Unintended consequences of gay marriage?

[TripletDaddy]

It doesnt matter whether the property is private. It matters that they took muni money as a condition for financing and development.

Bob Jones U is private property, too.

Tax law is not your game, Tex. You are obviously weak in that area. Migrate back towards homophobia, an area in which you excel.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

It doesnt matter whether the property is private. It matters that they took muni money as a condition for financing and development.

I'm going off what's mentioned in the article, and I don't see that argument there. Perhaps its mentioned in the briefs somewhere, but it doesn't seem to be the reason cited by the state commissioner in denying the tax-exempt renewal.

The only reason she gives in the article is the "open space" implications of the subsidy itself:

“When people hear the words ‘open space,’ we want them to think not just of open air and land, but that it is open to all people,” said Ms. Jackson. “And when the public subsidizes it with tax breaks, it goes with the expectation that it is not going to be parsed out, whether it be by activity or any particular beliefs.”

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm going off what's mentioned in the article, and I don't see that argument there. Perhaps its mentioned in the briefs somewhere, but it doesn't seem to be the reason cited by the state commissioner in denying the tax-exempt renewal.

The only reason she gives in the article is the "open space" implications of the subsidy itself:

"Counselor, you do realize that you cannot cite to a newspaper article as legal authority in your brief?"

"Sorry, your honor. I was just going off what I read on the internet."

"OK, good enough for me. Judgment for petitioner!"

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Tex

I believe the extend to which a private organization can define the rules of public use of its private land are exactly what the case revolves around.

What do you think the boundaries should be?

Since I don't think anyone ever has a right to a tax exemption, I think that the government is free to withdraw it if the conditions of it are not met. I am skeptical whether this would have been done if the association had declined to permit NAMBLA to meet there or some group advocating the voilent overthrow of the government. Or even just the local KKK.

That said, does the locality really think this is going to strong arm the association into having a more open forum? My guess is that no church affiliated group is going to conclude that its principles are for sale, and certainly not over the marginal loss of a tax benefit. The likely result 99.99% of the time is that the privately held land forgoes the exemption and is even more restrictive about use. Seems like stepping over a dollar to pick up a penny unless there is something I have missed.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I guess you are comfortable with an organization using state funds to develop areas that are then off limits to certain demographics of that same community.

Nice, Tex. take a bow.

Or better yet....read up before you comment.

Are you? Didn't San Diego prevent the Boy Scouts using their property for a camp or meeting?

[exUte]

Originally Posted by bluegoose

First, that link says nothing about the New Jersey case. And second, you have no idea what you are talking about if you think that case was as simple as a church not allowing a couple to marry at their pavillion.

So direct me to the legal code that specifically exempts church's from 'discriminatory' activity.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Since I don't think anyone ever has a right to a tax exemption, I think that the government is free to withdraw it if the conditions of it are not met. I am skeptical whether this would have been done if the association had declined to permit NAMBLA to meet there or some group advocating the voilent overthrow of the government. Or even just the local KKK.

That said, does the locality really think this is going to strong arm the association into having a more open forum? My guess is that no church affiliated group is going to conclude that its principles are for sale, and certainly not over the marginal loss of a tax benefit. The likely result 99.99% of the time is that the privately held land forgoes the exemption and is even more restrictive about use. Seems like stepping over a dollar to pick up a penny unless there is something I have missed.

I dont think the municipality is trying to force Methodists into allowing gay marriage. The municipality is saying, "hey, when we gave you this money, there were certain conditions with which you agreed. If you want to use our free money, you need to abide by the agreement."

[exUte]

Originally Posted by bluegoose

Are you saying that the loss of tax exempt status for that one small portion (less than 1% of the total area involved) of privately-owned land intended for public use is the same as a church losing its tax exempt status over refusal to marry same-sex couples in its private churches and temples?

You just said a privately owned piece of property. They were forcing them to conduct something on that private property that the owner did not want to perform.

Same kind of crap happened here in SLC. Once the Church owned the strip of land between the COB and the temple, people were still suing the Church claiming the land was intended for public use and thus they could picket on that area.

It took years and $$ to fight that nonsense.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I dont think the municipality is trying to force Methodists into allowing gay marriage. The municipality is saying, "hey, when we gave you this money, there were certain conditions with which you agreed. If you want to use our free money, you need to abide by the agreement."

Condition was to allow gay marriages on that property? You think they would have agreed to that at that time?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Since I don't think anyone ever has a right to a tax exemption, I think that the government is free to withdraw it if the conditions of it are not met. I am skeptical whether this would have been done if the association had declined to permit NAMBLA to meet there or some group advocating the voilent overthrow of the government. Or even just the local KKK.

That said, does the locality really think this is going to strong arm the association into having a more open forum? My guess is that no church affiliated group is going to conclude that its principles are for sale, and certainly not over the marginal loss of a tax benefit. The likely result 99.99% of the time is that the privately held land forgoes the exemption and is even more restrictive about use. Seems like stepping over a dollar to pick up a penny unless there is something I have missed.

I don't think tax-exemption is a right, and I'm certainly no tax expert. But tax exemption as it concerns religion is a sticky issue, and it seems they might wish to exercise a little more caution in making such arbitrary decisions. As you point out, it seems to be based on the whims of the commissioner.

That may well be within her authority to do, but it encourages the kind of repercussions we see in state initiatives and elsewhere.

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I dont think the municipality is trying to force Methodists into allowing gay marriage. The municipality is saying, "hey, when we gave you this money, there were certain conditions with which you agreed. If you want to use our free money, you need to abide by the agreement."

And yet funny enough, the commissioner didn't actually say that.