Christofacists at it again
- Thread starter LadyT
- Start date
I actually think its 15 employees, but I could be lying. And as far as I know at this point, they can't really. I was proposing amending 501c3 to include discriminitory acts as well. I think its only fair that entities that enjoy that nice priveledge should have to adhere to the same standards of decency that the rest of do.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
Yes it is interstate commerce because you purchase products for your hotdog stand that are from other states. It is almost impossible to treat only with your state on this. What drinks are you going to sell if not soda that comes from another state? So on...
Churches do not fall under the Interstate commerce laws.
Let me add as well that my estimation of the commerce clasue is ability to regulate interstate transactions not every business practice that is made because it engages in interstate transactions.
This gives the federal government almost omnipotent power to regulate commerce over the states since all commerce could in some way be classified as interstate commerce.
If we look at history as well as the writings of the time we can clearly see that regulation of interstate commerce meant interstate transactions not carte blanche to regulate businesses that engage in some form of interstate commerce.
Churches do not fall under the Interstate commerce laws.
Let me add as well that my estimation of the commerce clasue is ability to regulate interstate transactions not every business practice that is made because it engages in interstate transactions.
This gives the federal government almost omnipotent power to regulate commerce over the states since all commerce could in some way be classified as interstate commerce.
If we look at history as well as the writings of the time we can clearly see that regulation of interstate commerce meant interstate transactions not carte blanche to regulate businesses that engage in some form of interstate commerce.
Well, first Federal anti-discrimination statues that are based on the Commerce clause, have well-defined criteria that make them consistent with "intrastate commerce".
Discrimination laws only apply to private, for-profit companies that have 25 or more employees. These are criteria that have been established, so that the laws remain constitutional. You can't legislate based simply on morality. Thats not the way it works. That would be a theocracy.
So, unless thats a huge hot dog stand, I don't think the Feds can regulate the hot dog vendor.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
Because a business is not a private membership group....nor are all the other nonprofits out there.....who are in business to make a profit, provide paying jobs to the public..... what does that have to do with assembling in a group?
Business is just an exhange of money for goods or services. It doesn't follow the private/public paradigm any differently than a church does.
Many churches involve themselves in commerce anyway.
Business is just an exhange of money for goods or services. It doesn't follow the private/public paradigm any differently than a church does.
Many churches involve themselves in commerce anyway.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
Well, first Federal anti-discrimination statues that are based on the Commerce clause, have well-defined criteria that make them consistent with "intrastate commerce
Its interstate not intrastate.
Discrimination laws only apply to private, for-profit companies that have 25 or more employees. These are criteria that have been established, so that the laws remain constitutional. You can't legislate based simply on morality. Thats not the way it works. That would be a theocracy.
Cypress I am asking your opinion as to why the difference is important not simply that the government has the ability to do this vs not having the ability.
Why do you think business should not be allowed to discriminate but chruches should?
I'm not claming to be an expert.
But lawyers and judges with more legal experience than you and I combined, yhave determined for decades, that the Federal role in regulating discrimination based on the Constitution's commerce clause, only applies to mid to large sized private businesses.
To my knowledge, small non-profits, and mom-and-pop stores are exempt.
I'll defer to the legal experts on this.
On a personal note, I abhor discrimination in all its forms and practices. But, this is a legal argument, not a moral one.
I agree, however that is not how it is applied by the SCOTUS. The Feds do have nearly unlimited power to regulate even the silliest of things. Farmers that are selling only within their own town are regulated because their sales effect interstate sales of that same product.... Look it up, it is real.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
No Cypress I am not asking for your legal interpreation of the commerce clause. I am asking for your philosophical view.
Lets take the federal government out of the picture for simplicity. Obviously a state can regulate business as well.
A state has the power to both penalize a church for dismissing an employee because they are female and a business for dismissing an employee because she is female.
Now from what you have said I assume you are saying a state should not exercise its power to penalize the church. However it would seem you would say that the state should exercise its power to penalize the business.
If this is your stance how do you reconcile the difference.
Lets take the federal government out of the picture for simplicity. Obviously a state can regulate business as well.
A state has the power to both penalize a church for dismissing an employee because they are female and a business for dismissing an employee because she is female.
Now from what you have said I assume you are saying a state should not exercise its power to penalize the church. However it would seem you would say that the state should exercise its power to penalize the business.
If this is your stance how do you reconcile the difference.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
I agree, however that is not how it is applied by the SCOTUS. The Feds do have nearly unlimited power to regulate even the silliest of things. Farmers that are selling only within their own town are regulated because their sales effect interstate sales of that same product.... Look it up, it is real.
I am aware of that but it can be plainly seen that this is an incorrect interpretation as are many current interpretations of the US constitution.
The courts are fallible in describing the constitution as has been shown multiple times in history.
I am aware of that but it can be plainly seen that this is an incorrect interpretation as are many current interpretations of the US constitution.
The courts are fallible in describing the constitution as has been shown multiple times in history.
If there's a Federal or State law that the church broke, they should be punished. I'm not educated enough on the state laws to say. I suspect the Federal anti-discrimnation laws, are limited by the Commerce clause.
Its irrelevant what I "think" the goverment should do. Its only relevant, what constitutional authorities they have to pass and enforce discrimination laws.
On a side note, its heartening for me to see libertarians and republicans recognize in this thread that bias and discrmination still exist in america, and that some of it at least, is beyond the constitutional powers of enforcement by the government -- thereby highlighting the need for continued commitments to affirmative action programs.
Since you want my personal interpretation...
I believe that exempting Churches from Taxation violates the separations clause. It requires that government define and specify what a valid belief is to make a "church" and is untenable at its inception.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
Cypress I can see that you only want to debate issues as far as law interpretaion and not law creation.
It isn't irrelevant what you think. This is a debate site we are here to find out what others think.
You know its funny you are a conservative in this way in that it seems you believe legality is justification in of itself.
It isn't irrelevant what you think. This is a debate site we are here to find out what others think.
You know its funny you are a conservative in this way in that it seems you believe legality is justification in of itself.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
On a side note, its heartening for me to see libertarians and republicans recognize in this thread that bias and discrmination still exist in america, and that some of it at least, is beyond the constitutional powers of enforcement by the government -- thereby highlighting the need for continued commitments to affirmative action programs.
At least with those who are intelligent it isn't really a debate about if their is discrimination but more about what to do about it.
At least with those who are intelligent it isn't really a debate about if their is discrimination but more about what to do about it.
For me it is about what to do about it. I believe that laws that provide for legalized discrimition for the downtrodden simply add to the problem. That they are good to a certain point and thereafter are a cause of the continued action... There is only so far such a law can take you.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
Since you want my personal interpretation...
I believe that exempting Churches from Taxation violates the separations clause. It requires that government define and specify what a valid belief is to make a "church" and it untenable at its inception.
On that I disagree. I think it is constitutional because it doesn't address churches but rather non-profit organizations.
I interpret the separation clause to apply to that which directly has to do with churches but not necessarily what doesn't indirectly refer to them.
Prohibition didn't violate the separation clause because it denied Catholic masses from being able to legally use wine. It would be a violation of the clause if it targeted wine used in mass. But making wine illegal in general doesn't violate separation clauses.
An even looser interpreation could be that it only violates separation clause if it only affects religion and its institution. Again invoking TES doesn't only affect churches.
I believe that exempting Churches from Taxation violates the separations clause. It requires that government define and specify what a valid belief is to make a "church" and it untenable at its inception.
On that I disagree. I think it is constitutional because it doesn't address churches but rather non-profit organizations.
I interpret the separation clause to apply to that which directly has to do with churches but not necessarily what doesn't indirectly refer to them.
Prohibition didn't violate the separation clause because it denied Catholic masses from being able to legally use wine. It would be a violation of the clause if it targeted wine used in mass. But making wine illegal in general doesn't violate separation clauses.
An even looser interpreation could be that it only violates separation clause if it only affects religion and its institution. Again invoking TES doesn't only affect churches.
do they exempt churches from taxation because they are a "church" or just another non profit or not for profit?
so, how does it break the separation laws by exempting Churches along with all others that are tax exempt?
Actually, the IRC code doesn't technically define church. "Non-Profits" is term that is used in deciphering whether or not an entitiy can or can't attain TE status. A lot of churches "by coincidence" meet that qualification along wiht a lot of other entities. Tax Exempt status has nothing to do with your religious beliefs or whether or not the gov't thinks they are valid.
I personally think they exempt churches from taxation because they are churches. Some "churches" don't meet their criteria for valid belief systems and are not exempted. This makes the Government a judge over the belief systems of the people who are gauranteed a right to believe as they will.
If all were not given this special consideration then I could see that. Plus, the Scientologists are not "non-profit" yet still receive the tax benefits of a church.