Monday, June 13, 2005

Bitch Slapping the Kettle Black

I don't believe any organization or group should be getting tax breaks for the simple reason I don't believe in organized theft and force in the first place. I also don't see a difference between 'advocacy dollars', 'Charter shares' and tax breaks.

From the Ottawa Citizen:

Churches that oppose same-sex marriage legislation have good reason to fear for their charitable status, a leading gay-rights advocate is warning.

"If you are at the public trough, if you are collecting taxpayers' money, you should be following taxpayers' laws. And that means adhering to the Charter," says Kevin Bourassa, who in 2001 married Joe Varnell in one of Canada's first gay weddings, and is behind

"We have no problem with the Catholic Church or any other faith group promoting bigotry," he said. "We have a problem with the Canadian government funding that bigotry."
And how are we to understand your statement? What are we to make of your labeling, name calling and bullying?
bigot n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
I've also a problem with the existence of the public trough in the first place and so you don't get my support for reaching in to take your 'lawful' share.
Under current rules, donations to religious groups are tax-privileged as long as the church refrains from partisan political activity.

"They can't connect their views with any political candidate," said Peter Broder, the director of regulatory affairs at Imagine Canada, an umbrella organization for charities and non-profit groups.
But it's okay if the Party uses trough dollars to fund their own oinkers as long as they throw some cash your way besides, at the same time enforcing recognition of particular lifestyle choices.

I wish the whole lot of you would just piss off and leave us peaceful citizens alone.
Even if the churches are in compliance with tax laws --with or without an amendment to the marriage bill -- they could still be subject to a challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But this is unlikely to succeed, Mr. Broder said.

"It's hard to see how that would happen," he said. "For example, I'm not aware of any religious group having been challenged on their refusal to marry divorced people."
That's only because this group has not yet organized themselves sufficiently to lobby effectively for a greater share of the Charter and a sufficient portion of the tax dollars for their 'non-profit' 'advocacy' organization:
For Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Varnell, who run the website, the distinction between advocacy and partisan politics is artificial.

"Our website is completely self-funded," Mr. Bourassa said.

"We are not a charity, because fighting for our Charter of Rights is considered by the government to be advocacy. What is the difference between fighting for equality and fighting against equality? There's none."
Well the difference lies in trough money of course. The right to mind your own business is not funded, although inference is amply rewarded.
Currently, groups promoting human rights, the environment and peace are not considered charities. The rules should be changed to reflect the needs of civil society -- needs that were not present 400 years ago, Ms. Greene said.

Any new rules will need to keep faith and politics separate to satisfy Mr. Bourassa, who is a member of Metropolitan Community Church in Toronto.

"During the last election, my church removed all linkages to political non-charitable groups that were fighting for same-sex marriage from their website because of the political implications and the tax implications," Mr. Bourassa said.

And he intends to force make other churches follow the same path.

"There are charitable activities that are legitimate within faith communities," he said.

"Political activities are not charitable activities."
So are you receiving trough dollars or not? Or just hoping to change the law so that you can?

"Human rights, the environment and peace" are clearly political when it involves organizations like these - just imagine the poverty.

Before you send me to the hate tribunal board, please do take into consideration these sentiments:
I've a few gay friends and I'm certainly not one to judge people for their peaceful personal preferences and lifestyle choices, but clearly no harm is being done by refusing a service that can easily be obtained elsewhere?!
For the record, I am not a Christian and sleep in to my hearts content on Sundays.


You Know Who I Am said...

"For the record, I am not a Christian and sleep in to my hearts content on Sundays.'

Not that weekend I spent with you, and told you about my same sex fantasies!

You were up and at 'em, baby.

Good article. Yeah, just leave us all alone, live and let live, if someone disses ya.. grow up and deal with it.. and enjoy you life.

Now bring on the next cock sucker. I might even have a sensual moment and share..

kyla said...

No one needs to try and force any religion to change their beliefs unless those beliefs are harming someone. I mean serious harm, like marrying off pre-pubescent girls to dirty old men in the name of god, and human sacrifices, etc.

When I got married, I found a gay friendly church and was married by their minister.

I'd fight right alongside any anti-gay person to make sure churches that do not want to be involved in gay marriage are not forced to be involved. Same as I have taken a stand publically supporting the anti-gay people's right to free speech and use of a public park in London.

People like Kevin Bourassa need to learn when to shut up. Equal rights are property and civil rights, and we are very close to having them nation-wide. Being a bitchy threatening queen is out of line on his part. Sounds like he has some anger towards his religion or religion in general. He needs to deal with that on a personal level.

Gays getting equal rights should in no way infringe on any one else's rights.