Ssm And Byu Tax Exempt

[Mystery Meat]

How does the establishment clause prohibit the taxation of religions? 

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

[tonie]

The Establishment Clause.

I did not realize you support the absolute right of a religious couple to have a same sex marriage.

Or are you going to the establishment clause permits restrictions on religion.

[tonie]

Nope. Freedom of religion is a right, and taxing religion infringes on that right.

So it is not your opinion, then you are asserting it is fact.

Please show the facts, that clearly and concisely show tax e exemption is a religious right.

[tonie]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Is religious human sacrafice an absolute religious right?

Is religious based same sex marriage an absolute religious right?

[Gray]

I think your 15% example would also be illegal. It would destroy organized religion.

 

It would go against current IRS tax code, but not the constitution. 

 

I don't think it would destroy organized religion, but I'm sure churches would need to spend more time in fundraising. Or perhaps to avoid taxation of their excess revenue, they would invest more in humanitarian work. Could be a net benefit. 

 

That's assuming churches would be, in this scenario, taxed like businesses and revenue used for expenses would be tax deductible, leaving only excess funds subject to taxation. In which case, no church would actually be destroyed. They would pay taxes only on whatever they had left over after paying for all expenses related to their operation. 

[Gray]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

 

And how does taxation affect either of those clauses?

 

If it means we can't make any laws about religion, the tax codes exempting churches from taxation would be a violation of the establishment clause.

 

I don't see how taxation would prohibit the free exercise of religion. It seems clear the intent of this clause was to not create a state church and to not outlaw any particular church or religion. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

And they said it wouldn't couldn't happen.

CFR. Specifically that universities that discriminate along sexual orientation grounds would remain tax exempt.

[Mystery Meat]

And how does taxation affect either of those clauses?

 

If it means we can't make any laws about religion, the tax codes exempting churches from taxation would be a violation of the establishment clause.

 

I don't see how taxation would prohibit the free exercise of religion. It seems clear the intent of this clause was to not create a state church and to not outlaw any particular church or religion. 

 

Giving tax benefits to churchs or faith based groups for having certain stances and tax penalties to others for having the exact opposite viewpoints, is creation of a quasi state church. 

[ERayR]

And how does taxation affect either of those clauses?

 

 

The power to tax involves the power to control or destroy. (Chief Justice John Marshall)

[ERayR]

CFR. Specifically that universities that discriminate along sexual orientation grounds would remain tax exempt.

 

Didn't say they would.  In fact if you read slowly you might realize that my point is that, contrary to some peoples assurances, they wouldn't.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Didn't say they would.  In fact if you read slowly you might realize that my point is that, contrary to some peoples assurances, they wouldn't.

Okay. I'm sorry. I thought you were saying that at some point same sex marriage supporters had claimed that universities wouldn't or couldn't have their tax exempt status challenged.

[Gray]

Giving tax benefits to churchs or faith based groups for having certain stances and tax penalties to others for having the exact opposite viewpoints, is creation of a quasi state church. 

 

Only if those concerns were explicitly theological. And, let's remember, we're not really talking about churches. Church-owned universities are defined as secular organizations. 

[Gray]

The power to tax involves the power to control or destroy. (Chief Justice John Marshall)

 

Even if the LDS church, for instance, were taxed at 100% of net income, none of its actual operations would be effected. 

[Mystery Meat]

Okay. I'm sorry. I thought you were saying that at some point same sex marriage supporters had claimed that universities wouldn't or couldn't have their tax exempt status challenged.

 

I have been told that numerous times (almost word for word) by SSM supporters.

[Mystery Meat]

Even if the LDS church, for instance, were taxed at 100% of net income, none of its actual operations would be effected. 

 

To quote Obiwan Kenobi:

 

 

"Then the emperor has already won."

[Mystery Meat]

Only if those concerns were explicitly theological. And, let's remember, we're not really talking about churches. Church-owned universities are defined as secular organizations. 

 

I disagree, and the law does too, with every single statement in this post.

[Gray]

To quote Obiwan Kenobi:

 

Just stating the mathematical reality of taxation. 

[Gray]

I disagree, and the law does too, with every single statement in this post.

 

If I were wrong, then each religion would be a law unto itself, and Bob Jones University could never have lost its tax exempt status, religious hospitals would not have to follow any health regulations, etc etc

[Gray]

Bob Jones University also contends that denial of tax exemption violates the Establishment Clause by preferring religions whose tenets do not require racial discrimination over those which believe racial intermixing is forbidden. It is well settled that neither a state nor the Federal Government may pass laws which "prefer one religion over another," Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 15 (1947), but "t is equally true" that a regulation does not violate the Establishment Clause merely because it "happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions." McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 442 (1961). See Harris v. McRae,448 U.S. 297, 319-320 (1980). The IRS policy at issue here is founded on a "neutral, secular basis," Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437, 452 (1971), and does not violate the Establishment Clause. See generally U.S. Comm'n on Civil Rights, Discriminatory Religious Schools and Tax Exempt Status 10-17 (1982). In addition, as the Court of Appeals noted,

the uniform application of the rule to all religiously operated schools avoids the necessity for a potentially entangling inquiry into whether a racially restrictive practice is the result of sincere religious belief.

 

 

[Mystery Meat]

 

 As much as I hate what Bob Jones stands for, I agree with them.

[ERayR]

Okay. I'm sorry. I thought you were saying that at some point same sex marriage supporters had claimed that universities wouldn't or couldn't have their tax exempt status challenged.

Yep that's what I said.  In anticipation I don't have time for a CFR but just do a search of the forum.  It has been claimed several time in the past.

 

Note: your CFR is not consistent with the above post.

[ERayR]

Even if the LDS church, for instance, were taxed at 100% of net income, none of its actual operations would be effected. 

 

How do you figure that? 

[Gray]

How do you figure that? 

 

Because the tax would be on the net income. That is, tithing and other revenues left over after expenses. So you deduct all money spent on chapels, furniture, missionary work, travel, stipends, media production, electricity bills, water bills, etc. Whatever is left would be taxable income.

 

But of course, no one pays 100% of net income. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I have been told that numerous times (almost word for word) by SSM supporters.

Surely it would be easy to find something in print then and link? Note, I am not referring to the tax exempt status of the church, but auxiliaries similar to a university or say catholic charities or some such.

 

It is interesting to note that in the wake of anti sex discrimination laws the church was forced to change its policy of firing any woman that had children for example. On the other hand, until recently it kept it's discriminatory (used in a descriptive non-judgmental way as I understand the reasons behind it) policy of firing female CES seminary teachers once they had young children as they were classified as religious ministers.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Yep that's what I said.  In anticipation I don't have time for a CFR but just do a search of the forum.  It has been claimed several time in the past.

 

Note: your CFR is not consistent with the above post.

I apologize for my poorly worded CFR, but telling me to do a forum search doesn't cut it. You are required per forum rules to retract or provide the reference (per my understanding).