Beto O'Rourke's Threat Re: "Oppos{ing} Same Sex Marriage"

[Jake Starkey]

9 minutes ago, Ahab said:

So what you envision in what I assume to be one of your worst nightmares is that something like this would happen?:

In 2020, President O'Rourke successfully revoked tax exempt status from charitable organizations who share beliefs contrary to what some people in government want them to believe..

How sad it must be for you to feel that way.  I have sympathy for your concerns.  And yet at the same time I don't think that is going to happen.

That is not what Beto said, though.  No one cares about what churches believe, they can't support politicians.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

We are talking about someone making stupid anticonstitutional statements to fire up his extremist bigoted base. How can we not use the comparison?

I don't think that's the topic of the OP.  The topic is someone saying they will use the presidency to remove tax exempt status from churches because that don't believe the right things.  That's a topic that can easily be discussed without bring trump into it.

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

We are talking about someone making stupid anticonstitutional statements to fire up his extremist bigoted base. How can we not use the comparison?

Have you noticed I haven't compared either one of them to Satan, even though they may be comparable in this regard?

And No, I still haven't done that. I was simply saying something I have not said, yet.

My point is that we don't have to compare people to other people who act the same way.  We can just talk about this guy O'Rourke without comparing him to Trump or...Satan.

[strappinglad]

It is the right of every citizen to arrange their finances so as to pay the legal minimum in taxes. 

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Ahab said:

So what you envision in what I assume to be one of your worst nightmares is that something like this would happen?:

I am not speaking of "worst nightmares."  I said I am "unsettled."  

Quote

In 2020, President O'Rourke successfully revoked tax exempt status from charitable organizations who share beliefs contrary to what some people in government want them to believe..

How sad it must be for you to feel that way.  I have sympathy for your concerns.  And yet at the same time I don't think that is going to happen.

I don't think it will happen, either.  But I think such punitive efforts against religionists are far more possible than they should be.

I think these efforts can be fairly oblique, but still effective.  Consider, by way of example, this story:

Quote

For nine years Democratic officials have attempted to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to provide free-of-charge abortion-inducing contraceptives to their employees under Obamacare.

You might have thought that the legal problems of the Sisters, a 180-year-old order of Catholic religious women known for their crisp gray-and-white veils and their mission of caring for the impoverished elderly in more than thirty countries, were long over. But though their struggles seemed to have ended in 2016 and 2017, they are now enduring death by a thousand legal cuts at the state level, enabled by the federal courts and their Obama-appointed judges.

The first part of the Sisters' story is well-known: They and six other Catholic and evangelical nonprofit entities opposed to abortion balked at complying with a Health and Human Services Department (HHS) free-contraceptives mandate for employers contained in the Affordable Care Act of 2010. Four years of virtual intransigence followed, during which the Obama HHS insisted that the only religious entities exempt from the contraceptive mandate were churches ministering to their own members. Then, in 2014, the HHS (along with the Treasury and Labor departments, also charged with enforcing Obamacare) proffered an “accommodation” to the Sisters and others via an interim rule: They could submit a statement of their religious objections to the government, which would then transfer the administration of contraceptive coverage directly to their insurance companies.

This pinch-of-incense compromise, which would have left abortifacient contraceptives as seamless parts of the Sisters’ employee package as though the Sisters had agreed to it in the first place, did not sit well with them.
...
Lawyers for the Sisters (in this case the nonprofit Becket Fund) and the other six entities insisted that they had no legal objections per se to Obamacare’s contraceptive-coverage mandate: They simply did not want their clients to be tarred by being forced to have any part in its administration.

In May 2016 the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the Obama administration from trying to impose fines in the range of $70 million on the Sisters.

The Little Sisters won this suit, but the article goes on to explain the arcane, complex ways in which they are being subjected to further "lawfare."

I'm just not comfortable with shrugging these sorts of things off.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 15, 2019 by smac97

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

That is not what Beto said, though.  No one cares about what churches believe, they can't support politicians.

Well I'm not going to be supporting this guy.  I can tell you that much.

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

That is not what Beto said, though.  No one cares about what churches believe, they can't support politicians.

But they can support, promote, or oppose political ideas.  A church can engage in free, political speech.

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm just not comfortable with shrugging these sorts of things off.  

Since you are an attorney, and I think a good one, I'm glad you are not just shrugging things like this off.  I was just trying to show support for what I think we have on our side to help make sure things like this that "unsettle" you will not happen... at least not to our Church.

 There may be some religious organizations who are getting too involved in politics though and maybe they should be unsettled about losing their tax exempt status.  I just don't think we push it that far, ourselves, by sharing our beliefs with other people, generally.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

That is not what Beto said, though.  No one cares about what churches believe, they can't support politicians.

The Hatch Act prohibits churches or charities that are tax exempt from supporting a particular political candidate.

However, ksfisher is quite correct that people of faith, collectively or individually, have as much right as anyone else to support or oppose political ideas, whether it be in their houses of worship or in a secular political arena. Expecting them to keep quiet about politics violates the free exercise clause in the First Amendment.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Since you are an attorney, and I think a good one, I'm glad you are not just shrugging things like this off.  I was just trying to show support for what I think we have on our side to help make sure things like this that "unsettle" you will not happen... at least not to our Church.

I see that, and thank you.  I remain concerned for other religious organizations, however.

Our church is insulated against many forms of government regulation, but others aren't so lucky.  Consider, for example, this story from 2014:

Quote

Govt tells Christian ministers: Perform same-sex weddings or face jail, fines
Officials threaten to punish senior citizen couple – both ordained pastors – if they decline to officiate same-sex ceremonies
Saturday, October 18, 2014

COEUR D’ALENE, Idaho – Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order Friday to stop officials in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, from forcing two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.

City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

“The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith, but that’s what is happening here – and it’s happened this quickly. The city is on seriously flawed legal ground, and our lawsuit intends to ensure that this couple’s freedom to adhere to their own faith as pastors is protected just as the First Amendment intended.”

“The government exists to protect and respect our freedoms, not attack them,” Tedesco added. “The city cannot erase these fundamental freedoms and replace them with government coercion and intolerance.”

The Hitching Post Wedding Chapel is across the street from the Kootenai County Clerk’s office, which issues marriage licenses. The Knapps, both in their 60s and who themselves have been married for 47 years, began operating the wedding chapel in 1989 as a ministry. They perform religious wedding ceremonies, which include references to God, the invocation of God’s blessing on the union, brief remarks drawn from the Bible designed to encourage the couple and help them to have a successful marriage, and more. They also provide each couple they marry with a CD that includes two sermons about marriage, and they recommend numerous Christian books on the subject. The Knapps charge a small fee for their services.

Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony.

“The city somehow expects ordained pastors to flip a switch and turn off all faithfulness to their God and their vows,” explained ADF Legal Counsel Jonathan Scruggs. “The U.S. Constitution as well as federal and state law clearly stand against that. The city cannot mandate across-the-board conformity to its interpretation of a city ordinance in utter disregard for the guaranteed freedoms Americans treasure in our society.”

Virginia McNulty Robinson, one of nearly 2,500 private attorneys allied with ADF, is serving as local counsel on behalf of the Knapps in Knapp v. City of Coeur d’Alene, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho.

Some trenchant observations on this story here:

Quote

It is one of the tenets of the current movement toward gay marriage. They get to get married, Christians are forced to provide goods and services if they demand it, but — and this is the key caveat of it all — but Christian ministers will not be forced to wed gays because of their religious concerns.

That was last week. This is this week where the government of Coeur D’Alene, Idaho is forcing two Christians pastors to marry gays.
...
For the rest of us, the Knapps are Christians. They run their Hitching Post as a ministry and their weddings are religious affairs with quotes from scripture, etc.

That does not matter.

According to the state, the Knapp’s must provide gay marriages if they are to marry anyone at all.

You will be made to care. The Knapp’s will be made to care. And all the people who said this would never happen will move the goal posts.

"You will be made to care."  That's a phrase that is used often on one of my favorite blogs.

It sounds like the Knapps won their lawsuit, but they had to fight tooth and nail to do it (see here).  And the Alliance Defending Freedom was willing to represent them.

11 minutes ago, Ahab said:

There may be some religious organizations who are getting too involved in politics though and maybe they should be unsettled about losing their tax exempt status.  I just don't think we push it that far, ourselves, by sharing our beliefs with other people, generally.

This seems like a non sequitur.  I'm not speaking about religious groups who are getting "too political."  Mr. O'Rourke is not threatening the tax exemptions of religious groups based on them being "too political."  He is threatening them for having beliefs with which he disagrees.

Here's an interesting opinion piece on this subject: You Will Be Made to Care.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I hope so.  

Perhaps I should amend my previous statement.  The apparent normalization/mainstreaming of policy proposals that not long ago would have been seen as extreme and disqualifying is "unsettling."

Consider not only the statement, but the audience's reaction to it:...........................

Yes, the neo-Marxist and post-modern approach these guys take to everything is the new religion.  At least Yuval Noah Harari considers it religion, and with good reason.

[ksfisher]

36 minutes ago, Ahab said:

There may be some religious organizations who are getting too involved in politics though and maybe they should be unsettled about losing their tax exempt status.

Why is it wrong for a religious organization to get involved in politics?  Corporations can.  Why should religious organizations be punished for exercising their constitutional rights? 

As long as a religious organization does not support specific candidates it can exercise it's right to free, political speech and remain tax exempt.

[Danzo]

3 hours 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?

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Couple of answers from someone in the tax business

The legal difference between a for profit organization and a not for profit organization is that in a for profit organization, profits are given to the owners.  A non profit organization all funds are retained in the organization for its particular purpose.

A tax exempt organization is a not profit organization whose profits are not subject to income tax.  Some examples of tax exempt organizations are, public charities, churches, educational organizations, trade groups, veteran's organizations, cemeteries,  political parties, etc.

Although these organizations do not normally pay tax on their income, they can still pay income tax if they engage in business activity that is unrelated to their exempt purpose.  Private foundations also pay some (although not much) tax on their investment earnings.

Public charities are Not for profit,. tax exempt organizations under Internal Revenue Cod 501(c)(3).

Only donations given to public charities (organized under 501(c)(3)), veterans organization,  governments and and a few 501(c)(4) organizations can be written off as a charitable contribution.  Donations to other tax exempt organizations can sometimes be written off as business expenses (chambers of commerce and other trade organizations). 

Churches are considered 501(c)(3) organizations.  They don't have to file the form 1023.  Everyone else besides churches need to file that form if they are applying for 501(c)(3) status. They need to file the form 1024 if they are applying for tax exempt under another provision of 501(c). The IRS makes a determination on whether an organization qualifies 

Churches do not have to show financial records

All other tax exempt organizations need to file the form 990, 900 ez or 990 N.

The form 990 is considered a public document and should be made available to the public.

an organization can lose their tax exempt status if it is shown that there is excessive personal benefits. or excessive actives that are not part of it's exempt purpose.

 

hope that helps.

 

Edited October 15, 2019 by Danzo

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

So you're fine with other organization, such as corporations engaging in political speech, just not churches.  Why? 

I"d say Churches can engage in any speech they want.  Preaching is a far cry from actual mobilization efforts, a far cry from spending money to play politics.  

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

 

So freedom of speech is "pay to play." 

I don't know how you arrived at this conclusion from what I said.  

[Danzo]

55 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

But they can support, promote, or oppose political ideas.  A church can engage in free, political speech.

They can also spend money on lobbying. 

[Jake Starkey]

58 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Well I'm not going to be supporting this guy.  I can tell you that much.

Who, Beto?  No one in his right mind should, I think.

[Jake Starkey]

50 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Hatch Act prohibits churches or charities that are tax exempt from supporting a particular political candidate.

However, ksfisher is quite correct that people of faith, collectively or individually, have as much right as anyone else to support or oppose political ideas, whether it be in their houses of worship or in a secular political arena. Expecting them to keep quiet about politics violates the free exercise clause in the First Amendment.

You are moving the goal post.  Yes, you are.  And I as a person of faith do agree with you that it is my constitutional right to support and oppose politicians and their ideas.  Collectively, as an organized faith group with tax-exempt status, some things as a faith group we cannot do.

[Ahab]

13 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Why is it wrong for a religious organization to get involved in politics?  Corporations can.  Why should religious organizations be punished for exercising their constitutional rights? 

As long as a religious organization does not support specific candidates it can exercise it's right to free, political speech and remain tax exempt.

That is the breaking point, as I see it.  That is what is prohibited according to the current IRS code.  If religious organizations endorse a specific candidate they might indeed lose their tax exempt status.  Fortunately for us our Church leaders don't endorse any candidates.

And I don't blame them.  I'd rather our Lord just get down here as soon as he can.

[Danzo]

7 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

You are moving the goal post.  Yes, you are.  And I as a person of faith do agree with you that it is my constitutional right to support and oppose politicians and their ideas.  Collectively, as an organized faith group with tax-exempt status, some things as a faith group we cannot do.

I think to be more precise,  The hatch act prohibits churches or charities from supporting a particular candidate, however a church or charity is free to spend resources to  lobby on things it thinks are important, 

Edited October 15, 2019 by Danzo

[Derl Sanderson]

4 hours ago, Duncan said:

Nobody has said tickety boo about Churches losing tax exemption status about gay marriage in Canada so I wouldn't worry about it.

Yes, you have enough to worry about with Bill C-16.

[ksfisher]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I"d say Churches can engage in any speech they want.  Preaching is a far cry from actual mobilization efforts, a far cry from spending money to play politics.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.  Churches are free to speak and preach as they want, you say, but you don't want them playing politics.  How would you define playing politics?  Would you prohibit a church from speaking on a political issue that affects the members of that church?

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Consider not only the statement, but the audience's reaction to it:

You're not the only one who found that concerning. SMU law professor (and long-time gay rights supporter) Dale Carpenter remarked, "Perhaps most striking to me about the exchange between Lemmon and O'Rourke was not that a candidate would tell an audience what he thought they wanted to hear, but that the audience was so wildly enthusiastic about it. The reaction was explicable on one level because organized religion has been an extraordinary source of pain to LGBT people. (And of course, it has also been a source of extraordinary comfort to many LGBT people. It giveth and taketh away.)"

He goes on to comment about how it's also striking because, on another level, it's an act of forgetfulness. The gay rights movement has been very well served by First Amendment protections which prohibit the government from discriminating on the basis of viewpoint. And O'Rourke's rationale for denying exempt status to churches and other groups that oppose same-sex marriage is identical in form to the rationale for denying exempt status to the Pride Foundation back in the 1970s.

Fortunately, there are people of principle on both sides of the issue, and the courts have long stood in support of the First Amendment. Sill, it's hard to just completely ignore threats to religious liberty when politicians are...you know, actually threatening religious institutions. And being applauded for doing so.  

 

Edited October 15, 2019 by Amulek

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, Amulek said:

it's hard to just completely ignore a threat to religious liberty when politicians are...you know, actually threatening religious institutions. And being applauded for doing so.  

Bread and circuses.

[stemelbow]

17 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.  Churches are free to speak and preach as they want, you say, but you don't want them playing politics.  How would you define playing politics?  Would you prohibit a church from speaking on a political issue that affects the members of that church?

I think I've been pretty clear.  I'm not sure what you're pushing for.  I was very particular about what I said about playing politics--spending money for political ends and mobilizing forces to influence politics.  But again, I'd be happy to say they can preach what they want.  I"d say they can even stand up at a podium and say something like,  God opposes same sex marriage and that's what he wants from you.  Have at it.

[Amulek]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Bread and circuses.

Jews and gypsies. 

I mean, it's all just nonsense...until enough people start believing it.