🐱 Interesting clickbait, op-eds, fluff pieces and other smaller stories

CatParty
102943266-caitlyn.530x298.jpg


http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/24/caitlyn-jenner-halloween-costume-sparks-social-media-outrage-.html

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...een-costume-labeled-817515?utm_source=twitter

It's nowhere near October, but one ensemble is already on track to be named the most controversial Halloween costume of 2015.

Social media users were out in full force on Monday criticizing several Halloween retailers for offering a Caitlyn Jenner costume reminiscent of the former-athlete's Vanity Fair cover earlier this year.

While Jenner's supporters condemned the costume as "transphobic" and "disgusting" on Twitter, Spirit Halloween, a retailer that carries the costume, defended the getup.

"At Spirit Halloween, we create a wide range of costumes that are often based upon celebrities, public figures, heroes and superheroes," said Lisa Barr, senior director of marking at Spirit Halloween. "We feel that Caitlyn Jenner is all of the above and that she should be celebrated. The Caitlyn Jenner costume reflects just that."
Click to expand...
 
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: poggies123_, Retreaded Tire, Cereal Killer and 24 others
Click to expand...
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: GhastlyGhost, FierceBrosnan, Elwood P. Dowd and 4 others
He digitally penetrated her on four separate occasions between April of 2020 and July of 2021, each time searching for the imaginary sex toy. In one case, he pried her legs open and used a flashlight, court heard, shouting, “It’s in there, I know it’s in there.”
Click to expand...
‘Digitally penetrated her’ sounds like some kind of weird remote sex toy, not that he used his fingers.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: GhastlyGhost, FierceBrosnan and Gog & Magog
  • Horrifying
  • Islamic Content
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: PassiveUnaggressive, FierceBrosnan, Elwood P. Dowd and 2 others
Ayahuasca Church’s Tax-Exempt Status Denial Appeal Should Not Be Reheard, IRS Tells Court

Since Iowaska lacked the proper exemption, the IRS concluded the organization did not exist for exclusively tax-exempt purposes because its activities were illegal and denied the status application after a series of information requests. Iowaska sued the agency in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, kickstarting what would become a five-year legal battle.

The self-proclaimed church in its arguments before the court said the IRS incorrectly assumed its use of Ayahuasca was illegal. Further, Iowaska maintained a Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) claim for injuries to its reputation and ability to conduct charitable activities, on top of economic harm in the form of lost income and profits. Without Ayahuasca, the church earned no income from membership or contributions. But the district court was unconvinced and ruled in favor of the IRS’ decision, prompting Iowaska to appeal.

Ultimately, the IRS prevailed again in June when the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals held that the church lacked standing to make its RFRA claim, which also doomed its tax-exempt status claim.
Click to expand...
 
  • Informative
  • Lunacy
Reactions: DeathfatFag, Coo Coo Bird and FierceBrosnan
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back