[buff-a]

Were these for- profit companies suddenly to decide that churches were not eligible for their largesse, the lunch program would almost certainly be shut down.

Perhaps to be replaced by secular organizations, instead of organizations that believe that in a few years time myself and most of my friends are going to be tortured for eternity in a very real place called hell and who are ok with that.

[danssig]

Who said anyone is ok with you going to hell? What would you have them do about it? I assume your answer will be "stop believing in it", to which I'll answer: should I take the same tact if I see you smoking? Assume cancer doesn't exist?

[cgranade]

I presume you are aware that we have an extensive amount of evidence that cancer does exist and is a real and likely consequence of smoking, but that we have absolutely no evidence of a hell, much less of which actions would lead one there.

[echaozh]

Actually, what if there is a hell only because so many people believe so and we go to hell because they believe/hope so? Would they stop believing so other people could enjoy a more peaceful afterlife?

[danssig]

Irrelevant to the point. The person really and truly believes something bad is going to happen to you, regardless of why.

[ars]

So what you are saying is, because you don't agree with them they should be shut down?

[tomjen3]

How about because he doesn't like them, he doesn't care if they are shut down.

[vacri]

Again, you're conflating things. "No more discounts for you, but please avail yourself of our regular services" is not some jackbooted thug forcing you to close.

It's an end to favourable special treatment, not an increased burden of restrictions.

[gizzlon]

Instead, they're only going to give "discount" lunch to people they agree with ;)

Seems like google decides what nonprofits are good and deserves a discount and who are "evil" (or whatever) and does not. How would their soup-kitchen look like?

[buff-a]

They don't appear to be making any value judgments, at least from what I read in the article. If you have an entity that provides a charitable purpose, and nothing else, then you get lower costs. If you have an entity that is involved in something else, then you don't get lower costs.

[gizzlon]

Actually, I think that's exactly what they do. I don't know, but I guess deciding if something is nonprofit must be quite easy. Deciding who's charitable and who's not must be hard.

Saying that someone is not charitable because they give out food AND preach is a huge value judgement.

[buff-a]

You did it just there with that "AND". Clearly not that hard.

[gizzlon]

huh? Please clarify

[vacri]

Saying that someone is not charitable because they give out food AND preach is a huge value judgement.

That's a strawman. It's not saying they're not a charitable organisation, it's saying they're not an organisation whose sole purpose is charity.

[gizzlon]

"That's a strawman."

Maybe..

"it's saying they're not an organisation whose sole purpose is charity."

And that's the value judgement. Right there. You just defined what a "charity" is, and is not. Some might call preaching a charity (I might) etc..

[felipemnoa]

And you can also define jumping up and down as dancing.

[vacri]

Is it really a charity when the recipients don't necessarily want what you're giving them?