Jump to content
Guest #1Stunner

State of California bans travel for College teams to certain states

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, CasperCowboy said:

If I donate money to the United Way, I hope they have a qualified CEO to ensure the organization is operating properly and efficiently. To get a qualified CEO, you have to pay a competitive salary. That has nothing to do with whether or not the org should be tax exempt.

Let's put it this way - I pay taxes on my income. I then take some of my income and give to a charity, who I am trusting to spend in a way that benefits society. You are saying my donation dollars should be taxed AGAIN, prior to be being spent on the charitable organization's mission? You keep taxing these dollars and there won't be anything left for the mission of the organization.

Might as well just abolish all charities and the let the government take over if that is that the case. At least charities have to file public tax forms that show how much they spend on their mission vs. administrative costs, and I can make a decision as to whether they are deserving of my dollars. With the government, you get an extremely low return on investment and there is nothing you can do about it.

You also take a deduction on the taxes you pay because of the charitable donation.  So it's not as simple as you're framing the issue, either. 

I'm not sure anyone is arguing that we should get rid of all charitable organizations or that those organizations shouldn't pay their people a deserved salary.  I think, rather, there seems to be a lot of deviance from what is a clearly a charitable organization and what are extremely large, wealthy, and influential businesses posing as a charitable organization. 

Here's a terrific example:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2015/04/28/the-nfl-is-dropping-its-tax-exempt-status-why-that-ends-up-helping-them-out/

Quote

The National Football League said Tuesday it will end its tax-exempt status, squashing one of America’s most baffling corporate tax breaks and granting the mega-business more secrecy about its inner financial workings.

The change will mean the NFL’s head office, which earned revenues of about $327 million in 2013, will have to pay taxes on its income. But the football juggernaut will no longer have to file yearly tax forms that publicly disclose details like executive pay, including for commissioner Roger Goodell, who made $44 million in 2012.

In a letter dated Tuesday to team owners and members of Congress, Goodell called the decades-old tax-exempt status a “distraction” that has “been mischaracterized repeatedly,” and whose end “will make no material difference to our business.”

“The fact is that the business of the NFL has never been tax exempt,” Goodell wrote. “Every dollar of income generated through television rights fees, licensing agreements, sponsorships, ticket sales, and other means is earned by the 32 clubs and is taxable there.”

I don't wonder if some of the larger churches don't have a similar distribution of income sources and where/how they pay taxes.  The same with "non-profit" hospitals that profit handsomely. 

 

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears; it was their final, most essential command.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jwherb said:

You also take a deduction on the taxes you pay because of the charitable donation.  So it's not as simple as you're framing the issue, either. 

I'm not sure anyone is arguing that we should get rid of all charitable organizations or that those organizations shouldn't pay their people a deserved salary.  I think, rather, there seems to be a lot of deviance from what is a clearly a charitable organization and what are extremely large, wealthy, and influential businesses posing as a charitable organization. 

Here's a terrific example:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2015/04/28/the-nfl-is-dropping-its-tax-exempt-status-why-that-ends-up-helping-them-out/

I don't wonder if some of the larger churches don't have a similar distribution of income sources and where/how they pay taxes.  The same with "non-profit" hospitals that profit handsomely. 

 

Fair enough. But I do vehemently disagree that a CEO's salary should be used as a determinant of an whether an org can "afford" to pay taxes is a very flawed way to look at this. In my opinion that is for the donor's to decide - the CEO will pay taxes on his/her salary regardless of the tax status of his/her employer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Not religious myself. The alternative to me just seems illogical. If there are no natural rights then there are no rights at all, only privileges that can be granted and revoked at a whim.

But if it's true my flank is turned then reveal your cards and I'll learn to not punch above my weight regarding the law against lawyerly types.

It seems more illogical to argue that natural rights exist independently in a world that doesn't have humans. Where are they?  What are they?  Can they be objectively experienced by other forms of life on Earth - plants and animals?  If so, do then natural rights apply to plants and animals (there are many who actually coherently make this argument, by the way). 

Of course, the response to my former questions would probably be - they're not "things out there" but rather, they are essential ideas that attach to human life.  

I'm not suggesting there are no rights, but rather, the concept of "natural rights" is purposefully confusing and deceiving.  We can (and should) have rights that we identify and extend via social contract - and we can even suggest these rights have primacy.  But to suggest they are "natural" to me suggests that God bestows them upon us (okay if you believe in God / religion), and there are no logical alternatives to that. 

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears; it was their final, most essential command.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CasperCowboy said:

Fair enough. But I do vehemently disagree that a CEO's salary should be used as a determinant of an whether an org can "afford" to pay taxes is a very flawed way to look at this. In my opinion that is for the donor's to decide - the CEO will pay taxes on his/her salary regardless of the tax status of his/her employer.

I agree with that. 

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears; it was their final, most essential command.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, roswellcoug said:

 

Just to be clear. You are OK with an agency like the DOJ or EEOC (we're not talking about judges here) interpreting federal law to extend a legal protection Congress never intended and ignoring a right (religious freedom) guaranteed by the Constitution?

 

28 minutes ago, Jwherb said:

If you want to be clear, maybe spend a little effort crafting more accuracy into your question.   

Aren't you slippery!

With total control in DC at the start of his first term, Obama had a chance to have Congress amend Title VII to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes. He didn't. He was too worried about Obamacare.

Instead, after his second election victory (curious timing, that), the EEOC and DOJ started to "stretch" the "interpretation" of Title VII to include sexual orientation and gender identity. And started taking that position with the courts. 

So you think unaccountable bureaucrats should be able to bend existing law to their interpretation, while ignoring a constitutional right (backed up by RFRA) to freedom of religion.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
25 minutes ago, mugtang said:

No I'll never let you have an even post count. I want you to continue posting here regardless of all the zeros after your post count. 

What's in it for me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

What's in it for me?

The satisfaction that you're able to get under people's skin on the mwcboard. 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, battle.borne said:

The logical conclusion of decisions like these is California will have to impose a purity test with all outside actors in which they do business.  Will they cease doing business with China? Will CALPERS divest itself from all holdings derived from middle east countries where homosexuality is illegal?  Of course they won't because this is just vapid virtue signalling.

And the actors and musicians will boycott NC, but a movie or concert in Russia is a-ok!

But why stop at LGBT? How about abortion, carbon emissions or the electoral college (CA schools will not play in any state which Trump won!).  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, roswellcoug said:

And the actors and musicians will boycott NC, but a movie or concert in Russia is a-ok!

But why stop at LGBT? How about abortion, carbon emissions or the electoral college (CA schools will not play in any state which Trump won!).  

 

"You pukin morons are just plain too dumb."

-bluerules008 aka jibscout aka Hal "Mosquito Man" Newman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jwherb said:

No, actually that's not accurate at all.  Private citizens, yes (though there are bookends on that); private businesses which operate in the public market, it depends.  Also bookends on that, though much stricter than with private citizens.  The courts have elaborated on this for well over 100 years.  Feel free to read the holdings. 

However, you are correct it's a very tight line to navigate.  Businesses should have freedom of expression - whether political, religious, or otherwise (arguably including discrimination).  The courts have carved out exceptions.  It's not unusual in the law to have competing constitutional elements and the courts have to make a determination.

I'm sure I never said - explicitly or inferred - that this was ever a criminal matter. I'm well aware of the difference between civil and criminal matters.   

Not accurate at all?

A private citizen who refuses, through their business, service to someone based on their own, personally held beliefs is not being held accountable for their beliefs?

Image result for h.l. mencken quotes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Wyovanian said:

Not accurate at all?

A private citizen who refuses, through their business, service to someone based on their own, personally held beliefs is not being held accountable for their beliefs?

Reread Katzenbach v. McClung, Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, and their progeny for the court's interpretation of the regulation of private business vis a vis interstate commerce and/or public accommodation.

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears; it was their final, most essential command.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jwherb said:

Reread Katzenbach v. McClung, Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, and their progeny for the court's interpretation of the regulation of private business vis a vis interstate commerce and/or public accommodation.

Conflates too many businesses under "public accommodation". This was an argument error. A shelter accommodation such as a hotel, inn, motel, or campground has ALWAYS been treated differently under law going back to England. Conflating a bakery with sheltering accommodations defies logic, especially when there are other choices in the market.

  • Like 1

Image result for h.l. mencken quotes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jwherb said:

It seems more illogical to argue that natural rights exist independently in a world that doesn't have humans. Where are they?  What are they?  Can they be objectively experienced by other forms of life on Earth - plants and animals?  If so, do then natural rights apply to plants and animals (there are many who actually coherently make this argument, by the way). 

I think the animal rights thing is interesting and more than a bit concerning. If an ape were taught sign language and one day started asserting he understands he has rights, I don't think there is a moral argument that can refute it. It would also mean the human race is pretty much the devil. And I say this as a person who does not really care about animals at all, and who think that PETA are a bunch of retards. In any case, whatever the arguments for and against animals having natural rights, so far the animals have been silent on this point.

A universe without humans is still governed by the laws of physics and chemistry, I don't see why a concept like natural rights would be so different. Humans did not create many of their discoveries in the scientific realm, they described an already present phenomena. I don't see why it couldn't be the same for certain philosophical concepts. But perhaps, admittedly, I am making a leap too far there.

Quote

I'm not suggesting there are no rights, but rather, the concept of "natural rights" is purposefully confusing and deceiving.  We can (and should) have rights that we identify and extend via social contract - and we can even suggest these rights have primacy.  

Doesnt a social contract inherently restrict some rights? If so, doesn't the pre-existence of those rights prior to the social contract mean they had to spring from something that is of the natural universe?

Quote

But to suggest they are "natural" to me suggests that God bestows them upon us (okay if you believe in God / religion), and there are no logical alternatives to that. 

No quibbles here in the God aspect. I liked the way Wyovanian put it. Faith in oneself is all that is needed to legitimize natural rights, as people naturally desire to live, be free, and be happy.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

I think the animal rights thing is interesting and more than a bit concerning. If an ape were taught sign language and one day started asserting he understands he has rights, I don't think there is a moral argument that can refute it. It would also mean the human race is pretty much the devil. And I say this as a person who does not really care about animals at all, and who think that PETA are a bunch of retards. In any case, whatever the arguments for and against animals having natural rights, so far the animals have been silent on this point.

A universe without humans is still governed by the laws of physics and chemistry, I don't see why a concept like natural rights would be so different. Humans did not create many of their discoveries in the scientific realm, they described an already present phenomena. I don't see why it couldn't be the same for certain philosophical concepts. But perhaps, admittedly, I am making a leap too far there.

Doesnt a social contract inherently restrict some rights? If so, doesn't the pre-existence of those rights prior to the social contract mean they had to spring from something that is of the natural universe?

No quibbles here in the God aspect. I liked the way Wyovanian put it. Faith in oneself is all that is needed to legitimize natural rights, as people naturally desire to live, be free, and be happy.

Some sort of leap I think is inherent in just about all philosophical discussions and Jwherb I think recognizes the idea that his position that there are no natural rights is included.  The idea of natural rights has been around for a long time but doesn't always come from the same argument/reasoning and the idea that they exist without humans is not exclusive...they may not exist without us but that does not make them any less "natural".  I tend to view natural rights as existing but not in our presence.  As a species our very ability to reason alters the universe just as a physical star in a part of a universe can dictate whether or not there is life on a planet our very existence can dictate whether or not a natural right exists. 

 

I do like your idea on a social contract....if natural rights are accepted as existing it would follow that only those strong among us would benefit and we'd simply be in a pure Darwinian situation.  Forming a government/social pact may not necessarily restrict all natural rights but protect as many as the social contract can and by extension has to limit some individuals rights.  Many, many, previous thinkers on natural rights explore this and some of our founders were obsessed with it.

 

 

Anyway, I'm with Stunner......lets get this thing rolling, California.  It's very limited in scope as it is right now but is a huge step in utilizing it's young population as pawns so it can virtue signal superiority of thought.  For me to believe California is actually serious it needs to continually extend whatever ban it can come up with against whoever/whatever it does not socially agree with.  Though nowadays states rights are continually limited they are still able to encroach more and more on the natural rights of their citizenry ;)

  • Like 1

All things being equal fat people use more soap

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Wyovanian said:

Discrimination among private citizens and businesses is, by definition, a thought crime. This is the fallacy of the courts' rulings and the somewhat spotty precedent that supports the arguments.

This is a classic example of the bench reacting to an emotional desire rather than letting logic and law bring them to a conclusion.

Lost in all of this is the fact that, for the most part, "discrimination" is a civil, rather than criminal, matter. Seems that there is a significant segment of the population that either misunderstands this or that wants to criminalize discrimination.

 

The difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder is a thought crime, as is conspiracy 

We have thought crimes.

12 hours ago, Wyovanian said:

Conflates too many businesses under "public accommodation". This was an argument error. A shelter accommodation such as a hotel, inn, motel, or campground has ALWAYS been treated differently under law going back to England. Conflating a bakery with sheltering accommodations defies logic, especially when there are other choices in the market.

That's the essential argument we're having, isn't it? Where does public accommodation start and stop? It's a more interesting and a more nuanced argument than "NEVER MAKE BUSINESSES BOW TO GOVERNMENT" or "ALL BUSINESS HAS TO SERVE EVERYONE ALWAYS". 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/7/2017 at 3:50 PM, #1Stunner said:

It is going to be interesting to see if any California schools are allowed to play NCAA Tournament games in Kansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, or Mississippi.

CALIFORNIA:  Agree with us, or we won't talk to you!!!!

 

Says the fan of an "I'm taking my ball & going home" indy-school.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...