Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Slippery slope? Nope, it's a bobsled ride.

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by AnalHamster View Post

    Do you think there are many preschool playgrounds that are hired out for gay weddings or any other kind of weddings?

    Again, this is funding available to non profits, not just to public schools. Not that they tend to be gay wedding venues either, but my point is the funding does not come with strings attached in the form of 'the state now dictates what you do with your private property'.
    If we lived in a society where these types of benign benefits of the doubt were being afforded on a regular basis, then I could certainly get on board with the nature of your argument. But since I've seen how people react when other religious groups are involved or other groups they don't approve of are involved then I've lost my sympathy. I'm not gonna lead the protest to keep money from the kids playground, but I'm just not naive enough to assume that we are all adult enough to pick and choose the right instances where tax dollars should go to enhance religious facilities and when they aren't. Even when the precious chirruns are involved.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by posthuman View Post

      There's no reason they can't do everything they are doing while not being a church. If they can get people to come to their center every Sunday and talk about charitable work without promoting a religion they get the same benefit as any other non-profit. But this isn't that. The reason the chirrun need a playground is because their parents are being prosletyzed within the church. The government has no business aiding that.
      There's no reason they can't do everything they are doing while being a church either, and trying to stop them doing things they are entitled to do because they are a church is no more acceptable a thing for the state to do than trying to assist them because they are a church. This is an entirely neutral state aid program aimed at improving the safety of playgrounds. It is a preschool, it doesn't just provide sunday daycare, when I assume the poor little bastards are made to go to church rather than preschool. There's a line and the SC are about to declare this doesn't cross it. You can't use state scholarships to study for the ministry, you can't use state textbook grants to buy bibles. You can use state playground improvement aids to improve your playground. This ruling won't change the others, it just further clarifies where that line is.

      Comment


      • #33
        I expect it'll go 7-2, maybe 6-3.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by stymiegreen View Post

          If we lived in a society where these types of benign benefits of the doubt were being afforded on a regular basis, then I could certainly get on board with the nature of your argument. But since I've seen how people react when other religious groups are involved or other groups they don't approve of are involved then I've lost my sympathy. I'm not gonna lead the protest to keep money from the kids playground, but I'm just not naive enough to assume that we are all adult enough to pick and choose the right instances where tax dollars should go to enhance religious facilities and when they aren't. Even when the precious chirruns are involved.
          Y'all aren't, which is why this case and the last one and the next one go to the SC. Doesn't mean you can't think about it and take a position on a case by case basis. Dealing with this shit on a case by case basis is all you can do, and there'll always be another case. This one will go to baby Jeebus.

          Comment


          • #35
            If you can regulate gambling so only certain gambling enterprises are legal and in certain places, there's no reason you can't decide what kind of no -profits get government assistance

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by AnalHamster View Post
              I expect it'll go 7-2, maybe 6-3.
              Might be unanimous. 6 Catholics (well, one is Episcopalian) and 3 Jews.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by stymiegreen View Post

                If we lived in a society where these types of benign benefits of the doubt were being afforded on a regular basis, then I could certainly get on board with the nature of your argument. But since I've seen how people react when other religious groups are involved or other groups they don't approve of are involved then I've lost my sympathy. I'm not gonna lead the protest to keep money from the kids playground, but I'm just not naive enough to assume that we are all adult enough to pick and choose the right instances where tax dollars should go to enhance religious facilities and when they aren't. Even when the precious chirruns are involved.
                Exactly. Non-profit is not a protected status, denying tax subsidy to one class of non-profit and allowing it to another is not discrimination. It's completely up to the members what class of non-profit they choose to file as.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by posthuman View Post
                  If you can regulate gambling so only certain gambling enterprises are legal and in certain places, there's no reason you can't decide what kind of no -profits get government assistance
                  Yeah, no. Though I guess this means you are all for a city keeping muzzies from building a Mosque, right?
                  How about they deny a permit to PP?
                  Withhold funding from any school that has atheists?

                  Let's pick and choose based on what we like and dislike. Government works best when you do that.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by posthuman View Post
                    If you can regulate gambling so only certain gambling enterprises are legal and in certain places, there's no reason you can't decide what kind of no -profits get government assistance
                    Separate and totally irrelevant issue which won't be raised by either side as that argument has no legal merit.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by on2muchcoffee View Post
                      Yeah, no. Though I guess this means you are all for a city keeping muzzies from building a Mosque, right?
                      How about they deny a permit to PP?
                      Withhold funding from any school that has atheists?

                      Let's pick and choose based on what we like and dislike. Government works best when you do that.
                      Wow you spent some hours defending the Texas laws on abortion clinic building and hospital access regulations that were completely unnecessary. Now you can't understand the difference between a non-profit and a church.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by AnalHamster View Post

                        Y'all aren't, which is why this case and the last one and the next one go to the SC. Doesn't mean you can't think about it and take a position on a case by case basis. Dealing with this shit on a case by case basis is all you can do, and there'll always be another case. This one will go to baby Jeebus.
                        Yes, but in considering this particular argument I can't ignore the other arguments where Religiosos have told us that pretty much every facility they are affiliated with has a right to be governed by the edicts of their religion or else they're repressed too. Now they want us to ignore those arguments and pretend this is just another playground that just happens to be run by a Church. I didn't develop amnesia so I haven't forgotten how this case contradicts prior religious logic.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by posthuman View Post

                          Wow you spent some hours defending the Texas laws on abortion clinic building and hospital access regulations that were completely unnecessary. Now you can't understand the difference between a non-profit and a church.
                          I was making fun of you not understanding why zoning ordinances, gambling laws and oversight regulations aren't really part of the discussion.

                          I keep forgetting you're not very bright.



                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by stymiegreen View Post

                            Yes, but in considering this particular argument I can't ignore the other arguments where Religiosos have told us that pretty much every facility they are affiliated with has a right to be governed by the edicts of their religion or else they're repressed too. Now they want us to ignore those arguments and pretend this is just another playground that just happens to be run by a Church. I didn't develop amnesia so I haven't forgotten how this case contradicts prior religious logic.
                            There is going to be one and only one difference to what is inarguably a playground here, which is that kids who fall on it will bounce. There just isn't any scope for religious shenanigans, in all other respects absolutely nothing changes. When it comes to anti abortion laws pretending to be something else I argue they should be struck down because of what they actually do or intend to do. The fact that religious folk can be sneaky does not mean they are in every case.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by AnalHamster View Post

                              There is going to be one and only one difference to what is inarguably a playground here, which is that kids who fall on it will bounce. There just isn't any scope for religious shenanigans, in all other respects absolutely nothing changes. When it comes to anti abortion laws pretending to be something else I argue they should be struck down because of what they actually do or intend to do. The fact that religious folk can be sneaky does not mean they are in every case.
                              I'm not arguing they are being sneaky here in their motivations for how they will use the playground, I'm saying in some court cases they ask us to be compelled by where their religious rights extend for the purposes of being protected and now they are expecting us to ignore those same arguments and just consider this another playground that happens to be run by a Church. They can't have it both ways even if in this particular instance I have no problem with them wanting to have a safe playground. Maybe they can get funds elsewhere the same way they argue Planned Parenthood should.

                              Comment


                              • #45

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X