Well, that sure makes my life going forward easier. I'll be forming a new religion, and the corporation to protect it so I cad defy laws I don't like, any day now.

if you have a religion, go for it. btw, most religious organizations are incorporated. I'm unaware of one that is not.

But as a separate entity. They aren't "the church" at that point. They aren't in the hospital business to convert, or even mainly to spread the gospel.

but they exist to further the non-profit mission of the church. they also have their own non-profit mission, and are directed by the church, and under the moral compass of the church.

#73 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2012-02-13 08:05 PM | REPLY | FLAG

Should churches who form corporations be exempt from the law as if they were still a church?

#62 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2012-02-13 07:48 PM | REPLY | FLAG

sure. if they are wholly-owned subsidiaries. if they are, then they are set up to promote and further the non-profit mission of the church. the church has and owns many different corporations, including different diocese.

Coldplay was a bit of a beating.

#6 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2012-02-12 09:07 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

I'm still trying to understand the draw. They were bad last night, but I've never seen them be good. Bruno Mars was great. Adele sounded great. Overall was a good show. Foo Fighters were a bit shrieky.

#52. what makes you believe I don't understand psychedelics? what make you believe that I've never tried them, know what they do? i actually don't fear them. however, i don't believe they should be legal. just like alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine. that's why we need Romney for President. good clean living for all.

frankly, i didn't know that there was so much controversy in the laws banning the use of peyote. i used it as an example of why laws could be enforced against the Catholic Church - like requiring it to have insurance that covers contraception.

i really don't give a shit about psychedelic drugs, and prefer them greatly to speed and the like. but sheesh, i'm hardly a control freak for defending laws against them.

#40. hey, don't get me wrong. i like peyote as much as the next guy. i prefer to mix peyote with guns.

but seriously, guns preserve freedom. peyote distorts reality.

#34. Peyote side effects include homicidal and psychotic behaviors. my guess is we don't want folks driving down the street after taking it. it could harm more than just the user.

#30. the church will pay for its stupidity on this subject in terms of membership. it's a political fight they've taken too far IMHO (and actually think they are shortsighted on the first go 'round too). the church can be very stubborn that way...

#28. don't think so. govt. can pass laws of broad application that can infringe on religion so long as they are not passed for the purpose of infringing on religion.

there can be laws outlawing the use of peyote, for instance, even though that is used by some religions. they've passed laws against polygamy, which were against the Mormon religion. they pass laws against animal sacrifice, etc. this is necessary.

The Supreme Court made it clear in Employment Division v. Smith that religious believers and institutions are not entitled to an exemption from generally applicable laws. That decision was written by Antonin Scalia, no less.
tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com

#12 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2012-02-13 12:04 PM | REPLY | FLAG

no question that they are not entitled to an exemption as a matter of right, but neither is the government precluded from granting such an exemption. politics rule on that subject.

A lot of bright and educated people would be serving hamburgers. The quality of your meal would probably improve.

#5 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2012-02-12 05:55 PM | REPLY | FLAG

ya, but who wants to spend $15 for a Big Mac?

this is going to be like high speed rail in California. sold Californians on $10 Billion bods to fund the first stage. told us the project cost would be 35.7 Billion, with the feds kicking in some. now, costs are expected to reach $170 Billion. Not one shovel of fucking dirt turned.

my cats are gone. like now...

what's a pack of Trojans cost down at the drug store anyway? Jeeezzzus. do pregnancy rates really go up and down depending on whether contraception is covered or not????

What the fuck is "short sided" mean anyway db? i think you meant "short sighted"

#58 and teach the freaks before they get older that it's not ok to look at porn in a location where there might be children and wandering eyes.

This is NOT about separation of church and state. Only in delusional minds is it.

#143 | POSTED BY GALAXIEPETE AT 2012-02-10 04:20 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

whine much?

#111 they are part of the church. the church owns them. so, i'm not sure what your point is. also don't know why you even care. there'll be plenty of condoms sold and abortions had, free of charge, for all that want them throughout the land...

#98. no question but that the political motivation is to appease the most vocal and active group. however, that is being twisted in this thread into the law itself being of particular benefit to Catholics. It ain't.

#96. bullshit. it's neutral on its face. it protects free exercise of religion. there are countless examples of just such laws. there are exemptions to being vaccinated, exemptions to employment laws, etc. where in this law does it say a thing about establishing any particular religion? nowhere. sorry, you're wrong.

#93. it's not particular to the Catholic faith.

#90. they didn't exempt Catholics. they exempt all religiously affiliated institutions where providing such services would be contrary to that institution's belief. So, it's not establishment of any particular religion, it is rather preserving freedom of religion for all religions that hold such beliefs. remember, the second part is that they won't interfere with the free exercise of religion.

#54. if the guy was right next to the front door for all to see, knowing kids would see what's on the screen, it seems to me that it is being shown to children. it would be like if someone was watching porn at home on their tv with kids around. are they "showing" it to kids? well, yes...

Wow. Fucking non-issue here to be up in lights. Move along folks. If you don't like it, don't work for a religious institution.

I think if you can't even be sure if the comment is offensive of not, then everyone including his employer needs to mind their own business.

Its not like anyone is forced to read this idiot's tweets anyway.

#30 | POSTED BY SULLY AT 2012-02-09 11:45 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

I think the suspension was pretextual. They really didn't like him because he's a black man.

employers can still fire people for being stupid. sooooo, i have no issue with this action.