11-06-2008, 05:41 PM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
|
Quote:
If, for example, the church sought out your counsel and told you it was thinking of availing itself of this tax benefit but was concerned about what kind of things they would have to allow in exchange, what would you advise them? I would tell them that the marginal pecuniary benefit is not worth the lawsuit they are potentially purchasing, not to mention the unfavorable press. This is why I say it is short sighted for the municipality to proceed in this way, though perhaps under current law they have no choice. It is certainly short sighted on the part of whatever gay rights group is animating this.
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo |
|
11-06-2008, 05:58 PM | #22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,919
|
Quote:
|
|
11-06-2008, 06:06 PM | #23 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 9,483
|
Quote:
I would tell the Church to skip the federal money. It doesnt need it and is not part of the Church's current business model. Also, skipping the federal money keeps the Church safely under the First Amendment umbrella. The Church develops all its own land. It doesnt need federal funds. As such, the Church is free and clear from this issue. I went to the groups website.....i didnt see that it was officially affiliated with the Methodist Church at all. It is run by Methodists, but that is no nexus.
__________________
Fitter. Happier. More Productive. "Everyone is against me. Everyone is fawning for 3D's attention and defending him." -- SeattleUte |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|