Police protection is paid for by the taxes paid by the people that work there.
Same as a corporation...I don't think a corporation itself should be taxed because everyone that works and runs that corporation is already taxed. Profits are put to work...they just don't sit there unclaimed...same goes for non profits...donations pay expenses, including building maintenance.

PS...the police have never been here...

Re: "when does business or government Pay for services to non-profits." Police protection, access to the courts for two. A lot depends on the nature of the particular non-profit. Regardless, an Objectivist legal system would treat profit and non-profit associations equally - it would not even make such a distinction. I have no objection to tax exemptions for non-profits as long as the same exemptions are available to for-profit associations and businesses as well.

Question: when does business or government Pay for services to non-profits. I don't know of any except plowing and maintaining the roads which every individual that's not on welfare or living in the town park or the young...pays taxes for those things. All else is paid for by the "Donations" the non-profit collects.

I work for a Non Profit and the town/state does squat! and to be honest, we don't want them to...just leave us alone.

Before responding to your positions, I would like to observe that the social conservative view of the Constitution is very different from the Objectivist/libertarian one. Both points of view favor restricting the federal government, but social conservatives emphasize states’ rights while Objectivists and libertarians emphasize individual rights. We might as well be talking about two different documents.

1. Associations should be taxed equally or not at all, whether they are religious or non-religious, profit-making or non-profit. Businesses should not be taxed to pay for government services for churches or other private organizations.

2. So freedom of speech should be limited to “intelligent conversation”, “sharing viewpoints” or words acceptable in “polite company”? Sounds like you think that Constitutional protections should extend only to speech that you approve of.

3. “The mother has the right to determine when she has sex, absolutely.” But the Constitution Party would ban abortion even in the case of rape. They are justifying their position on explicitly religious grounds. And are you claiming that legal abortion clinics are as unsafe as back alley abortions?

4. State-level banning of drugs is a prime example of how social conservatives and libertarians differ. Social conservatives are just fine with violating individual rights as long as the states or lower level of government do it. Libertarians uphold individual rights against usurpations by any level of government.

5. You did not disagree with any of the points I made about what’s fair to military personnel, you just used their current crappy treatment to justify special privileges for veterans. I’ll repeat my position: Military personnel, like any other workers, should be fairly compensated while in service (including for injuries sustained in performance of such service), not granted special privileges afterwards. And you don’t need after-service “benefits” to maintain a volunteer army. You just need to compensate them appropriately while they are in the armed forces.

6. It’s a clear violation of individual rights for a government at any level to put individuals into the category of “those who are sexually deviant” or to outlaw sexual behavior that the government deems “offensive”.

Thanks for taking a look. You're welcome to disagree with their positions. I find them refreshing. Regarding your concerns:

1. Everyone is entitled to the protection of the government. If your argument is that certain associations aren't paying for their services, I would point out that even if the religious institutions or non-profits aren't paying income taxes, their individual members are. Should the individual members stop receiving those benefits just because they walk into a church, an orphanage, or a homeless shelter? Of course not. It seems to me your beef here is with the religion - not the government.

The real danger - as embodied in the IRS targeting scandal or Obamacare - is whether or not the government can use policy as a coercive measure to force private organizations to change their beliefs or operating procedures. Anyone who believes in the Constitution and First Amendment should immediately cry foul - regardless of whether or not one believes in the principles of the individual establishment. Once government is given license to persecute belief, every other right falls with it. If you believe that a government can force belief, you also must condone minimum wage laws. You must condone diversity-based hiring practices. Do you see now why this is such an important issue?

2. Not all forms of speech and expression are protected. Protected speech must be speech that expresses an idea or point of view. And let's be honest: no one uses obscenities in polite company. Vulgarities are for those with limited vocabularies, limited self-control, and little respect for others. They are for shock factor - not intelligent conversation or sharing viewpoints.

3. The mother has the right to determine when she has sex, absolutely. It's pretty hard to get pregnant without having sex. As to "back alley abortions", you are aware of Kermit Gosnell, right? You are aware that a Texas law requiring abortion providers to maintain clean equipment and operating rooms was struck down correct? So really, current abortions are no safer or cleaner just because they take place in a building. The other question is safe to whom? The baby certainly isn't going to agree with you. And you might want to look up the instances of deaths and TSS associated with abortive procedures, not to mention the psychological ramifications. To call any such "safe" in any form is ignorant.

4. Yes. If Colorado wants to make drugs available, that's up to Colorado. And if Wyoming next door says no, then no it is. The principle you are missing is that again, there is no enumerated power which gives the right of control to the Federal Government. And it is currently the Federal Government - not State governments - saying no to marijuana legalization. An objection to this one seems pretty ridiculous to me whether you are for legalization OR against.

5. Are soldiers members of a privileged class? Yup. They are true patriots - privileged to work for little or no pay for extended periods - frequently away from family and loved ones. They work on holidays, they miss graduations, childbirth, and more. And you might want to look at how much the common enlisted person makes while in the service - it's crap. I don't have any problem in exchange for their service giving them a deferred payment for education benefits. I would also point out that those benefits are a huge incentive for maintaining a volunteer-based military. Take it away and you are likely to have to resort to a draft to fill the ranks.

6. I see bolded text. I don't see an objection here and I make it a practice not to infer when I can simply ask for clarification.

I was offered to be the party's state treasurer some time back. I declined.
While I mostly agree with the CP and have communicated and followed them for abfew decades, I cannot subscribe to their 'white as nrwvfalken snow" litmus test for it's candidates. I get having politicians beyond reproach but today that would mean pastoral candidates, many of those would be lying.

Several reasons I’m not voting for the Constitution Party:

“We assert that any form of taxation on churches and other religious organizations is a direct and dangerous step toward state control of the church.” So the rest of us are supposed to provide government services to religious organizations, including profit-making ones, for free.
https://www.constitutionparty.com/rel...

“We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing all laws against obscenity.” A rather creative method for protecting free speech.
https://www.constitutionparty.com/por...

“We affirm the God-given legal personhood of all human beings from fertilization to natural death, without exception. . . As to matters of rape and incest, we find it unconscionable to take the life of an innocent child for the crimes of his father.” So the mother has no rights at all, and we return to back-alley abortions?
http://www.constitutionparty.com/the-...

“The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions.” So criminalizing drug use and sales is just fine as long as it’s not the federal government doing so.
https://www.constitutionparty.com/dru...

“Education should be free from all federal government subsidies, including vouchers, tax incentives, and loans, except with respect to veterans.” Another privileged class. Military personnel, like any other workers, should be fairly compensated while in service (including for injuries sustained in performance of such service), not granted special privileges afterwards.
https://www.constitutionparty.com/edu...

“We are opposed to any judicial ruling or amending the U.S. Constitution or any state constitution re-defining marriage with any definition other than the Biblical standard . . . We reject the notion that homosexuals, transgenders or those who are sexually deviant are deserving of legal favor or special protection, and affirm the rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior.” No further comment needed.