You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
Mary_Estelle
Guest
If a religious institution /church accepts Federal money(which really belongs to the taxpayer)they have tied a noose around the necks of such entities. No matter how much good they do for everyone, everywhere, the constraints are choking the life out of churches and church run charities. When the churches can no longer provide charitable services, don’t look to the Federal Government to step up and provide for those in need that the churches assist/care for. We all know how well the Federal Government works. I could go on…and on…well, you know.
J
JimG
Guest
I’m not aware that the case in question had anything to do with taxpayer funding or even tax exemption. The entities involved objected to the HHS mandate because it forced them to go against their religious beliefs, thereby violating the first amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion.If a religious institution /church accepts Federal money(which really belongs to the taxpayer)they have tied a noose around the necks of such entities. No matter how much good they do for everyone, everywhere, the constraints are choking the life out of churches and church run charities. When the churches can no longer provide charitable services, don’t look to the Federal Government to step up and provide for those in need that the churches assist/care for. We all know how well the Federal Government works. I could go on…and on…well, you know.
I would note that even before the HHS mandate, there have been religious liberty cases which were decided against religious entities but not on the basis of funding or tax exemption. There have been cases in which Catholic Charities had to close down their adoption agency because they refused to place children with same sex couples. The reason was that the state had a law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. They apply no matter the source of funding.
In my view, such a law is by definition in conflict with the first amendment. And the first amendment was there first. Sexual orientation should not be a protected class.
S
SWolf
Guest
When freedom of association is thrown out the window, the rest soon follow.I’m not aware that the case in question had anything to do with taxpayer funding or even tax exemption. The entities involved objected to the HHS mandate because it forced them to go against their religious beliefs, thereby violating the first amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion.
I would note that even before the HHS mandate, there have been religious liberty cases which were decided against religious entities but not on the basis of funding or tax exemption. There have been cases in which Catholic Charities had to close down their adoption agency because they refused to place children with same sex couples. The reason was that the state had a law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. They apply no matter the source of funding.
In my view, such a law is by definition in conflict with the first amendment. And the first amendment was there first. Sexual orientation should not be a protected class.
M
Mary_Estelle
Guest
Funding from the Federal Government is a two edged sword. All Federal Funding is coming from the taxes that are paid into the system. You really have little choice as to where the funds go; for example abortion clinics, planned parenthood, black ops and so on. The government does need to separate itself from religion and the church, whenever possible should stay away from the Federal Government which is pretty hard to do in a socialist trending politics. Just my opinion.
P
Paganus
Guest
Prayers for those about to be persecuted.In an 11-4 decision, the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals has declined to reconsider its ruling that the HHS mandate does not substantially burden the religious freedom of the Diocese …
More…
J
JimG
Guest
Exactly so, and the government should refrain from making rules that require religious institutions to violate their religious tenets.Funding from the Federal Government is a two edged sword. All Federal Funding is coming from the taxes that are paid into the system. You really have little choice as to where the funds go; for example abortion clinics, planned parenthood, black ops and so on. The government does need to separate itself from religion and the church, whenever possible should stay away from the Federal Government which is pretty hard to do in a socialist trending politics. Just my opinion.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.