Unintended consequences of gay marriage?

[bluegoose]

Originally Posted by Tex

Of course not.

Are you comfortable with what the state commissioner did?

I guess I am not uncomfortable with it. Again, this is a privately owned area that applied for federal subsidies in the form of tax breaks, on the provision that it be open for public use. They chose not to keep it open for public use, thus they lose their tax exepmt status. Whats the big deal?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Is Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association an organized religion protected under the First Amendment?

The article identifies it as a Methodist organization. Not sure specifically what legal relationship that has to the actual United Methodist Church, but it's clear the beliefs of the church played a role in the enforcement of the rules for the pavilion.

An imperfect analogy is perhaps the easement that was under dispute in Salt Lake a few years back.

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Also, if you read about the state's Green Acres Program, you will see quickly that, once again, this involves a group that was on the take for government money. They used muni bonds to finance the development of their land for public access.

Is the pavilion private property or not?

Originally Posted by bluegoose

I guess I am not uncomfortable with it. Again, this is a privately owned area that applied for federal subsidies in the form of tax breaks, on the provision that it be open for public use. They chose not to keep it open for public use, thus they lose their tax exepmt status. Whats the big deal?

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?

[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.

[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 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.

[bluegoose]

Originally Posted by exUte

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

Originally Posted by exUte

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.

How about you do your own research on this one. At the very least, read the article that Tex posted.