing an example or authority for an
> identical or similar case afterwards arising or a
> similar question of law."
>
> "For an identical or similar case afterwards
> arising or a similar question of law." That is
> why Marshall's statement and Waltz are not
> germane.



Cornell Law School's parsing of the "Free Exercise Clause" includes this:

"In the terms of economic theory, the Free Exercise Clause promotes a free religious market by precluding taxation of religious activities by minority sects."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/free_exercise_clause

There you go again, citing sources without checking them out first.

Who is the LII that you so uncritically treat as authoritative? "We are a small research, engineering, and editorial group housed at the Cornell Law School in Ithaca, NY." Hmm. Engineers and editors. . .

Thomas Bruce "has been [LLI's] sole director since 2004. Tom wrote much of the original software used at the LII, and in 1993 wrote Cello, the first Web browser for Microsoft Windows. LII engineers -- no fools, these guys -- know better than to let him write code any more, but occasionally he slips some in when they're not looking. Usually, a server dies about ten minutes later."

To be fair, one of LLI's senior people is indeed an attorney. "Craig spent six years at the law firm Cooley LLP litigating a broad range of commercial disputes for companies such as Adobe, Facebook, and Qualcomm."

TMSH, these guys don't know constitutional law.

I guess you missed the citation for the quote I offered?

It's from a paper authored by Richard A. Posner and Michael W. McConnell. With McConnell's opinions being the second most cited by the SCOTUS of any scholar, they seem pretty knowledgeable, but I'll defer to you on that.

Michael W. McConnell is the Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. From 2002 to the summer of 2009, he served as a Circuit Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. McConnell has held chaired professorships at the University of Chicago and the University of Utah, and visiting professorships at Harvard and NYU. He has published widely in the fields of constitutional law and theory, especially church and state, equal protection, and the founding. In the past decade, his work has been cited in opinions of the Supreme Court second most often of any legal scholar.

Following his graduation from Harvard Law School, Judge Posner clerked for Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. From 1963 to 1965, he was assistant to Commissioner Philip Elman of the Federal Trade Commission. For the next two years, he was assistant to the solicitor general of the United States. Prior to going to Stanford Law School in 1968 as Associate Professor, Judge Posner served as general counsel of the President's Task Force on Communications Policy. He first came to the University of Chicago Law School in 1969, and was Lee and Brena Freeman Professor of Law prior to his appointment in 1981 as a judge of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. He was the chief judge of the court from 1993 to 2000.

Here's the full text of their article if you want to wade through it:

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=8358&context=journal_articles

TMSH, I know who McConnell and Posner are. The problem isn't with their work; it is with the way it is summarized and used by this technology-cum-editorial group. I mean that in two senses.

First, parts of the summary are nonsensical. Take, for example, the claim that "The Free Exercise Clause not only protects religious belief and expression; it also seems to allow for violation of laws, as long as that violation is made for religious reasons." McConnell and Posner didn't actually say that. Nowhere in that article does it say that "violating laws" is okay if it is done "for religious reasons."

Or take the claim that "the Free Exercise Clause promotes a free religious market by precluding taxation of religious activities by minority sects." The paper does not say that either. What it says is that the majority should not enjoy economic advantages that small religions do not enjoy. In fact, the paper makes a strong argument for removing the tax exemption for all religions and making them compete on a level playing field with other ideologies--which is the opposite of what you are arguing in this thread.

Second, and more important, that paper is not constitutional analysis and makes no pretense of being such. What it is--and what Posner's whole career outside of the judiciary has been--is an attempt to provide a new foundation for legal reasoning based in economics. That is a worthy effort, but you can't look at that and say that it explains how constitutional law works at present.

The authors are explicitly trying to develop a new framework for looking at constitutional issues in the future, not trying to codify the state of jurisprudence today. The LII group is accordingly using the McConnell-Posner article in a way that the authors disavowed from the start.

The situation is a little more complicated than it might seem. The government is actually barred from establishing or "prohibiting the free exercuse" of religion.

The first amendment to the constitution categorically prohibits the government from telling a Christian church that it must hire a muslim, or hindu, or bahai'i, or atheist, or whatever to be its new pastor. That is a good thing and it is fundamental to American democracy.

True.
The problem is, this isn't just "church operations" we're talking about. If all religions did was build/run church buildings where religious meetings were held, your point would be important.

But that's not the case. Religions operate for-profit businesses -- then claim they don't have to comply with the same laws other employers do because they're religions. People who belong to religions operate for-profit businesses (re:Hobby Lobby), but then claim their business doesn't have to comply with the same laws as other employers because a religious person is in charge.

Mormons being allowed to only hire "temple-recommended mormons" to do maintenance in the temple -- fine. Deseret Industries being able to deny employment to anyone but mormons -- not fine (the operations of DI have NOTHING to do with the practice of/belief in mormonism). Mormons running a public business being able to fire somebody who leaves the church solely for leaving the church -- not fine.

It seems kind of backwards. If you pay taxes, the government can tell you how to run your business. If you don’t, they can’t.

It seems to me if you don’t pay taxes, you should be subject to more scrutiny.

But I get it, good intent is protected under the law, ideally. To err is human. To err with bad intent, that’s where we draw the line, and it’s a good line. But I think civil law is different. Things can be harmful without intent. Religions don’t have a right to harm, good intentions or not.

I found it interesting because as beliefs change, a person who works for the COB, for example, could face a similarly difficult decision: whether to lie in their belief while seeking new employment in order to make a smooth transition, or admit disbelief and be sacked, resulting in tough financial times for the household.

I realize that lying is an inherent part of being a good Mormon. This must be tough for those who find themselves in the position.

Kind of like a marriage that goes sour - people who wed do not ever figure they will be divorcing. Yet some find themselves in that tough predicament.

I got health insurance through a broker (before medicare) and it was a good deal. Then he said, "this is a religious group who runs this and you have sign that you believe in God." I started laughing and said, you're kidding right? He wasn't. I swore and signed and then asked, how do they verify I believe? He didn't answer and the insurance was fine. Weird, very weird.

Would you want to work there . . . Really?


The intellectual caliber and life-curiosity of colleagues in such a rigid compressed place would be -- may as well put your feet up on the desk kick back and talk to the shoes

.

This is such bullsh#t that affects me directly in idaho where employers only hire active mormons. F#ck this town and their mormon employers.