Posted on 12/28/2013 10:48:58 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Sen. Mike Lee says a bill he introduced would prevent the Internal Revenue Service from denying tax-exempt status to any person or group that refuses to perform gay marriages.
"What we're talking about here is the freedom of religious belief, the freedom of a church, for example, to adhere to its own religious doctrine so that it cannot be discriminated against by the government," the Utah Republican said in an interview with Newsmax.
Lee said the federal government's failure to protect religious liberty — citing Obamacare mandates for contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs — was a key motivation for him to introduce the "Marriage and Religious Freedom Act," which protects clergy from being punished if they refuse to perform gay marriages.
"This is something that the overwhelming majority of Americans would support and the overwhelming majority of Americans would be disappointed if they discovered Congress would be unwilling to pass something like this," Lee said.
Lee's bill was introduced before Congress recessed for the holidays. It has the support of Republican Sens. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Marco Rubio of Florida, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. A bipartisan companion measure in the House is sponsored by Republican Reps. Raul Labrador of Idaho and Chris Smith of New Jersey, as well as Democrats Dan Lipinski of Illinois and Mike McIntyre of North Carolina.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Conservatives have a history of sticking with their familiar churches even after the churches move hopelessly liberal.
No, it actually wouldn't — the whole power of 501(c) is that it is exemptions (and possibly affords tax-credits/writeoffs).
My sense is that if “income” is the item to be taxed, then churches will be viewed as having “income” that comes into the church via the offering plate.
I want to get rid of the income tax. I’ll agree that a flat tax is a positive first step. Then we should repeal the 16th.
Also, in the meantime, families, the same as businesses, should be able to totally write off all expenses before arriving at their actual income.
Possibly.
You could also make the argument that only individuals have income… this would exclude churches and corporations. (I have mixed feelings about that though; you could set up all your "gains" [salary/interest/etc] as a trust, and be the executor of the trust... then what's "getting fed" is the 'trust' [which you control] and isn't considered income. Such behavior could be construed as fraud though.)
I want to get rid of the income tax. I’ll agree that a flat tax is a positive first step. Then we should repeal the 16th.
I have mixed feelings there. A sales-tax could be very much abused, imagine having a 2% tax on most things but on anything used anywhere in firearms manufacture as a 200% tax. (It could also be the harbinger of a VAT.) Repeal of the 16th is a good step, but I think almost more vital is the repeal of the 17th; because the 16th centralized power in DC by stripping the states themselves of representation.
Also, in the meantime, families, the same as businesses, should be able to totally write off all expenses before arriving at their actual income.
No, I disagree there. Some things could rightly be considered expenses, like food, but just how much has food-stamps been expanded? Moreover, the quality of the food could be an issue: filet-minion for every meal will cost a lot more than beans and rice. And that's only one category of expense, there's things like doctors and so forth, too.
No, the real demon in the tax-system is complexity and exceptions. It's by these means that there's so much corruption in government/industry.
Some businesses are much more extravagant in their expenses than are others, and it seems not to matter if they buy Mercedes as company cars or Fiestas. Either way, they write them off.
So? Why introduce unneeded complexity? — No write-offs achieves this.
Senator, instead of loudly vouching for the federal judge that just rammed sodomy fake marriage down the throats of Utahans, you, or even ONE of your Republican colleagues, could have opposed this guy when Obama appointed him.
You can’t tell a company it has to pay taxes on its gross receipts. Every business in America would go out of business.
If the Senator comes out publicly in favor of the impeachment and removal of judges who violate their oath and make lawless “laws” from the bench, I’ll take his efforts seriously.
Church non taxation was the unofficial law from founding of nation up until 1894 when it became law that they were officially exempt without speech restriction. LBJ placed churches under the IRS and even if they do pay taxes they would still be under IRS scrutiny.
The ugly part of this is that first they take the money from the taxpayers.
Then they offer to return some of it to you if you will follow their orders.
They are trying to bribe us with our own money.
It is time to bring the government to heel.
Dear cva66snipe,
I think you missed my question. WHY even attempt to acquire what equates to a federal good-ol-boy blessing, if you really are under the call and doing the work?
You are supposed to be the church, not the brick and mortar. Why not just go and assemble, and be what you are called to do?
The ideas that it is against city code, or homeowners association rules, or that sort, should not matter, shouldn’t it?
If you are doing what you are supposed to be doing, the way would be open for you, yes? No doubts, no maybes, yes or no.
Too many folks are worried about already corrupt authorities, by their very nature, and do not feel at all comfortable, out among the wolves.
Sure you can. Some states do. And to the end-consumer it's indistinguishable from a sale's tax because it is passed on to the consumer.
Not to forget cake makers.
Make no mistake about it. Since the early 1960's the church in the United States has been under attack by our elected government and ones in education attending college in the mid 1960's and later.
Ironically many leading the fight against churches belong to a church with Christ name used in it and I don't mean the one called church of Christ. The United Church of Christ though is far left of even Unitarians it seems.
This makes too much sense within the Constitutional framework and so will likely be rebuffed even within the so-called conservative House. In any case it will never become law in the current islamocommunist framework that exists from the White House all the way down into local school boards. At this point it seems all we can do is pray for a deliverer out of this obamad nightmare.
RE: you, or even ONE of your Republican colleagues, could have opposed this guy when Obama appointed him.
Was Mike Lee in the Senate when this judge was appointed?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.