It's okay,... he has some black friends...  

MnSpring wrote on 10/22/19 at 15:27:59:


What's that got to do with a racist, homophobic county official?

Do you ever stay on topic?  Do you always run in the other direction?

Eegore wrote on 10/22/19 at 16:08:18:



LOL - agreed!

T And T Garage wrote on 10/22/19 at 18:32:21:

Wow - look at all that condemnation by the cons.....

Yep, exactaly the same as, all that condemnation by the UL FDS GBS's,
About a person running for POTUS,
who has been arrested for Burglary, had a DWI.
Has said he will Confiscate Guns.
And has said he believes all 'churches',
who do Not do as he says,
should be punished by having their tax-exempt status removed.

T And T Garage wrote on 10/23/19 at 07:44:13:


So, how is it you, Minimal-Effort-Spring, got this so factually wrong?   Are you-

1) simply ignorant of fact
2) misinformed
3) just a liar

Maybe there's some other option that should go on that list- if so, do enlighten us.

4)  Beto jumped the political shark.

I'll rate Marginal Spring's statement "partly true"- yes, O'Rourke asserted religious institutions that obstruct civil liberties should loose their tax exemption privileges, no, not simply because they "do not do as he says".

I'll also rate T and T Garage's statement "partly true"- yes, revocation of tax exemptions was not because religious institutions are "not doing what he says", no, in this case it wasn't merely for transgressive  political endorsements.

Back in 1983, the Supreme Court confronted the conflicting principles of religious freedom and freedom from discrimination.   Institutions which enjoy tax exempt  status do so for their contribution to the public good; the SCOTUS concluded the religious Bob Jones University's tax exemption could be revoked for policies against inter-racial dating and marriage.  Simply, their mission diverged from the interests of the greater community, and their activities were no longer subsidized via tax exemption.

So, yes, violations of civil rights may be a basis for loosing a tax subsidy.   No, Beto O'Rourke did not invent Civil Rights, the proposition that we should all have access to the institutions our taxes pay for.   Without doubt some religious institutions promote discriminatory policies; while it is within their First Amendment rights to do so, that right is not infringed merely because a special privileged is no longer extended- no more so than the many essential journalistic institutions that speak freely without any tax exemption.

So, Beto is right in principle and law- but, perhaps, very wrong politically: moving consensus prescriptively requires a keen apprehension of the Zeitgeist.   Maybe he understood that, and only sought to progress our consideration, without concern for his own immediate political future- or maybe he grossly misjudged the extent hate is treasured in our nominal Union.   When asking folks to choose between free money and hate, it's foolish to forget the third option not proffered: withdrawal of political support.

I'm reminded of another who mistakenly spoke the unvarnished truth-

"They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

So, I'll eat half a parakeet for my initial rebuke of Muddy Spring- not a crow, as his was still a carnival lens applied to a real occurrence; a gritted-teeth-glad-for avian feast in recognition of the opportunity provided to bridge my own gaps in knowledge.

MnSpring wrote on 10/24/19 at 08:43:19:



Naw - that's trump's way of doing things.