RE: Hutterite .The school playground is open to the community at large. Also the
children in the preschool who use the playground are not students.Where would you drawn the line, would you bar the firemen or police in an
The extreme left seems to be hooked on the false argument "they don't
pay taxes."Payment of taxes is irrelevant to your
constitutionally guaranteed rights.Our constitutional rights have
no tax requirement.It is shockingly wrong thinking. You don 't
get rights if you don't pay taxes? Where is that in the constitution?Treating one religion like other religions does not meet the 14th
amendment. They must be treated equal like any other type of organization.
@RH by your argument presentation you have also eliminated private schools from
taking part in the grant. But let us look at the actual list of
entities allowed to apply for this particular grant:Type of
Applicant (Check one) Park or Park District Non-Profit Entity
(attach legal status documentation) (they don't pay taxes)Private
SchoolPublic EntityInstitution Government Organization Other
(Explain)Now where in are the limitations that those saying The
Lutheran owned day care can be discriminated by the state?Property
status (i.e., owned, leased, being purchased; attach proof of ownership)Based on bogus arguments presented here if Equality Utah opened a day
care to serve families of LGBTQ families, they would not qualify for the grant.
But that is false as they would be allowed to participate. So when
the state rejects the Lutheran daycare, on the basis of religion, it is plain
and simple discrimination on the basis of religion. See how many posters here
actually promote the discrimination on grant approval on the basis of religion,
with all kinds of arguments that do not apply.
@RanchHand,Read my comment again. There are plenty of private,
secular, non profit organizations that don't pay taxes that would qualify
for these playground safety grants.A Shriners' or Primary
Children's hospital is not taxed, but would qualify for the safer
playground grant. So too if a private, non profit artistic endeavor like an
opera, ballet, theater, or symphony company had a daycare for their
performers' children.Importantly, the State has not claimed
their refusal of the grant has anything to do with tax status. The State
honestly admits it is about treating religious organizations differently because
they are religious. A church that declined non profit status and paid taxes as
if it were a for profit organization would be denied for exactly the same reason
as present in this case.It isn't about tax status. It is about
anti religious bias, clearly dating to anti Catholic and anti immigrant
(xenophobic) policies of the early 20th century.Ironically, the
liberals have thrown in with xenophobes of an ugly, bygone era.
@summarizerer;Private school tuition is paid for by the student or
the parent, not the taxpayers. Thus, they can pick and choose. Religious
organizations, without even paying taxes, get to pick and choose as well.You're being purposefully obtuse.
The tendency for these kinds of things is that it's only when
discrimination is an issue that funding gets limited. Like with Catholic
Charities in Massachusetts, they could still run the adoption center but since
they wouldn't adopt to same-sex couples they were ineligible for government
funding. I think the only argument against allowing this church to apply for the
program that could be effective (I have no idea if it's applicable at all
to this particular case) would be if the church had some sort of limits on who
could attend their pre-school.
@Ranch"Schools serve ALL citizens who wish to go there.
Religious organizations do not."No schools don't serve ALL
citizens. There are plenty of secular private schools that only serve those
that are ACCEPTED to them.There are plenty of religious
organizations that serve the general population.
NoNamesAccepted says:"The only rational conclusion that
non-bigoted people can then draw is that churches and religious organizations
(including religious schools) must not be denied equal access to government
grants as is provided to similarly situated secular organizations."--- But they are NOT "similarly situated". Religious organizations
are not taxed. The secular organizations are. Let the religious organizations
pay taxes and then they should certainly be able to benefit from them. Until
then, they shouldn't get any more subsidy than they already do.@summarizerer;Schools serve ALL citizens who wish to go there.
Religious organizations do not.
"The church in this case is the Lutheran church of so and so incorporated.
The local elementary school is a public institution, owned by the public and in
service to all." Which teaches and indoctrinates children at the whim of a
few. The Lutheran daycare is a service available to all.A
university owned and operated daycare is available for the playground grant. An
Adobe, Inc. owned and operated daycare is available for the playground grant.
Why even a daycare owned and operated by Planned Parenthood, would be able to
participate in the playground grant.This grants purpose is
playground safety. What is being advocated is playground safety grants can be
issued or withheld because of who owns the playground. At issue is
the grants were available to any other institutions public and private for
making playgrounds safer. Denying them based a religion is discrimination. And
Hu tells us often there is no discrimination against religion, as he advocates
for the discrimination based on religion.
Religious liberty...The Westboro Baptist Church will be able to jump
on the protected class bandwagon to get taxpayers to pay for their next pet
religion can't have it both ways, they cannot claim that they get to
discriminate against the public in their hiring practices and who they will
serve then expect that same public to fund them. either religion is held to the
same standards of equal rights as the rest of the public and qualify for public
funding or they are a private religious organization exempt from equal
protection laws and do not qualify.
@HutteriteThere are plenty of secular private schools that are not
taxed. Your argument that religious institutions shouldn't
have the same access to state programs because they don't pay taxes is
It's a fascinating and rather difficult issue and one I'm guessing the
Supreme Court will decide is moot given the governor's new proclamation.
"Ohhhh you mean like other schools? Which aren't taxed btw."But what is the school and what is the church in this case? The local
elementary school is a public institution, owned by the public and in service to
all. Managed by the school board. The church in this case is the lutheran
church of so and so incorporated. The very fact it's incorporated suggests
it is not entirely a public entity, but rather is shielding it's board from
liability and has no interest in service to all. Like it were a retail outlet or
fast food place, instead of a school. McDonalds can buy whatever it wants
for its' playground. So can the church. McDonalds' pays taxes...
@Hutterite"That being the case, like other business or private
organisations, they can pay taxes."Ohhhh you mean like other
schools? Which aren't taxed btw.
@Shaun"I believe absolutely zero public dollars should go to
religious institutions. They already receive a huge benefit of not being
taxed."Uhhh.....so do secular institutions with respects to
education as least. So what is your point?"...Universities,
like all nonprofits, are also exempt from paying federal corporate income taxes,
and state and local sales and property taxes. "
In Ireland years ago, the British taxed owners of cattle, but Churches were
tax-exempt. So, people turned their cattle over to the Church priests to evade
taxes. The tax-exempt status of Churches was exploited by Church leaders to make
the Church and themselves wealthy. And the Churches exploited their privilege to
essentially bribe/incent and control people. History shows that
nothing good can possibly come from even the slightest Church-State
entanglements. State power is corrupt enough on its own. The power to tax, to
control public funds. And Church power is even more susceptible to corruption.
Combine the two even in the smallest ways, and the corruption is lethal to free
societies and the health of civilizations.
It may sound like I'm siding with the liberals on this, but for
constitutional reasons, not for knee-jerk anti-religious reasons. Under the Establishment Clause, donating or not donating shredded tires to the
Church's playground would only be a problem if the State favored one church
over another. But they seem to be applying the state constitutional prohibition
equally. So I think question is one of state's rights, and the
prohibition is part of the state's constitution. My thought is that the
Supreme Court should be deferential to the state in this case. This should be an
issue for the Missouri State Supreme Court.
They are an organization that just wants to be treated equal under the law to
any other organization be it business or private.That being the case, like
other business or private organisations, they can pay taxes.
What is the law? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."By rejecting
the bid because of the non-existence belief that there is separation between
Church and State, the "state" has made a law respecting an establishment
of religion and violated the practice of that religion to keep children safe -
or is safety only available to organizations who have no affiliation with God?
Wrong Shaun.They are an organization that just wants to be treated
equal under the law to any other organization be it business or private.A right that is guaranteed by the 14th amendment!When you
start treating organizations or people differently under the same law well...
that was the whole reason for the 14th amendment.It doesn't
matter whether you agree with that organization or person or not.Tax
exemptions are for the benefit society, to "Promote the general
welfare", not to punish or limit organizations.
The language of the video makes it clear that those who produced it are biased
in favor of the religious school. Maybe a good compromise in this
case would be to simultaneously rule in favor of the school while revoking the
church's tax-exempt status.
It seems quite simple to me that when government offers a general program or
benefit, it should not, must not, discriminate against any citizens.To offer an energy efficiency credit for homeowners, but to deny that credit
to homeowners who happened to be black, would be grossly offensive and obviously
unconstitutional.To provide small business mentoring generally, but
to deny female applicants equal access would also be illegal and offensive.To offer police protection to business expo events, while denying
similar protection for events hosted by non-profit organizations (Red Cross,
Salvation Army, Utah Symphony and Opera, Huntsman Cancer Foundation) is also
offensive.The only rational conclusion that non-bigoted people can
then draw is that churches and religious organizations (including religious
schools) must not be denied equal access to government grants as is provided to
similarly situated secular organizations.The First Amendment does
not permit--and certainly does not require--hostility toward religion. Atheism
may no more be established as the official "religion" of this nation
than may Christianity.
After watching the video the case clearer.I believe absolutely zero
public dollars should go to religious institutions. They already receive a huge
benefit of not being taxed. With public dollars there comes strings
attached and these religious institutions want these dollars with out the