Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

CCRW

Ssm And Byu Tax Exempt

Recommended Posts

The potential loss of tax exempt status is very real under the precedent of Bobs Jones University v United States.

 

However, the Federal Government does not prohibit discrimination against lgbt or lgbt couples; gender identity or sexual orientation are not protected classes, under Civil Rights laws.

 

Until gender identity or sexual orientation are protected classes, I am not positive that the IRS can effectively "enact legislation" to make them protected classes. In the meantime, I would suggest religious themed lobbist start post haste drafting proposing legislation.

 

A Religious Freedom Restoration Act, may not protect a religous instituation, because in Bob Jones, ending discrimination was deemed a compelling government interest.

 

Under our system of government that is always possible. However I don't believe a compelling legal argument can be made that could force a religion/church minister to perform a SSM ceremony against their wishes.

 

True, but nor complete; Businesses with government contracts are prohibited from discrimination against lgbt or lgbt couples; gender identity or sexual orientation. Federal legislation against such discrimination right now is being held up for partisan political gain in Congress.

 

Bob Jones University was held to not meet the strict scrutiny provision of the law thus not eligible tax exemption.

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University_v._United_States

Share this post


Link to post

Does that mean tax laws exempting churches from taxation are unconstitutional? 

 

You are thinking about this totally backwards.

 

Tax exempt does not mean that somehow the Government is just being generous to religion by not making it pay taxes. It means that the government does not have the right to tax religion under the First Amendment.

Share this post


Link to post

And yet a taxation of religion, no matter how seemingly good the reason, would violate the Constitution. So like I said earlier, if the Court deems LGBT a protected class the laws are going to be in serious conflict one with another. Something will have to give. Either over turn Bob Jones (which many people won't like) or violate the Establishment Clause.

 

Take your pick.

 

 

Again, you have failed to show that loss of tax exempt status of a religous instituation would violate the Constitution.

 

Bob Jones Unversity v United States, is proof positive the loss of tax exempt status IS NOT A VIOLATION of the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post

Does that mean tax laws exempting churches from taxation are unconstitutional? 

 

Yes, under lvjd66 continued misapplied view of the 1st Amendment.

Share this post


Link to post

Under our system of government that is always possible. However I don't believe a compelling legal argument can be made that could force a religion/church minister to perform a SSM ceremony against their wishes.

 

This is true, but not really what we are talking about. Can't force them to perform those marriages, but they can attempt to coerce them into through threat of taxation. Basically it would amount to making the choice not to perform those marriages a lot more difficult. Is there really much of a difference between this kind of coercion and force?

 

I don't think so.

Share this post


Link to post

Again, you have failed to show that loss of tax exempt status of a religous instituation would violate the Constitution.

 

Bob Jones Unversity v United States, is proof positive the loss of tax exempt status IS NOT A VIOLATION of the Constitution.

 

No it is not. It is proof positive that a bunch of judges made the wrong decision. Bad facts make bad law* as the old saying goes. I sympathize with the Court hearing Bob Jones as sided with a bunch of bigots would not have been fun. But now we are going to have to decide if  so called discrimination trumps the Establishment Clause.

 

*The bad facts being a bunch of bigots who wanted to discriminate.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, under lvjd66 continued misapplied view of the 1st Amendment.

 

You mean my legally correct and constitutionally correct interpretation?

Share this post


Link to post

There are no absolute rights under any part of the Constitution.  .....

 

 

This is true. For example, there is no absolute right to speech. There are many restrictions put in place by the court on speech.

 

So here agree that "there are no absolute rights under any part of the Constitution."

 

Congress shall make no law....

 

No means no, or so I am told. 

 

And here you completely contradict yourself for a second time.

 

"Congress shall make no law...." also applies to speech, which mean under one of claims Free Speech is a absolute right.

 

Yet, you contradict that statement by with "there is no absolute right to speech".

 

 

If "Congress shall make no law..." then free speech has no restrictions.

 

 

So which is it, absolute or not absolute?

Share this post


Link to post

And yet a taxation of religion, no matter how seemingly good the reason, would violate the Constitution. So like I said earlier, if the Court deems LGBT a protected class the laws are going to be in serious conflict one with another. Something will have to give. Either over turn Bob Jones (which many people won't like) or violate the Establishment Clause.

 

Take your pick.

 

Why?

 

Am I entitled under your idea to open a brothel next to an elementary school simply by calling my brothel a church?

Share this post


Link to post

You mean my legally correct and constitutionally correct interpretation?

 

see post 133 which documents your contradictory positions.

Share this post


Link to post

Why?

 

Am I entitled under your idea to open a brothel next to an elementary school simply by calling my brothel a church?

 

No, but again that is not what we are talking about. 

 

Additionally, I love how people have to take far out extremes to try and disprove the rule. 

Share this post


Link to post

So here agree that "there are no absolute rights under any part of the Constitution."

 

 

And here you completely contradict yourself for a second time.

 

"Congress shall make no law...." also applies to speech, which mean under one of claims Free Speech is a absolute right.

 

Yet, you contradict that statement by with "there is no absolute right to speech".

 

 

If "Congress shall make no law..." then free speech has no restrictions.

 

 

So which is it, absolute or not absolute?

 

It is not a contradiction, at least not to what we are talking about here. 

 

There is plenty of case law about phony religions (i.e., a brothel) being denied religious status (therefore, not absolute). Yet at the same time, a taxation of religion would absolutely violate the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post

No, but again that is not what we are talking about. 

 

Additionally, I love how people have to take far out extremes to try and disprove the rule. 

 

You have not demonstrated a "rule".

 

You contradict yourself, then when your contradiction is pointed out, you contradict yourself again.

 

The current "rule" is the ruling from Bob Jones University, in which the Court stated prohibiting discrimination was a compelling government interest, and in "enforcing that interest, the loss of tax exempt status of a Bob Jones University DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION.

Share this post


Link to post

It is not a contradiction, at least not to what we are talking about here. 

 

There is plenty of case law about phony religions (i.e., a brothel) being denied religious status (therefore, not absolute). Yet at the same time, a taxation of religion would absolutely violate the Constitution.

 

this is pathetic, truely pathetic.

 

You site the "Congress shall make no law...." and follow up with "No means no".  And you have asserted that "Congress shall make no law..." creates absolute rights, yet you contradict that aswell.

 

Freedom of Religion and freedom of speech BOTH fall under the umbrella of "Congress shall make no law...."; which means according to your various opinions means there can be no restrition on religion or free speech.

Share this post


Link to post

Would we all agree that it would be a violation of the Establishment Clause to tax a Muslim University in Dearborn Michigan because congress decided only Christians Universities could qualify for tax exempt status?

 

I think that is a hard YES.

 

Why would it not be a violation of the Establishment Clause to tax a faith-based University for maintaining a belief and practice they have held for hundreds, if not thousands, of years?

 

There is no difference in the effect of these two examples. None. The only difference is what an individual values most: religious liberty or gay rights. 

 

That's it. Because of the current status of case law, I don't think we can have both.

Share this post


Link to post

You have not demonstrated a "rule".

 

You contradict yourself, then when your contradiction is pointed out, you contradict yourself again.

 

The current "rule" is the ruling from Bob Jones University, in which the Court stated prohibiting discrimination was a compelling government interest, and in "enforcing that interest, the loss of tax exempt status of a Bob Jones University DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION.

 

The Bob Jones case is not the rule on the Establishment Clause. Not even close.

Share this post


Link to post

The Bob Jones case is not the rule on the Establishment Clause. Not even close.

 

So what is the "rule" on the Establishment, and please cite legal precedent. (As many of us learned in Maybury v Madison, Congress enacts laws, SCOTUS rules on the Constitutionality of those laws.)

 

Bob Jones IS THE RULE on taxation and 501©3 entities and the Establishment Clause. Please read the Bob Jones so that you can see where the Court ruled on the religous freedom claim.

 

 

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act would be the "rule", that the Supreme Court would have to follow concerning BYU or Notre Dame alleged discrimintory policies.

 

And given that in Bob Jones, the Supreme Court stated that prohibiting discrimination is a compelling government interesting (part 1 test under RFRA), the second test test/question for the Supreme Court would be whether loss of tax exempt status is "the least restrictive means" by which the Government can enforce that compelling interest. 

Share this post


Link to post

lvjd66

 

From SCOTUS in Bob Jones v United States:

 

The governmental interest [non-discrimination] at stake here is compelling. ...  That governmental interest substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits .... and no "less restrictive means," see Thomas v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Div., supra, at 718, are available to achieve the governmental interest

Share this post


Link to post

It is not a contradiction, at least not to what we are talking about here. 

 

There is plenty of case law about phony religions (i.e., a brothel) being denied religious status (therefore, not absolute). Yet at the same time, a taxation of religion would absolutely violate the Constitution.

Again what is a phony religion? Who gets to define it for tax purposes?  If no taxes can be placed on any religion what is to stop me from claiming my restaurant  is my religion(I worship food). Do I get a pass on paying my taxes?

Share this post


Link to post

So what is the "rule" on the Establishment, and please cite legal precedent. (As many of us learned in Maybury v Madison, Congress enacts laws, SCOTUS rules on the Constitutionality of those laws.)

 

Bob Jones IS THE RULE on taxation and 501©3 entities and the Establishment Clause. Please read the Bob Jones so that you can see where the Court ruled on the religous freedom claim.

 

 

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act would be the "rule", that the Supreme Court would have to follow concerning BYU or Notre Dame alleged discrimintory policies.

 

And given that in Bob Jones, the Supreme Court stated that prohibiting discrimination is a compelling government interesting (part 1 test under RFRA), the second test test/question for the Supreme Court would be whether loss of tax exempt status is "the least restrictive means" by which the Government can enforce that compelling interest. 

 

Its called the Lemon Test:

 

-Law most have a secular purpose

-It's primary effect must not be to inhibit or advance religion

-Law can't result in government entanglement with religion

 

If taxation of a religion or faith based institution passes that test...our country officially sucks.

Share this post


Link to post

lvjd66

 

From SCOTUS in Bob Jones v United States:

 

The governmental interest [non-discrimination] at stake here is compelling. ...  That governmental interest substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits .... and no "less restrictive means," see Thomas v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Div., supra, at 718, are available to achieve the governmental interest

 

I have never denied what the Court said in their decision, only that they got it dreadfully wrong. Only Rehnquist was smart enough to see it for what it was. All you need to know about the case is that Brennan joined on the decision. If Brennan agrees with you, more likely than not you are in trouble.

Share this post


Link to post

Again what is a phony religion? Who gets to define it for tax purposes?  If no taxes can be placed on any religion what is to stop me from claiming my restaurant  is my religion(I worship food). Do I get a pass on paying my taxes?

 

Really? Are we not capable as a country from differentiating between an honestly held belief that homosexuality is a sin and the worship of a flying spaghetti monster, food or at a brothel?

Share this post


Link to post

Its called the Lemon Test:

 

-Law most have a secular purpose

-It's primary effect must not be to inhibit or advance religion

-Law can't result in government entanglement with religion

 

If taxation of a religion or faith based institution passes that test...our country officially sucks.

 

Additionally, the law (such as taxation of a religion) has to meet all three of these standards not just one.

Share this post


Link to post

Would this only apply to federal taxes? Each state taxes churches and their entities differently. 

Share this post


Link to post

Its called the Lemon Test:

-Law most have a secular purpose

-It's primary effect must not be to inhibit or advance religion

-Law can't result in government entanglement with religion

What was the test used in Bob Jones?

What test was used in Employment Division v Smith?

How did Congress react after employment division v smith?

What was the test used in Hobby Lobby?

What is the test created by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act?

As you look up those cases you discover that Lemon is not "one [test] to rule them all".

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...