Jump to content

BoA vs. Guns?


Toomanyhuggers

Recommended Posts

http://www.examiner.com/article/bank-of-america-goes-anti-gun-says-mcmillan

http://www.ammoland.com/2012/04/20/bank-of-america-refusing-businesses-that-support-the-2nd-amendment/#axzz2GMqorc66

 

Is this okay?

What responsibility should BoA have to respect the artlicles of the U.S. Constitution? After all, they took public tax payer money in bail out funds so are they not at least in some part public owned and therefore abide by the rules?

What messege does this send to other businesses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.examiner.com/article/bank-of-america-goes-anti-gun-says-mcmillan

http://www.ammoland.com/2012/04/20/bank-of-america-refusing-businesses-that-support-the-2nd-amendment/#axzz2GMqorc66

 

Is this okay?

What responsibility should BoA have to respect the artlicles of the U.S. Constitution? After all' date=' they took public tax payer money in bail out funds so are they not at least in some part public owned and therefore abide by the rules?

What messege does this send to other businesses?[/quote']

 

Meh, Anti-Gun is now part of the liberal agenda so that makes it ok to do, even praised when it's done, but heaven forbid a religious guy state his opinion and say's he's not cool with same sex marriage!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh' date=' Anti-Gun is now part of the liberal agenda so that makes it ok to do, even praised when it's done, but heaven forbid a religious guy state his opinion and say's he's not cool with same sex marriage![/quote']

Well, if a religion stands against same sex marriage, while at the same time accepting government bail-out money, you goddamn right I'd say something. Once you're publically funded, you MUST adhere to the Constitution in my book. That means social equality, and not violating any amendments.

Just like a school funded with tax dollars much obey Title IX and equally provide both male and female sports programs - so too would I hold a church to the same standard if they received tax dollars.

 

However, religions and the religious can believe whatever they want, as long as privately funded they remain.

Just like I support the WBBC, the KKK, the NRA, and whoever else wants to parade their political agendas around.

If you are a private company or entity, you should retain the right to believe whatever you want and even express those beliefs in accordance with the First Amendment. Just like Chick-Fil-A for instance.

 

Once you take tax payer dollars though, in my opinion, you no longer have the ability to reject certain or all parts of the Constitution.

See, I wouldn't even care about this BoA thing - but then they took billions of dollars from the tax payer, so they shouldn't get to reject businesses who fall under the protection of the Second Amendment.

 

off topic**One question might be - is a church, who is tax exempt, by proxy receiving government aid? After all, it would cost them more money to function if they weren't tax exempt. So the tax exempt status is a benefit to their business, granted by the government. Does that make them in any way public?

I say no, but some would argue yes.

I say that religions/churches should NOT be tax exempt, but that's simply because I think they are in fact a business for profit, and therefore should have to pay property taxes just like an auto-body shop, or movie theater.**

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well' date=' if a religion stands against same sex marriage, while at the same time accepting government bail-out money, you goddamn right I'd say something. Once you're publically funded, you MUST adhere to the Constitution in my book. That means social equality, and not violating any amendments.

Just like a school funded with tax dollars much obey Title IX and equally provide both male and female sports programs - so too would I hold a church to the same standard if they received tax dollars.

 

However, religions and the religious can believe whatever they want, as long as privately funded they remain.

Just like I support the WBBC, the KKK, the NRA, and whoever else wants to parade their political agendas around.

If you are a private company or entity, you should retain the right to believe whatever you want and even express those beliefs in accordance with the First Amendment. Just like Chick-Fil-A for instance.

 

Once you take tax payer dollars though, in my opinion, you no longer have the ability to reject certain or all parts of the Constitution.

See, I wouldn't even care about this BoA thing - but then they took billions of dollars from the tax payer, so they shouldn't get to reject businesses who fall under the protection of the Second Amendment.

 

off topic**One question might be - is a church, who is tax exempt, by proxy receiving government aid? After all, it would cost them more money to function if they weren't tax exempt. So the tax exempt status is a benefit to their business, granted by the government. Does that make them in any way public?

I say no, but some would argue yes.

I say that religions/churches should NOT be tax exempt, but that's simply because I think they are in fact a business for profit, and therefore should have to pay property taxes just like an auto-body shop, or movie theater.**[/quote']

 

 

What Constitution? You really think that thing exists in the eyes of our government anymore, or matters to them in the least?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well' date=' if a religion stands against same sex marriage, while at the same time accepting government bail-out money, you goddamn right I'd say something. Once you're publically funded, you MUST adhere to the Constitution in my book. That means social equality, and not violating any amendments.

Just like a school funded with tax dollars much obey Title IX and equally provide both male and female sports programs - so too would I hold a church to the same standard if they received tax dollars.

 

However, religions and the religious can believe whatever they want, as long as privately funded they remain.

Just like I support the WBBC, the KKK, the NRA, and whoever else wants to parade their political agendas around.

If you are a private company or entity, you should retain the right to believe whatever you want and even express those beliefs in accordance with the First Amendment. Just like Chick-Fil-A for instance.

 

Once you take tax payer dollars though, in my opinion, you no longer have the ability to reject certain or all parts of the Constitution.

See, I wouldn't even care about this BoA thing - but then they took billions of dollars from the tax payer, so they shouldn't get to reject businesses who fall under the protection of the Second Amendment.

 

off topic**One question might be - is a church, who is tax exempt, by proxy receiving government aid? After all, it would cost them more money to function if they weren't tax exempt. So the tax exempt status is a benefit to their business, granted by the government. Does that make them in any way public?

I say no, but some would argue yes.

I say that religions/churches should NOT be tax exempt, but that's simply because I think they are in fact a business for profit, and therefore should have to pay property taxes just like an auto-body shop, or movie theater.**[/quote']

 

 

Could'nt care less about the article, but this i agree with entirely.

 

Good post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Constitution? You really think that thing exists in the eyes of our government anymore' date=' or matters to them in the least?[/quote']

As much as I agree with the sentiment, this is not so much a problem with the document itself, as it is a problem with which corrupted scumbags we vote into office.

 

We need to wake up and see that most if not all of these politicians we choose from are in it for the personal gains, the big paycheck, the retirement plan, the vacation home in upstate New York, the free flights to wherever...They are neither in it to represent the people, nor to improve the lives and freedoms of regular American citizens.

 

It's ****ing sad and pisses me off so much. I was raised to believe in and taught about the greatness of America, I grew up and fail to see it. I know it's there somewhere, but it's burried under a mountain of ********.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I agree with the sentiment' date=' this is not so much a problem with the document itself, as it is a problem with which corrupted scumbags we vote into office.

 

We need to wake up and see that most if not all of these politicians we choose from are in it for the personal gains, the big paycheck, the retirement plan, the vacation home in upstate New York, the free flights to wherever...They are neither in it to represent the people, nor to improve the lives and freedoms of regular American citizens.

 

It's ****ing sad and pisses me off so much. I was raised to believe in and taught about the greatness of America, I grew up and fail to see it. I know it's there somewhere, but it's burried under a mountain of ********.[/quote']

 

I feel very much the same. It was a very saddening day when I woke up and finally faced the reality of it all.

 

Oh yeah, I don't disagree at all with your assessment earlier about churches in regards to the State with the exception that they are afforded to be tax free and I think thevast majority of them are deservedly so. Considering the amount of charity funding coming out of churches, the vast majority of church money is put back into the community, as well as world wide charity work. You would be amazed at the amount of charity work and money we spend doing it that just my church alone does, not counting the entirety of the Southern Baptist Association as a whole does. If our church operated for a profit, we'd be able to fix the problems we have in several of our buildings, but we'd rather focus that money where it's needed rather than focus it on our church alone. I'm on the properties commitee, and I can tell you, our building needs tens of thousands of dollars worth of work. We simply can't afford it without sacrificing our charity work. And that's something I think very few would be willing to do, including myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel very much the same. It was a very saddening day when I woke up and finally faced the reality of it all.

 

Oh yeah' date=' I don't disagree at all with your assessment earlier about churches in regards to the State with the exception that they are afforded to be tax free and I think thevast majority of them are deservedly so. Considering the amount of charity funding coming out of churches, the vast majority of church money is put back into the community, as well as world wide charity work. You would be amazed at the amount of charity work and money we spend doing it that just my church alone does, not counting the entirety of the Southern Baptist Association as a whole does. If our church operated for a profit, we'd be able to fix the problems we have in several of our buildings, but we'd rather focus that money where it's needed rather than focus it on our church alone. I'm on the properties commitee, and I can tell you, our building needs tens of thousands of dollars worth of work. We simply can't afford it without sacrificing our charity work. And that's something I think very few would be willing to do, including myself.[/quote']

I agree, there is MUCH charity that takes place that would not if not for the churches.

 

However, one thing still never sits right with me.

When worshiping and serving the SAME Jesus...how does this happen?

Triumphant%20of%20God%20urban%20church.jpg

 

competition-trumps-community4.jpg

 

How much do you want to bet that relatively speaking, that poor inner city church does just as much for it's community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn't tell you.

 

Check out the First Baptist Church of Woodstock.

That place is massive, and I mean MASSIVE. In fact that picture above looks like one of the secondary smaller theater areas of the FBC Woodstock, in fact, I'm almost 100% sure that is the same place I attended a side seminar during the Johnny Hunt Men's conference.

 

The main hall of FBC Woodstock seats over 7000 people, and they have over 16000 members. Their Sunday sermons are broadcast to more than a dozen countries around the world, and they spend MILLIONS per month reaching out around the entire world. I'm pretty amazed at what they do. But yet, even the smallest churches can make big differences in their community as long as they are running how they are supposed to be.

4264.woodstockhunt.jpg.image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well' date=' if a religion stands against same sex marriage, while at the same time accepting government bail-out money, you goddamn right I'd say something. Once you're publically funded, you MUST adhere to the Constitution in my book. That means social equality, and not violating any amendments.

Just like a school funded with tax dollars much obey Title IX and equally provide both male and female sports programs - so too would I hold a church to the same standard if they received tax dollars.

 

However, religions and the religious can believe whatever they want, as long as privately funded they remain.

Just like I support the WBBC, the KKK, the NRA, and whoever else wants to parade their political agendas around.

If you are a private company or entity, you should retain the right to believe whatever you want and even express those beliefs in accordance with the First Amendment. Just like Chick-Fil-A for instance.

 

Once you take tax payer dollars though, in my opinion, you no longer have the ability to reject certain or all parts of the Constitution.

See, I wouldn't even care about this BoA thing - but then they took billions of dollars from the tax payer, so they shouldn't get to reject businesses who fall under the protection of the Second Amendment.

 

off topic**One question might be - is a church, who is tax exempt, by proxy receiving government aid? After all, it would cost them more money to function if they weren't tax exempt. So the tax exempt status is a benefit to their business, granted by the government. Does that make them in any way public?

I say no, but some would argue yes.

I say that religions/churches should NOT be tax exempt, but that's simply because I think they are in fact a business for profit, and therefore should have to pay property taxes just like an auto-body shop, or movie theater.**[/quote']

 

Religions and Churches get tax free status. They have a handout bigger than anything ever seen to the BoA. So they shouldn't be able to speak out against abortion I would think right?

 

There are so many handouts in your country that no one would be able to speak their mind. If BoA wants to go anti gun, then why shouldn't they be able to. They are not changing the law or the constitution, just speaking out against what they believe. People will come to them in numbers, or boycott them in numbers for such a stance. No different than the Chick a fil or whatever the hell that chicken company is that the owner/Ceo had the anti Gay Marriage stance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BOA is only doing what the PR people they're paying say to do. If something came up in the news tomorrow and there was mass hysteria about any subject at all, like against Big Macs for example, BOA would launch an anti -whatever campaign. It's all PR nonsense designed to immunize them from government and public activism, much like what rich guys like Warren Buffet do. All you have to do is support the "cause" politically and then you get a pass. You can be a filthy rich tax dodger and get no flack from Occupy Wall Street, Obama, Code Pink, Anonymous, NAACP, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, unions, acorn, communist party usa, Michael Moore, Francis Fox Piven, or any other pro leftist and/ or brainwashed go alonger as long as you go on tv and say things like " the rich aren't paying their fair share." You can say that and then walk off set into a courtroom to protest paying your taxes from the last 3 years and you get a pass anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mozz and Skull, I agree with alot of what you both said, but I feel it doesn't negate my point.

If a company or even a church gets tax dollars, they should have to obey the Constitution, wouldn't you agree?

It only seems right to me that if the government gives you money, one of the requirements is to adhere to the Const.

Yes, this opinion would apply to foreign aid as well. Why should we give our tax dollars to places that either violate, or don't even try to hold to the same ideals we do?

Then again, our own government doesn't follow the Constitution half the time either. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mozz and Skull' date=' I agree with alot of what you both said, but I feel it doesn't negate my point.

If a company or even a church gets tax dollars, they should have to obey the Constitution, wouldn't you agree?

It only seems right to me that if the government gives you money, one of the requirements is to adhere to the Const.

Yes, this opinion would apply to foreign aid as well. Why should we give our tax dollars to places that either violate, or don't even try to hold to the same ideals we do?

Then again, our own government doesn't follow the Constitution half the time either. :([/quote']

 

Heck I think everyone should have to follow the Constitution. It's the supreme law. I get what you're saying though. It's a fine line between freedom of speech and lobbying against the Bill of Rights. No one seems to know where the border is so we have cases like this. I would agrue even further that half our own government dedicates it's service to the reinterperatation and/or destruction of the Constitution even though they've all taken an oath to defend it from all enemies. That bothers me more. BOA is just a spineless bank pandering to daily hysteria served up by the media. They'd agree with anything that's popular amongst the most activists to avoid trouble. The people in our government actually believe this garbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well' date=' if a religion stands against same sex marriage, while at the same time accepting government bail-out money, you goddamn right I'd say something. Once you're publically funded, you MUST adhere to the Constitution in my book. That means social equality, and not violating any amendments.

Just like a school funded with tax dollars much obey Title IX and equally provide both male and female sports programs - so too would I hold a church to the same standard if they received tax dollars.

 

However, religions and the religious can believe whatever they want, as long as privately funded they remain.

Just like I support the WBBC, the KKK, the NRA, and whoever else wants to parade their political agendas around.

If you are a private company or entity, you should retain the right to believe whatever you want and even express those beliefs in accordance with the First Amendment. Just like Chick-Fil-A for instance.

 

Once you take tax payer dollars though, in my opinion, you no longer have the ability to reject certain or all parts of the Constitution.

See, I wouldn't even care about this BoA thing - but then they took billions of dollars from the tax payer, so they shouldn't get to reject businesses who fall under the protection of the Second Amendment.

 

off topic**One question might be - is a church, who is tax exempt, by proxy receiving government aid? After all, it would cost them more money to function if they weren't tax exempt. So the tax exempt status is a benefit to their business, granted by the government. Does that make them in any way public?

I say no, but some would argue yes.

I say that religions/churches should NOT be tax exempt, but that's simply because I think they are in fact a business for profit, and therefore should have to pay property taxes just like an auto-body shop, or movie theater.**[/quote']

 

I don't get the connection between accepting bail out money and stating your opinions. They didn't "reject" the constitution, they suggested changes to our current laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get the connection between accepting bail out money and stating your opinions. They didn't "reject" the constitution' date=' they suggested changes to our current laws.[/quote']

I never said that they rejected the Constitution. I said they violated it.

 

In my opinion, since they are in some way "public" after taking our tax dollars in funding - rejecting McMillians business on the basis of making guns violates McMillians 2nd Amendment, thus it is unlawful.

This would not be an issue at all, except for the fact they took tax payers money in the bail outs. By taking government money, they essentially become "public" and no longer strictly "private" and a Public entity must adhere to the U.S. Constitution, it's amendments, and its provisions. Like any public school, fire dept., or well anything that receives funding from the tax payers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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