Popular Post smac97 Posted October 15, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted October 15, 2019 I'm trying to figure out what conclusions to draw from this: Quote At CNN's Equality Town Hall focused on LGBTQ issues and co-hosted by the Human Rights Campaign, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke was asked by CNN's Don Lemon if he thought "religious institutions like colleges, churches, charities, should they lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage?" "Yes," O'Rourke replied, adding that "there can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us." This is, to put it mildly, unsettling. It looks like Mr. O'Rourke's campaign team has tried to do some damage control: Quote In response to whether O'Rourke believes his plan would be constitutional, Aleigha Cavalier, O'Rourke's national press secretary, told CNN that "Beto was referring to religious institutions who take discriminatory action." If O'Rourke was not referring to viewpoint discrimination but rather to discriminatory action as his campaign says, there is legal precedent for organizations to lose their tax-exempt status if they engage in such actions. I'm not sure if I can go along with this. It sounds like some pretty serious spin. Not even CNN (!) seems to be buying it: Quote Lemon's question, however, was whether O'Rourke would be in favor of denying tax-exempt status if a religious organization "opposed same sex marriage," not if they took broader discriminatory action. This left many wondering if such a move would violate the constitution. And not only that, it has left me wondering what the future holds for people who have a belief or viewpoint that people like Beto O'Rourke dislike. This is particularly so given the following statement issued in 2008: "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage." The person who made that statement was . . . Barack Obama. Fortunately, the law does appear to be against Mr. O'Rourke's threat (from the first link): Quote "It's open and shut," Eugene Volokh, a professor at UCLA School of Law and First Amendment expert, told CNN. "Everything old is new again. In the 1950s, various governments tried to do that -- they were going after supposed communists." Volokh pointed to the 1958 Supreme Court case Speiser v. Randall over California's decision to require applicants for certain tax exemptions to sign a loyalty oath to the US and the State of California. The Court ruled that California could not impose the oath and in the opinion, progressive Justice William Brennan wrote that "a discriminatory denial of a tax exemption for engaging in speech is a limitation on free speech." "The court made clear that if you deny a tax exemption it's the same as a fine," Volokh said. "So, one question you might ask is, would it be permissible to say we're going to impose a fine on any group or any religious group that takes a particular view about same-sex marriage? The answer is of course not. Clearly it would be a First Amendment violation." Courts have reaffirmed this time and again. More recently, in a 2015 DC Circuit Court of Appeals case over the IRS denying certain tax exemptions for a pro-Israel organization, the court found that "in administering the tax code, the IRS may not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint." In 2017, Volokh notes, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the government could not reject trademark applications that were seen as disparaging because it would be viewpoint discrimination. "Even when it comes to these kinds of fairly modest government provided benefits (e.g. certain trademark protections) the government can't discriminate based on viewpoint," Volokh said. Nevertheless, I can't help but think that there are plenty of ways that a "President O'Rourke" could find to use the government to punish religious organizations, such as the Church, for its teachings about same-sex marriage. (It is noteworthy that the Church acknowledges the legality of same-sex marriage as "the law of the land.") Also, it appears that Mr. O'Rourke is not the only one who is thinking of ways to use the government to punish religionists for their beliefs (from the first link): Quote Asked the same question earlier in the night, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker gave a much more dissembling answer, a seeming acknowledgment of the tricky constitutional issues involved in removing a group's tax-exempt status on the basis of views or beliefs. While Booker said he would "press this issue" and conceded that it would be a "long legal battle," he ultimately did not give a definitive answer. It also looks like this idea has been percolating for some years now. Consider this observation (from an article in The Atlantic) : Quote Though his swift “yes” in response to the CNN moderator Don Lemon’s question received an enthusiastic response from the Los Angeles audience, much of America—including those blue-hued states—might see troubling ramifications of this that go well beyond O’Rourke’s applause line. The candidate’s view isn’t entirely new to Democrats. It echoes, for example, then–Solicitor General Donald Verrilli’s concession during his oral argument in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 that the tax-exempt status of Christian colleges and universities who hold traditional views of marriage was “going to be an issue.” And it aligns with the Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet’s policy recommendation to take a “hard line” with religious conservatives because, after all, “trying to be nice to the losers didn’t work well after the Civil War,” and “taking a hard line seemed to work reasonably well in Germany and Japan after 1945.” Wow. And again, this is all fairly unsettling. Beto O'Rourke. Cory Booker. Donald Verrilli. Mark Tushnet. And how many more people in positions of power, or who are seeking positions of power, or who are advising those in power or those seeking positions of power, share these views? How many want, like Beto O'Rourke, to strip tax exemptions from churches and religious groups based solely on their religious beliefs ("should they lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage")? How many are, like Cory Booker, gearing up for a "long legal battle" against churches and religious groups who disagree with same-sex marriage on moral grounds? How many, like Tushnet, look at "religious conservatives" as "losers" against whom no "nice{ness}" is warranted, and should instead be treated using a "hard line"? The above-linked Atlantic article goes on to point out some of the ramifications to society that will likely arise should Mr. O'Rourke have his way: Quote {P}olicy analysts should assess the damage O’Rourke’s proposal would cause to the charitable sector. O’Rourke’s stance—if played out to its end—would decimate the charitable sector. It is certainly the case that massive amounts of government funding flow through religious charitable organizations in the form of grants and tax exemptions. But anyone who thinks this is simply a pass-through that can be redirected to government providers or newly established charitable networks that better conform to Democratic orthodoxies is naive to the realities of the charitable sector. ... In fact, religious individuals and organizations spend billions of their own dollars in the charitable sector and donate hundreds of millions of hours of service in global and domestic regions where the social fabric is the most distressed. They have spent generations building institutions, infrastructure, and networks that enable large-scale responses to natural disasters and other calamities. When hurricanes and tornadoes devastate entire communities, churches and religious organizations mobilize thousands of volunteers and many tons of relief supplies. Ending the tax-exempt status of these organizations would substantially weaken the charitable sector, which would result in more people suffering. Either Mr. O'Rourke doesn't care about this likely fallout, or he is so shortsighted that he hasn't considered it. Either way, his published threat is, again, unsettling. Thoughts? Thanks, -Smac 8 Link to comment
Duncan Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 Nobody has said tickety boo about Churches losing tax exemption status about gay marriage in Canada so I wouldn't worry about it. 1 Link to comment
Ahab Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 Beto O'Rourke was asked by CNN's Don Lemon if he thought "religious institutions like colleges, churches, charities, should they lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage?" "Yes," O'Rourke replied, adding that "there can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us." The way I see it, we don't deny others the right to marry someone of the same sex if they want to. We just state our belief that God is opposed to same-sex marriage and that we believe people of the same sex should not marry. So we're not denying he full human rights or the full civil rights of people to live as they so please. We just state our beliefs about how God wants us to live and that we believe we should live that way, rather than the "do as you please" way. Link to comment
CV75 Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 He wasn't the only one to say similar things, and Booker appealed to a Bible verse to justify it! Link to comment
Popular Post bluebell Posted October 15, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted October 15, 2019 Beto O'Rourke was also the candidate who said a resounding "yes!" to entering people's homes and removing their guns by force so this does not surprise me. He is incredibly intolerant of any position that he does not agree with and has stated that he would use his position as president to make things that he didn't agree with illegal. Hopefully calmer heads prevail. 11 Link to comment
california boy Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 I do have a few questions that someone might be able to answer. Is tax exemption a guarantee to churches or any other group? Doesn't a charitable organization have to show financial records to prove they are not a for profit business to qualify for tax exemption? What is the difference between a business and a business that claims to be a charity and how is that legally determined? And a comment. As organized religion becomes more of a political organization instead of being politically neutral, isn't public reaction to be more questioning tax exemption a pretty much expected response? Should the major supporters of one party be tax exempt simply because church goers are their base? What would the Republican party look like if organized religious leaders such a Lou Dobbs, Franklin Graham, Pat Robertson, Rick Warren, etc. became neutral politically? These leaders can no longer claim that the support for the leader of the Republican party is a support for morality and their religious beliefs. They have left all credibility for that position. This article might provide some insight to where the political climate and religion seems to be headed. Quote The question now for me, as an evangelical Christian, is has this generation of largely white male evangelical pastors and personalities destroyed their credibility by attaching themselves to Trump? Have they driven away a generation of young parishioners watching them all bathe in hypocrisy as what they teach in the pulpit is not what they practice in the public policy arena? Quote I refuse to believe that men and women of faith are wedded to a president who violates every moral code they profess to embrace, simply because of judges and finances. No. It has everything to do with fear of a changing America and a cultural displacement. And fear of one day being in the minority. I cannot make excuses for them, or suggest they really believe Trump is God’s anointed servant. That fails on its face. Trump is not a man of God. 3 Link to comment
smac97 Posted October 15, 2019 Author Share Posted October 15, 2019 14 minutes ago, Ahab said: Beto O'Rourke was asked by CNN's Don Lemon if he thought "religious institutions like colleges, churches, charities, should they lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage?" "Yes," O'Rourke replied, adding that "there can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us." The way I see it, we don't deny others the right to marry someone of the same sex if they want to. He seems to equate "oppos{ing} same-sex marriage" with "den{ying} the full human rights and the full civil rights" of gay persons. I agree that "we don't deny others the right to marry someone of the same sex if they want to," but that's not all there is to it. Is the Church's tax exemption at risk for teaching that same-sex marriage is not compatible with the Gospel? That homosexual behavior violates the Law of Chastity? It seems so. 14 minutes ago, Ahab said: We just state our belief that God is opposed to same-sex marriage and that we believe people of the same sex should not marry. Again, that's not all there is. Consider Mr. Booker's remarks. And Mr. Verrelli's. Both of them allude to future legal battles. Battles about what? 14 minutes ago, Ahab said: So we're not denying he full human rights or the full civil rights of people to live as they so please. I agree. The question is whether Messrs. O'Rourke/Booker/Verrelli/Tushnet believe that. If the status quo is sufficient, then why is Mr. Booker speaking of wanting to "press this issue" and speaking of a "long legal battle?" In 2015, when Mr. Verrelli was pressed by SCOTUS regarding this issue ("the tax-exempt status of Christian colleges and universities who hold traditional views of marriage" in the context of the legalization of same-sex marriage), he said that it was "going to be an issue." What do you think he meant by that? When Mr. Tushnet notes (speaking of how people of his bent should treat religious persons who disagree with him on same-sex marriage) that “trying to be nice to the losers didn’t work well after the Civil War,” and “taking a hard line seemed to work reasonably well in Germany and Japan after 1945,” what do you think he meant? Thanks, -Smac Link to comment
ksfisher Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 1 minute ago, california boy said: As organized religion becomes more of a political organization instead of being politically neutral, isn't public reaction to be more questioning tax exemption a pretty much expected response? Organizations can hold political views and be tax exempt. What they cannot do is support specific candidates. "Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes." https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/the-restriction-of-political-campaign-intervention-by-section-501c3-tax-exempt-organizations 4 Link to comment
smac97 Posted October 15, 2019 Author Share Posted October 15, 2019 (edited) 21 minutes ago, california boy said: I do have a few questions that someone might be able to answer. Is tax exemption a guarantee to churches or any other group? No. But the issue here is punishing religious groups based on their religious viewpoint. Quote Doesn't a charitable organization have to show financial records to prove they are not a for profit business to qualify for tax exemption? Irrelevant. The Church is already a tax-exempt organization. The issue here is the published threat against that exemption based on the viewpoint of the Church re: same-sex marriage. Quote What is the difference between a business and a business that claims to be a charity and how is that legally determined? Not sure what you mean here. Quote And a comment. As organized religion becomes more of a political organization instead of being politically neutral, I reject the premise. The Church is not "a political organization," and remains "politically neutral" (as far as partisanship is concerned). Quote isn't public reaction to be more questioning tax exemption a pretty much expected response? We aren't speaking of the "public." We are speaking of candidates for political office who are threatening religious groups for holding viewpoints with which they disagree. Quote Should the major supporters of one party be tax exempt simply because church goers are their base? Please stay on topic. Quote What would the Republican party look like if organized religious leaders such a Lou Dobbs, Franklin Graham, Pat Robertson, Rick Warren, etc. became neutral politically? Please stay on topic. Quote These leaders can no longer claim that the support for the leader of the Republican party is a support for morality and their religious beliefs. They have left all credibility for that position. Please stay on topic. No comments about Trump, please. Take it elsewhere. Thanks, -Smac Edited October 15, 2019 by smac97 3 Link to comment
california boy Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 I think it is important to remember that not everyone who supports gay rights is willing to remove tax exemptions from religious institutions based on their beliefs The only gay candidate running for president, Pete Buttigieg makes a strong statement supporting tax exemption for churches Quote “The idea that you’re going to strip churches of their tax-exempt status if they haven’t found their way toward blessing same-sex marriage — I’m not sure he understood the implications of what he was saying,” Buttigieg said of O’Rourke. Withholding tax-exempt status from religious organizations, according to Buttigieg, could dishonor the separation of church and state outlined in the First Amendment. . 3 Link to comment
california boy Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 6 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Organizations can hold political views and be tax exempt. What they cannot do is support specific candidates. "Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes." https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/the-restriction-of-political-campaign-intervention-by-section-501c3-tax-exempt-organizations I agree with your analysis. But what has changed is support of specific candidates such as Donald Trump. And this is what has changed in our current political climate. And this is a candidate that does not have any of the moral attributes these religious claim are important. Did you read the article I linked to?? Link to comment
2BizE Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 7 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Organizations can hold political views and be tax exempt. What they cannot do is support specific candidates. "Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes." https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/the-restriction-of-political-campaign-intervention-by-section-501c3-tax-exempt-organizations Wasn’t the church formally fined for directly participating in the Proposition 8 campaign? It contributed in excess of the allotted amount. Are there not countries where the church is not tax-exempt currently? How are the members affected by that? Link to comment
Ahab Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 (edited) 19 minutes ago, california boy said: I do have a few questions that someone might be able to answer. Is tax exemption a guarantee to churches or any other group?[/quote] Pretty much, as long as they operate for exempt purposes: The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency. Quote Doesn't a charitable organization have to show financial records to prove they are not a for profit business to qualify for tax exemption? No, it doesn't matter how much money they generate to fund their operations. The main factor is whether the purpose of their organization qualifies as an exempt purpose. Quote What is the difference between a business and a business that claims to be a charity and how is that legally determined? The purpose of their operations. Most businesses are in business to make a profit. To make money. That isn't what a charitable organization is all about. Edited October 15, 2019 by Ahab Link to comment
smac97 Posted October 15, 2019 Author Share Posted October 15, 2019 1 minute ago, california boy said: I agree with your analysis. But what has changed is support of specific candidates such as Donald Trump. Again, please take commentary about Trump elsewhere. Thanks, -Smac 1 Link to comment
smac97 Posted October 15, 2019 Author Share Posted October 15, 2019 2 minutes ago, 2BizE said: Wasn’t the church formally fined for directly participating in the Proposition 8 campaign? It contributed in excess of the allotted amount. No, it was not fined for that. It was fined for messing up on daily reporting requirements of in-kind contributions. See here: Quote SALT LAKE CITY — Acknowledging tardy reporting of in-kind campaign contributions in the final weeks before the November 2008 passage of California's Proposition 8, the LDS Church has agreed with the state's Fair Political Practices Commission to pay a minor $5,000 fine. As the state agency for interpreting and enforcing California's campaign finance rules, the FPPC identified 13 instances of "nonmonetary late contributions made and not timely reported" — or the church failing to file daily reports detailing $36,928 in in-kind contributions, including the cost of staff time spent by church employees to help the "Yes on 8" committee. The original complaint filed against the LDS Church was that it failed to report numerous contributions totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars. "All institutional contributions made by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the ProtectMarriage Coalition were reported to the appropriate authorities in California," said Scott Trotter, LDS Church spokesman. "In the last two weeks leading up to the election, the Church mistakenly overlooked the daily reporting requirement and instead reported those contributions together in a later filing." The FPPC could have imposed a fine of up to $5,000 for each violation as it considered the severity of the infractions, records of prior violations and the presence or absence of an intent to deceive the public. The commission used a streamlined enforcement process — likened by some to a "traffic-ticket program" — and fined the LDS Church 15 percent of the value of each late-reported contribution — for a mutually agreed-upon total of $5,539. Thanks, -Smac 1 Link to comment
ksfisher Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 4 minutes ago, california boy said: I agree with your analysis. But what has changed is support of specific candidates such as Donald Trump. And this is what has changed in our current political climate. And this is a candidate that does not have any of the moral attributes these religious claim are important. Did you read the article I linked to?? Any tax-exempt organization contributing to the campaign of specific candidates should rightly be in danger of losing it's tax exempt status. 2 Link to comment
california boy Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 12 minutes ago, smac97 said: No. But the issue here is punishing religious groups based on their religious viewpoint. If tax exemption is not a right, then being taxed is not necessarily a punishment, unless you consider all taxes a punishment. 12 minutes ago, smac97 said: Broadly speaking, yes. But again, the Church is already a tax-exempt organization. The issue here is the published threat against that exemption based on the viewpoint of the Church re: same-sex marriage. I am not talking about the Church specifically, I am talking about organized religion in general. 12 minutes ago, smac97 said: Not sure what you mean here. Maybe someone who does understand the question might be able to answer it then. 12 minutes ago, smac97 said: I reject the premise. The Church is not "a political organization," and remains "politically neutral" (as far as partisanship is concerned). We aren't speaking of the "public." We are speaking of candidates for political office who are threatening religious groups for holding viewpoints with which they disagree. Please stay on topic. Please stay on topic. Please stay on topic. No comments about Trump, please. Take it elsewhere. Thanks, -Smac You are dismissing organized religion for supporting a specific candidate. It is a very important part of this discussion because they have crossed over from speaking out about political issues to supporting specific candidates. That violates the tax exempt guidelines that 2BIZe referred to. Get out the vote for a specific party would also violate those tax exempt guidelines. Link to comment
smac97 Posted October 15, 2019 Author Share Posted October 15, 2019 2 minutes ago, california boy said: If tax exemption is not a right, then being taxed is not necessarily a punishment, unless you consider all taxes a punishment. I encourage you to review the remarks of Eugene Volokh in the OP. Your assessment is incorrect on this point. The denial or revocation of tax exemption based on the viewpoint of the group is viewpoint discrimination. It's against the law. 2 minutes ago, california boy said: You are dismissing organized religion for supporting a specific candidate. I am not. I am saying that your remarks are off-topic. Please take them elsewhere. 2 minutes ago, california boy said: It is a very important part of this discussion because they have crossed over from speaking out about political issues to supporting specific candidates. Again, no comments about Trump, please. I started the thread. I get to determine its scope. Feel free to start your own thread about Trump if you like. Thanks, -Smac 2 Link to comment
Jake Starkey Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 One cannot take away the right to private association. However, tax-empt breaks are not constitutional protections. Religious organizations that engage in politics should be denied their tax break status. Link to comment
Ahab Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 (edited) 39 minutes ago, smac97 said: He seems to equate "oppos{ing} same-sex marriage" with "den{ying} the full human rights and the full civil rights" of gay persons. Yes he seems to be equating the two but they are not the same thing. We don't deny the full human rights or the full civil rights of anybody, gay or otherwise. We recognize the rights of everyone to choose what they want to do for themselves. We do oppose doing anything opposed to what God wants us to do, though, but at the same time we still respect everyone's right to choose to do whatever they will do. It is a complex issue and we may need to go through some court battles to drive our point home. Quote I agree that "we don't deny others the right to marry someone of the same sex if they want to," but that's not all there is to it. Is the Church's tax exemption at risk for teaching that same-sex marriage is not compatible with the Gospel? That homosexual behavior violates the Law of Chastity? It seems so. No, I don't think so, even though he and some other people may think so. We have a right to believe whatever we want to believe, and we also have the right to say whatever we want to say. Even within the limits of a charitable organization. We're in a pretty much unbeatable position, I would say, if you were to ask me. They're just saying whatever they want to say, too. Quote Again, that's not all there is. Consider Mr. Booker's remarks. And Mr. Verrelli's. Both of them allude to future legal battles. Battles about what? Battles about who to vote for. Who to support. Whose position and which positions will carry the majority vote. The majority vote can't overturn the Constitution of the United States, though. Even if some people battle with all their might to defeat it, we will prevail. Quote I agree. The question is whether Messrs. O'Rourke/Booker/Verrelli/Tushnet believe that. If the status quo is sufficient, then why is Mr. Booker speaking of wanting to "press this issue" and speaking of a "long legal battle?" To stir up the public. To try to get more votes. More publicity. More action in his favor, he hopes. It's all strategy. His strategy, with the goals he wants to achieve in his mind. Quote In 2015, when Mr. Verrelli was pressed by SCOTUS regarding this issue ("the tax-exempt status of Christian colleges and universities who hold traditional views of marriage" in the context of the legalization of same-sex marriage), he said that it was "going to be an issue." What do you think he meant by that? When Mr. Tushnet notes (speaking of how people of his bent should treat religious persons who disagree with him on same-sex marriage) that “trying to be nice to the losers didn’t work well after the Civil War,” and “taking a hard line seemed to work reasonably well in Germany and Japan after 1945,” what do you think he meant? I think I have already explained well enough. I think it's just some more of the same kind of fluff. We are going to show him how to uphold the rights we have according to the Constitution of the United States of America. In God we trust. He isn't going to beat us. Edited October 15, 2019 by Ahab Link to comment
smac97 Posted October 15, 2019 Author Share Posted October 15, 2019 4 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said: One cannot take away the right to private association. But one in a position of political power can punish that association because of its viewpoint. That is what Mr. O'Rourke (and others) appear to be planning to do. 4 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said: However, tax-empt breaks are not constitutional protections. Well, not quite. Denial or revocation of tax exemptions based on viewpoint discrimination is clearly a constitutional issue. 4 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said: Religious organizations that engage in politics should be denied their tax break status. Way too broad a statement. Thanks, -Smac 1 Link to comment
ksfisher Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 5 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said: Religious organizations that engage in politics should be denied their tax break status. Legally, tax-exempt organizations can speak on political issues. What they cannot do is support specific candidates for office. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/churches-religious-organizations 2 Link to comment
Jake Starkey Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 (edited) 55 minutes ago, smac97 said: But one in a position of political power can punish that association because of its viewpoint. That is what Mr. O'Rourke (and others) appear to be planning to do. Well, not quite. Denial or revocation of tax exemptions based on viewpoint discrimination is clearly a constitutional issue. Way too broad a statement. Thanks, -Smac Thanks for the correction. The law is clear. Don't support candidates. Period. Change the law so tax-exempt status can be revoked for engaging in politics. Please note that AHAB got it wrong after I changed my mistake. Edited October 15, 2019 by Jake Starkey Link to comment
Ahab Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 (edited) 1 minute ago, Jake Starkey said: Not in the slightest. The law is clear. Don't engage in politics. Period. To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170. The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction. Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-501c3-organizations Edited October 15, 2019 by Ahab 1 Link to comment
CA Steve Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 48 minutes ago, bluebell said: He is incredibly intolerant of any position that he does not agree with and has stated that he would use his position as president to make things that he didn't agree with illegal. I cannot imagine the level of intolerance it takes for someone or maybe some group like a church trying to use their position to make things they don't agree with illegal. Link to comment
Recommended Posts