Ricky gervais. . Ricky Gervais (:.)hi.. Same sex marriage isn' t gay privilege, it' s equal rights. Privilege would be something like gay people not paying taxe Ricky gervais Gervais (: )hi Same sex marriage isn' t gay privilege it' s equal rights Privilege would be something like people not paying taxe
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (272)
[ 272 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#5 - anon id: 0a380684
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/27/2014) [-]
churches don't pay taxes because they are non-profit
#76 to #5 - SILENCEnight
Reply -8 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
**SILENCEnight rolled a random image posted in comment #363680 at Shin Anime Social Board ** HahahaHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
User avatar #41 to #5 - thelocksmith
Reply -7 123456789123345869
(02/27/2014) [-]
i sure hope you're joking
User avatar #217 to #5 - butiloveu
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
And to be gay is to make profit?
#56 to #5 - anon id: 1b87dbc0
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
Non-profit means they don't keep any of the money. Pretty sure the pope and the cardinals use a **** ton of money for personal matters.
#57 to #56 - anon id: da521e72
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
no more than any one of the dozen of so bloated European monarchies. Hell the English royals are down to a few million after spending so much in the last few years on william and kate and need a bailout from the government.
#127 to #5 - thelastelephant
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
>Church   
>Non-profit   
   
Pick one
>Church
>Non-profit

Pick one
#176 to #5 - swagbot
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
So I work for a salary. Is that 'Profit'?

> I.................. gather money, and spend it on things i want/need.
> A Church gathers money, and spends it on things the Church organization wants/needs.

Points are:

1. The notion of 'Profit' is nonsensical. A 'Church' is making money to spend on stuff. Everyone else makes money to spend on stuff. It's the same.
2. Regardless, none of us should be involuntarily paying taxes.
3. Personally, I agree with R.J. - Marriage, in my opinion, is not a "privilege", but a Right that people should be free to exercise without the interference of others.
3. If someone/a group of people really hate Gay people, then we should make a No-Gay-People section of the country, and everyone who hates gays moves there, and everyone who loves gays IN that area should move away....
... and If we can't agree to do that, then we should (or rather, will inevitably) have a War over the issue.

Easy.
#233 to #5 - froggets
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #235 to #5 - froggets
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
Faces on the television telling me your god needs cash, but I wonder what he needs them for
Dog Almighty - Sinner, great song
User avatar #6 to #5 - faimbot
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/27/2014) [-]
Non - prophet? I suggest you read your bible.


also isn't the vatican one of the richest nations in the world? per capita anyway
User avatar #45 to #6 - swagloon
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/27/2014) [-]
The flaw with your logic is that the Vatican is with the Catholic sect and not with the rest of the Christianity.

What about Anglican, Protestant, and Orthodox churches?

Also what's this **** about 'I suggest you read your bible' if your not going to mis quote something then don't be lazy and tell him to read 1,900 pages for something that most likely not even mentioned.
#82 to #45 - faimbot
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
You must be a hoot...
You must be a hoot...
User avatar #125 to #82 - bangala
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
what's wrong with people like you, tittylovin, and that anon that think all churches are run by the pope.
User avatar #135 to #125 - faimbot
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
I dont think all churches are run by the pope, just like not all creationists are christian.
You are making that assumption because I was asking about the vatican, one sub-sect of a religion that makes a **** ton of cash (note: the subset makes up parts of the whole, and can therefore be applied without needing to be the whole, like all christians are creationists, but not all creationists are christians? which means if i say something that applies to christians, because someone said something that applied to creationists, it would still logically apply.)
#192 to #135 - anon id: e87eb1c6
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
Not all Christians are creationists. Don't be retarded.

#173 to #5 - worried
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
yea... non profit..... bishop of bling...AKA germanys bishop, thats his house
#232 to #173 - azinfoo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
User avatar #7 to #5 - tittylovin
Reply +16 123456789123345869
(02/27/2014) [-]
I guess the golden throne doesn't count as profit then.
User avatar #128 to #7 - bluerangermartin
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
How is the golden throne relevant in the 21st century?
#132 to #128 - notstill
Reply +14 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
baka
User avatar #152 to #132 - bluerangermartin
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
I know it exists but I don't know why it's relevant
#268 to #152 - notstill
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/01/2014) [-]
It's still the 21st century, the golden throne isn't there now because of the new pope but it was still a thing up until a year or so ago
User avatar #269 to #268 - bluerangermartin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/01/2014) [-]
It's still in the vatican, he just doesnt use it. But I dont get the point thats being made about it.
User avatar #221 to #7 - angelious
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
do you know how old that said throne is?

or how old most of the **** vatican has?
#227 to #221 - anon id: 57d47561
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
Older than murrica. That's for sure.
User avatar #13 to #5 - pebar
Reply +29 123456789123345869
(02/27/2014) [-]
non-profit simply means you use your revenue for expansion.... which does mean more revenue
it's still profitable
#17 to #5 - jaketasticness
Reply +486 123456789123345869
(02/27/2014) [-]
Although one might say they're
all-for-prophet
#4 - nebuchadnezzaurus
Reply +228 123456789123345869
(02/27/2014) [-]
When I was reading this I was like: Hmm, nice, a Ricky Gervais quote that doesn't bash religion and... oh.
User avatar #218 to #4 - merrymarvelite
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
Well, he's not wrong.
#16 to #4 - anon id: 1969f7d8
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/27/2014) [-]
I wouldn't say this is bashing religion so much as the churches.
User avatar #35 to #16 - majormayor
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/27/2014) [-]
You probably don't know this guy.
#40 to #4 - thegoodleftundone
Reply +14 123456789123345869
(02/27/2014) [-]
It's not bashing religion, it's bashing tax-exempt religious institutions.
#21 - bitchesbanthymine
Reply +86 123456789123345869
(02/27/2014) [-]
Even when Ricky Gervais says things that I basically agree with, I find him so arrogant I want to disagree with him.
Even when Ricky Gervais says things that I basically agree with, I find him so arrogant I want to disagree with him.
#52 to #21 - profkitty
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
For future use.
For future use.
#89 to #52 - ugoboom
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
Fetischpro 3: The complete saga
Fetischpro 3: The complete saga
User avatar #109 to #21 - nigeltheoutlaw
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
That's how I feel about Dawkins too. You don't need to be such a cunt about everything.
#123 to #109 - pkrbarmovie
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
How the hell is Dawkins being a cunt? He is simply clear, concise and to the point. He doesn't like to waste time with idiots. Do you?
User avatar #228 to #123 - nigeltheoutlaw
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
No, but by being asshole he just encourages the hatred against Atheists that I get frequently IRL and online, and it would be nice if he at least tried to stop being a cunt for five seconds.
#263 to #228 - pkrbarmovie
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
Read my words with a bit more attention: I do NOT believe he is a "cunt". I think you are exaggerating. He is simply blunt; there is no malice behind his discourse.
#30 - muslims
Reply +58 123456789123345869
(02/27/2014) [-]
Do I seriously have to make this point again? Already? Fine. Churches give more in charitable donations than they would in taxes anyway. All forcing churches to pay taxes would achieve is that now a percentage of the total payed money would be labelled as "taxes" instead of donations. No extra money, just the same money with a slightly different title going directly to the government as opposed to communities and charities.That's it. Now ******* shut up about ti.
#31 to #30 - ddylann
Reply -8 123456789123345869
(02/27/2014) [-]
not true didnt you see the picture about what could be bought with church taxes?
User avatar #32 to #31 - muslims
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(02/27/2014) [-]
You mean the content I last had to make this rant on because it was ********? Yes. Yes I do. www.funnyjunk.com/if+only/funny-pictures/5034486/
#33 to #32 - ddylann
Reply -8 123456789123345869
(02/27/2014) [-]
how could you possibly know this stuff is not true
User avatar #38 to #33 - muslims
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(02/27/2014) [-]
Why would you conclude that it is true based on this one content? There is no simple "what if" scenario where we change one thing and suddenly everything is okay. Economics doesn't work like that. The combined donations made by the combined Christian Churches is in the hundreds of billions and that money comes from parishioners who donate money at mass or something similar. All a tax would do is take some of that money and send it to the US government as taxes. Same money, different label.
#39 to #38 - ddylann
Reply -7 123456789123345869
(02/27/2014) [-]
"some of that money" is still probably a huge amount. if its going to a different party for a totally different reason how is that the same thing with a different label?
User avatar #75 to #30 - jlew
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
I love how your name is muslims and yet you are defending the fact that churches don't pay taxes. I agree with you so don't anyone get mad about that, I just think its ironic that muslims is defending the christian churches.
User avatar #184 to #75 - indonesia
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
why would it?
User avatar #270 to #184 - jlew
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/01/2014) [-]
Some people might misunderstand my comment so I thought I'd throw that in there.
#104 to #30 - anon id: 731abd2c
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
Maybe in your perfect little society. But I can name 2 churches in my neighborhood who take the money they ask for and pocket it instead of donating. It's not the church that is bad, it is the person, I know that. But honestly you can tell them that and they will say "I gotta make extra cash some where" makes me so mad.
#149 to #104 - anon id: b006649f
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
Some of us dont live in a ghetto. Not everyone is crappy. Just you and everyone around you.
#183 to #30 - anon id: 17f8bf27
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
The money goes some what to help the poor. but most of it goes to fly cristian assholes to the poor guys. telling them ''BELEVE THIS OR BURN IN HELL'' like all cristians do. scaring the poor to beleve in the religion. that's what the money gora to. is it whent to only helping i would love the curch. but they dont. they brain wash the poor in to a deathloving cult! and i'm posting as annon. cause i know that most of FJ is just full of idiotic american cristians that just get pissed off when they get new information and whont change. and then just say hurrdurr fedora. so piss off!
User avatar #19 - skubasteve
Reply +36 123456789123345869
(02/27/2014) [-]
I stopped reading after Ricky. Even if what ever he says is absolutely the truth all I can read is : "I AM A HUGE ******* TOOL"
#51 - kolocktos
Reply +20 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
>taxing things that don't have an income
>shiggle de diggle
Churches aren't taxed because because they don't make a profit, not because they are religious institutions. There's literally nothing to tax. Ricky's not only an asshole, he's also retarded.
#181 to #51 - swagbot
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
"Churches aren't taxed because because they don't make a profit, not because they are religious institutions." ....Wat?
I don't hate churches/religion... i just want to clear up some ********, here:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------

So I work for a salary. Is that 'Profit'?

> I.................. gather money, and spend it on things i want/need.
> A business gathers money, and spend it on things it wants/needs.
> A Church gathers money, and spends it on things the Church organization wants/needs.

Points are:

1. The notion of 'Profit' is nonsensical. A 'Church' is making money to spend on stuff. Everyone else makes money to spend on stuff. It's the same.
2. Regardless, none of us should be involuntarily paying taxes. Not Churches / Individuals / Gays / Businesses... nobody.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------

Ricky is appropriately pointing out a dire double-standard here.

Maybe if you lowered your defenses and just analyzed this logically, you would see a viewpoint that you may agree with more.
User avatar #258 to #181 - kolocktos
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
You don't grasp how profits or taxes work. Here's the IRS exemption requirements. www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Exemption-Requirements-Section-501%28c%29%283%29-Organizations I don't know if you're American or not. If not, the IRS is America's federal tax agency. A for-profit organization gathers money, like a church. However, the if the business does well, the amount of money spent for expansion/upkeep/etc. increases proportionally, investor's shares increase in value proportionally and the high level executives of said business earn a significant percentage of the "income" for keeps. If a church does well in donations, the priest/pastor's salary does not change, the percentage of money going to upkeep does not change and all that extra money goes to the public, through food banks donations to hospitals, scholarships for children in need, etc. There is no private financial benefit in starting or joining a church, but starting a company can make you a billionaire. There is controversy surrounding the Church of Scientology, because it has been documented that they are for-profit, but most religions like Christianity, Judaism and Islam are non-profit institutions.
User avatar #259 to #258 - kolocktos
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
Also, I forgot to add that all donations to charity, by any person or organization is tax deductible. So if a for-profit organization like Boeing donated 30 million to a scholarship fund for aeronautics engineers, they could deduct 30 million dollars from their income. If you donated 2000 dollars to Goodwill a or even a relative for birthday, neither the IRS nor the state can tax that extra 2000 you earned. It's the difference between giving it away and using it to buy goods and services for yourself and dependents. So taxing an organization, the Catholic Church for example, that gives 90 cents on the dollar of it's donations (90%) to charitable causes doesn't have enough income left to fall into a tax bracket.
#272 to #259 - swagbot
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/01/2014) [-]
My Friend:

Yes, i know all that (srsly, good summary of 'profit', though).

My point is a different one:
> Churches are organizations. They gather money, and use that for their ends. You could say the exact same thing for a 'Corporation' or 'LLC' or 'Private Individual'.

The vague thought in society (and thus, the same vagueness that allows for a shallow double-standard, as Rick Gervais was pointing out) is that "...herp derp Churches are Altruistic, so they shouldn't be taxed by default!" (...therefore, their not being taxed is not a 'privilege'... and therefore there's no double standard with respect to Homosexuals not having the right to marry).

I am pointing this out:
Regardless of how honestly 'Altruistic' a Church is with its expenditures...
> ... A Church gathers money, and spends it on what it want. (usually "altruistic" stuff like aid/food/relief whatever)
> ...and a business gathers money, and spends it on what it wants. (anything else).

Therefore, I feel that as much as people try to rationalize it, a Church is receiving a privilege, because Entities that are its peers (Companies, People) are treated inferior.

It's just my opinion, but I feel it is a well-reasoned one... and i hope I demonstrated that to you.
User avatar #274 to #272 - kolocktos
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/01/2014) [-]
My point is that churches aren't receiving a privilege. Secular charities such as Amnesty International or Foundation Beyond Belief (an Atheist organization) are also tax exempt 501(c)(3) institutions. They fit what you are trying to say. They receive donations. They take a small percent of those donations and use them for upkeep and barely living wages for employees. If the excess money is not being used for either savings or personal gain on the behalf of the institutional leaders, it is not making a taxable profit. That same money that is given is still taxed, but only against the person who doesn't give it away. Example:You donate 5$ to an organization. You aren't taxed because you didn't keep it or use it for personal benefit. The organization gets your money. They pass it on to a family in need. They are not taxed because they only used 0.50$ for operational costs (on which a sales tax still falls). The family would then spend that money on groceries/bills etc. That is taxed as an income. Basically, the economy is a cycle, and money is like energy or matter. It is indestructible, and cannot come from nothing (printing more money devalues the money, rather than simply "making more"). The charity game is a game of hot potato, and the person or institution that uses the majority of the money on themselves also carries the tax burden. Anyone, be they a person or institution, can donate money regardless of race, religion, sexuality or anything, and the donor does not pay income tax on a payout. The person who keeps it as income pays the income tax. You are only taxed on a profit. No charitable organization that falls under 501(c)(3) has a large enough income to fall into a tax bracket. The numbers are not there, and the neither is the money.

If you donate 90% of your salary to charity, which usually means living off of 15,000$ or less a year, you won't have any taxes to pay.
#275 to #274 - swagbot
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/01/2014) [-]
(Well, aside from the point that nobody should have to compulsorily pay taxes)

... Your point that other organizations beside Churches receive a Tax-Free privilege is a good indicator that Ricky was just taking a swipe at 'Religion' (by focusing solely on it).

I just want to reiterate one other point, though:

Okay, fine: It's not just churches that are receiving the 'privilege' of not being taxes, but All such not-for-profits. Except for his little ****************** addendum, I think Ricky's main point is still accurate "Same sex marriage isn' t gay privilege, it' s equal rights. Privilege would be something like gay people not paying taxes."

Honestly, he should've left that last part off, averted the *********, and just made a good point -____-

And... having said ALLLL of this... I think the media is hyping up the 'Gay Rights' faux-debate in order to agitate the General Public. I hear that there are far fewer gays who actually care about the 'Issue of Gay Marriage Equality' than the News would have one believe.
User avatar #276 to #275 - kolocktos
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(03/01/2014) [-]
I agree fully that same sex marriage is not gay privilege, and if that has been your main point this whole time, I apologize because I only just realized it. On that note he is correct. My only gripe was with him using such a poor comparison. It's ironic that he used taxes as well, because that is partially what the fight is about. Couples recognized as "married" receive tax breaks that "domestic partnerships" do not. One major reason homosexuals want to be recognized as married is so they can enjoy the same taxation rates. He should have said "Same sex marriage is not gay privilege. Privilege is paying less taxes because you married someone of the opposite sex, since straight couples have relaxed taxes." It would have A) made sense and B) been relevant to the same sex marriage controversy.
#277 to #276 - swagbot
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(03/01/2014) [-]
Yes, that would have been the correct way for him to say it.

I suppose the other posters are right - Ricky really was just taking a swipe at religion, because he could've brought up so many other more-relevant cases of 'privilege'.
User avatar #62 to #51 - thebaseballexpert
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
do i even want to scan that QR code?
User avatar #71 to #62 - christheace
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
I think it's more for the face in the middle
User avatar #160 to #71 - sadistikal
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
Actually it says "I seriously hope you guys don't scan this".
#73 to #71 - thebaseballexpert
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
#47 - applescryatnight
Reply +14 123456789123345869
(02/27/2014) [-]
if homosexes start donating as much money to charity as the church does, start giving out free services to anyone who asks, and give up any form of solid income, i would be all for not taxing them.

yes there are churches that dont give to charity
yes there are churches that refuse services to certain people
and yes, there are megachurches in the south that rake in millions.

but then again there are outliers in every single group of people. there have been gay people who are horrible people. just cause you stick your dick somewhere other people dont stick their dicks into doesnt mean you become some magically good person.
User avatar #49 to #47 - KazumaKyu
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
No-one says all gays are nice people, because they are people and people tend to suck. But there are plenty of people who go around saying all churches are kind and loving and totally legitimate and above-board. Those people are wrong, and it is the duty of thinking (i.e. not retarded) individuals to inform them of how horribly incorrect they truly are.
#204 - spunkball
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
It's today's Fj pro-HOMO propaganda..   
   
Remember your brainwashing kids: HOMO bum sex = good..... God = bad
It's today's Fj pro-HOMO propaganda..

Remember your brainwashing kids: HOMO bum sex = good..... God = bad
#209 to #204 - anon id: 381e7cb8
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#222 to #204 - darknesincontrol
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
User avatar #153 - thisistheguy
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
How did this post get on the front page and literally every comment is about how much people ******* hate Ricky Gervais?
#262 to #153 - spunkball
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
It's a pro-homo propaganda post, thumbed up by a pile of bot accounts    
   
Basically it's designed to promote the pro-homo message through social media
It's a pro-homo propaganda post, thumbed up by a pile of bot accounts

Basically it's designed to promote the pro-homo message through social media
User avatar #2 - faimbot
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(02/27/2014) [-]
Churches don't pay taxis? That's awesome, it explains how the priest couldn't pay me £1 to keep quiet yet was able to get us to that underground club he insists on making me strip tease at....