Is Part Of The Concern Over Same Sex Marriage, The Bob Jones University Case?

[Stone holm]

There have been few legal controversies in the late Twentieth Century which have changed the American political landscape as the controversy between the IRS and Bob Jones University. Is the concern over what happened to Bob Jones University in the 1980's part of what is driving the current religious activism against SSM, because of Catholic Colleges and BYU?

[bluebell]

Maybe you could give an overview, as I've never heard of this case.

[Buzzard]

I think the Bob Jones case is exhibit A as to why members should be concerned about religious freedom and what the government can and will do to institutions that fall out of governmental favor. 

Let's stipulate that I do NOT agree with Bob Jones U and the policy they had about interracial dating. But that's not the point. The point is that the IRS decided that even though they were a legitimate university, their policy offended society and the government, and they should lose their tax-exempt status. 

If you don't think that gay activists have their eye on the tax-exempt status of the church, then you are naive. It's not only the deductible status of contributions of members, it's the property tax. What is the value of the Los Angeles Temple complex? It's an entire city block of Westwood, one of the most expensive areas of LA. Same with any of the temples in urban areas, and the aggregate of our chapels and their property. 

And it's not just the LDS church. The property of the Catholic church and other conservative churches is MUCH larger.

I always remember the worlds of Daniel Webster: "The power to tax is the power to destroy". And yes, the goal of some (not all) of our enemies is the destruction, fiscal and otherwise, of any institution that does not make gay relationships the moral equivalent of man/woman marriage. They would need to speak to their motives, but they seem to run the gamut from revenge for past slights to the understandable and innate need not to feel immoral.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Buzzard

[rockpond]

I think the Bob Jones case is exhibit A as to why members should be concerned about religious freedom and what the government can and will do to institutions that fall out of governmental favor. 

Let's stipulate that I do NOT agree with Bob Jones U and the policy they had about interracial dating. But that's not the point. The point is that the IRS decided that even though they were a legitimate university, their policy offended society and the government, and they should lose their tax-exempt status. 

If you don't think that gay activists have their eye on the tax-exempt status of the church, then you are naive. It's not only the deductible status of contributions of members, it's the property tax. What is the value of the Los Angeles Temple complex? It's an entire city block of Westwood, one of the most expensive areas of LA. Same with any of the temples in urban areas, and the aggregate of our chapels and their property. 

And it's not just the LDS church. The property of the Catholic church and other conservative churches is MUCH larger.

I always remember the worlds of Daniel Webster: "The power to tax is the power to destroy". And yes, the goal of some (not all) of our enemies is the destruction, fiscal and otherwise, of any institution that does not make gay relationships the moral equivalent of man/woman marriage. They would need to speak to their motives, but they seem to run the gamut from revenge for past slights to the understandable and innate need not to feel immoral.

 

I agree as well.  It presents a fairly clear parallel to BYU (along with other church owned/operated colleges/universities) and recognition of homosexual relationships (or discipline for said relationships).

 

Unfortunately, it's not really a precedent we want to hang our hat on since it would have the tendency to bring up some of our past teachings that we're not proud of.  That's probably why we don't see it mentioned much (ever).

 

In any case, it's definitely a reason that we should be aware of and fight for the constitutional protections of religious freedom.

[Stone holm]

Maybe you could give an overview, as I've never heard of this case.

The Bob Jones University spat with the IRS is credited by somes giving birth to the politically active Christian Right and the solid Republican South. Bob jones originally refused to admit Blacks, it then started accepting married Blacks, interracial marriage or interracial dating resulted in expulsion. The IRS threatened to withdraw its 501 c 3 status. The first case brought by the University was dismissed because it sought to enjoin a tax, the second case resulted in an 8 to I decision ruling that the Congressional policy to eradicate racism from education trumped the free exercise claim. This case does not apply to Temples, but could possibly apply to BYU if homosexuals were determined to be a protected class.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I think the Bob Jones case is exhibit A as to why members should be concerned about religious freedom and what the government can and will do to institutions that fall out of governmental favor. 

Let's stipulate that I do NOT agree with Bob Jones U and the policy they had about interracial dating. But that's not the point. The point is that the IRS decided that even though they were a legitimate university, their policy offended society and the government, and they should lose their tax-exempt status. 

If you don't think that gay activists have their eye on the tax-exempt status of the church, then you are naive. It's not only the deductible status of contributions of members, it's the property tax. What is the value of the Los Angeles Temple complex? It's an entire city block of Westwood, one of the most expensive areas of LA. Same with any of the temples in urban areas, and the aggregate of our chapels and their property. 

And it's not just the LDS church. The property of the Catholic church and other conservative churches is MUCH larger.

I always remember the worlds of Daniel Webster: "The power to tax is the power to destroy". And yes, the goal of some (not all) of our enemies is the destruction, fiscal and otherwise, of any institution that does not make gay relationships the moral equivalent of man/woman marriage. They would need to speak to their motives, but they seem to run the gamut from revenge for past slights to the understandable and innate need not to feel immoral.

So you think that the people and its representative government should have no say in what types of activities that we subsidize? 

 

It is true that given current trends BYU tax exempt status could be in jeopardy. This will not affect the tax exempt status of the church as a whole. A correlated case would be the status of women in the church. Women cannot hold the priesthood and cannot be leaders of wards, stakes, districts etc. Women can't baptize. No one has successfully sued the church on these grounds even though this discrimination has continued for over 100 years. On the other hand at BYU, and the church office building, women can hold pretty much any job that they want (aside from ecclesiastical positions). They are unrestricted. It is my understanding that back in the day female secretaries at the church office building had to resign at one point once they had children. This is no longer the case and has to do with non-discrimination laws.

Edited January 20, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

So you think that the people and its representative government should have no say in what types of activities that we subsidize? 

 

It is true that given current trends BYU tax exempt status could be in jeopardy. This will not affect the tax exempt status of the church as a whole. A correlated case would be the status of women in the church. Women cannot hold the priesthood and cannot be leaders of wards, stakes, districts etc. Women can't baptize. No one has successfully sued the church on these grounds even though this discrimination has continued for over 100 years. On the other hand at BYU, and the church office building, women can hold pretty much any job that they want (aside from ecclesiastical positions). They are unrestricted. It is my understanding that back in the day female secretaries at the church office building had to resign at one point once they had children. This is no longer the case and has to do with non-discrimination laws.

Since CES positions are ecclesiastical, the church can continue to "discriminate" against married seminary teachers with children as illustrated here:

http://www.the-exponent.com/lds-church-educational-system-employment-policies-for-mothers/

 

I contacted the manager of my local Seminary and Institute Preservice Training Office today to clarify Church Educational System employment policies regarding mothers. Here are some of the things I learned.

Question:  Is it true that mothers may not be seminary teachers?

Answer: No, that is not true.  Mothers of young children are discouraged from being seminary teachers.

Question: So CES does hire mothers to be seminary teachers?

Answer:  CES will hire mothers whose children are all over 18 and whose children have all graduated from high school.

 

Question: CES also hires women without children to be seminary teachers, right?

Answer: That is correct.

Question: What happens to a female seminary teacher who has a baby?  Can she continue teaching seminary?

Answer: She stops teaching seminary when she has a baby.

Question:  She is fired?

Answer: No. Female seminary teachers understand this when they are hired.  They know that they will only work as seminary teachers until they have children.

Question: Do they have the option of continuing to teach when they become mothers?

Answer: They do not want to keep working full-time after they have children.  They want to stay home with their children.

Question: Doesn’t the Family Medical Leave Act require employers to allow mothers to return to work after maternity leave?

Answer:  The Church has met all of the legal requirements to implement this policy.

Question: Do the same policies apply to institute teachers?

Answer: Yes.

Question: May mothers of young children work for CES in other capacities, such as secretaries or administrators?

Answer:  Yes.  Institute and seminary teaching positions have unique requirements.  We do have young mothers working at CES in other kinds of positions and in other church departments.

Question: Do the same policies apply to unpaid seminary teachers?

Answer: No.  Seminary teachers who teach as a calling only teach one class a day, not full-time, so local Stake Presidents decide who should have these callings.

Question: Are these policies available online?

Answer: We do not publicize our policies but we explain them when we train potential teachers and when someone like you calls and asks about them.

Note the difference between CES instructors and administrative jobs.

[wenglund]

The Bob Jones University case is just one of a mounting number of cases that raise serious concerns about pop culture-driven government infringement on religious freedoms--the endorsement by the government of homosexual relationships, equating them with heterosexual relationships, and doing violence to the definition of marriage, is just one of many prongs. (See HERE)

 

To be clear, though, concerns about infringement on religious liberty isn't an argument against diametrically altering the legal definition of marriage. There are a number of valid and persuasive arguments against it, legal and otherwise. Rather, it is simply a acknowledgement of where things may very well digress over the course of unfolding the evidently inane general social experiment.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

So you think that the people and its representative government should have no say in what types of activities that we subsidize?

 

It is misleading, though quite common these days, to equate tax-exemptions with subsidies. The former is where people and organization get to keep more of their own money and not have the government take as much away; whereas the other is where the government takes money from others and gives it to people and organizations.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Danzo]

Since CES positions are ecclesiastical, the church can continue to "discriminate" against married seminary teachers with children as illustrated here:

http://www.the-exponent.com/lds-church-educational-system-employment-policies-for-mothers/

 

 

Note the difference between CES instructors and administrative jobs.

 

 

That is odd, all of the seminary teachers I had growing up had children,

At one point, my mother was my seminary teacher.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Danzo

[SeekingUnderstanding]

 

That is odd, all of the seminary teachers I had growing up had children,

At one point, my mother was my seminary teacher.

 

Were your seminary teachers paid or the early morning variety? 

Edited January 21, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

It is misleading, though quite common these days, to equate tax-exemptions with subsidies. The former is where people and organization get to keep more of their own money and not have the government take as much away; whereas the other is where the government takes money from others and gives it to people and organizations.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

It is fair to make a distinction between direct subsidies (government pays you money) and indirect subsidies (other people pay more in taxes because you pay none). In the case of a university sitting on prime real estate, not paying taxes on said real estate is a real benefit to the university. By allow the university to avoid taxes, the rest of the community pays more. The tax code is set up this way because we believe that the public good served by universities outweighs the increased cost that we all bear.

[Danzo]

Were your seminary teachers paid or the early morning variety?

 

They were early morning. There wasn't any full time seminary where I grew up.

 

I know my mother, At least received a small check each month (probably wasn't enough)

[SeekingUnderstanding]

They were early morning. There wasn't any full time seminary where I grew up.

 

I know my mother, At least received a small check each month (probably wasn't enough)

The policy I referred to exists only for full time CES employees. Not the early morning part time variety (though I can't really see why that makes a difference).

Edited January 21, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

Note the difference between CES instructors and administrative jobs.

Which only makes sense to me---since it likely involves the same amount of time away from home---as being restricted because they don't want to have the example of a working mother of young children in front of a class.

It is not a policy that makes a lot of sense to me....unless it is the law that has forced them to have what appears to be a double standard....perhaps they are only allowed to set the standard for teachers because they are classified as a religious exemption and unable to legally restrict it for administrative.

Can someone confirm or reject this? Is that what you meant with the ability to discriminate?

Edited January 21, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

The policy I referred to exists only for full time CES employees. Not the early morning part time variety (though I can't really see why that makes a difference).

If the issue is concern about keeping a mother from her young children, I can see a big difference between being away for an hour or so and being gone all day.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Which only makes sense to me---since it likely involves the same amount of time away from home---as being restricted because they don't want to have the example of a working mother of young children in front of a class.

It is not a policy that makes a lot of sense to me....unless it is the law that has forced them to have what appears to be a double standard....perhaps they are only allowed to set the standard for teachers because they are classified as a religious exemption and unable to legally restrict it for administrative.

Can someone confirm or reject this?

That is my understanding calmoriah, both on the example set for the young students (the reason for the policy) as well as being required by law to not discriminate for non-ecclesiastical positions. I don't know where I read this and can't provide a better source unfortunately.

[ERayR]

It is fair to make a distinction between direct subsidies (government pays you money) and indirect subsidies (other people pay more in taxes because you pay none). In the case of a university sitting on prime real estate, not paying taxes on said real estate is a real benefit to the university. By allow the university to avoid taxes, the rest of the community pays more. The tax code is set up this way because we believe that the public good served by universities outweighs the increased cost that we all bear.

 

Wrong, other people pay no more in taxes because someone else is exempt. 

[wenglund]

It is fair to make a distinction between direct subsidies (government pays you money) and indirect subsidies (other people pay more in taxes because you pay none).

 

It is neither fair nor accurate since the second usage abuses the meaning of the term "subsidy"--though it may prove use when propagandizing. What would be fair and accurate is to rightly distinguish between tax breaks and subsidies.

 

Think of it as analogous were a thief to rob homes "A" and "B" and not homes "C" through "Y", and were the thief to give the spoils to home "Z", it would be fair and accurate to say that the thief subsidized home "Z." It would be inane to say that the thief also subsidized homes "C" through "Y."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 21, 2014 by wenglund

[Danzo]

Wrong, other people pay no more in taxes because someone else is exempt. 

 

In all my years doing tax, I have never seen taxes increase for anyone due to someone else not paying taxes.

 

For the tax system these days (in the US at least)  revenue generation is almost an afterthought.

[wenglund]

Here is an relevant article that Loran Blood posted a link to on facebook:

 

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/06/10393/

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[BCSpace]

Is Part Of The Concern Over Same Sex Marriage, The Bob Jones University Case?

 

Partly.  I believe the major concern is because of the improper example it sets for male and female role models and that it provides and strengthens an alternative lifestyle.  Thus, SSM does indeed threaten legitimate marriage.

[Stone holm]

I think the Bob Jones case is exhibit A as to why members should be concerned about religious freedom and what the government can and will do to institutions that fall out of governmental favor. 

Let's stipulate that I do NOT agree with Bob Jones U and the policy they had about interracial dating. But that's not the point. The point is that the IRS decided that even though they were a legitimate university, their policy offended society and the government, and they should lose their tax-exempt status. 

If you don't think that gay activists have their eye on the tax-exempt status of the church, then you are naive. It's not only the deductible status of contributions of members, it's the property tax. What is the value of the Los Angeles Temple complex? It's an entire city block of Westwood, one of the most expensive areas of LA. Same with any of the temples in urban areas, and the aggregate of our chapels and their property. 

And it's not just the LDS church. The property of the Catholic church and other conservative churches is MUCH larger.

I always remember the worlds of Daniel Webster: "The power to tax is the power to destroy". And yes, the goal of some (not all) of our enemies is the destruction, fiscal and otherwise, of any institution that does not make gay relationships the moral equivalent of man/woman marriage. They would need to speak to their motives, but they seem to run the gamut from revenge for past slights to the understandable and innate need not to feel immoral.

I believe it to be quite a stretch to jump from the Bob Jones University case to anything except BYU. Temples and Chapels are in a completely different category than a University. But it is possible that BYU could be vulnerable depending on the basis of the rulings. So far the SSM cases are not based on a protected category, but on the lesser standard of lacking rational basis. In addition, you do not have the historical problem of the former Confederacy using private schools to promote segregation under the guise of religion. Reagan made an address at Bob Jones University which in turn helped him weld the South to his political cause. Pres Kimball was under pressure to go with coeducational dorms at BYU or also face sanctions, but said famously, "We will not comply." The Feds backed off at Reagan's request. When he wanted to establish a train to create a huge nuclear shell game around Utah, he backed off at the Church's request since the Church was not keen on becoming the most important nuclear first strike target in the event of an exchange.

[california boy]

There is a constitutional right to not being discriminated against.  There is not a constitutional right for anyone, even churches, to receive tax exemptions.  Tax exemptions are at the whim of the government.  The government has outlined on what conditions it will allow tax exemptions.  Organizations can choose to conform to those conditions or can choose not to.  No one's constitutional rights to practice their religion or their rights of free speech are in jeopardy.  Bob Jones had a choice to live by the demands the government set out as conditions to the tax exemptions or to not accept the tax exemption.  At no time was Bob Jones not allowed to continue it's practices of discrimination.  

 

This is no different than the tax exemptions that the government allows individual citizens.  For example, businesses are allowed to write off their car expenses.  But businesses have to keep documentation to be able to take advantage of this tax exemption.  It does not come without conforming to certain criteria.

[Stone holm]

In all my years doing tax, I have never seen taxes increase for anyone due to someone else not paying taxes.

 

For the tax system these days (in the US at least)  revenue generation is almost an afterthought.

I have. When I was heavily involved in economic development in Indiana, we always fought against the State pressure to give tax abatement. The way real estate taxes worked there if you brought in a new factory and they built a new building it either caused the real estate taxes to go down for everyone, or if it coincided with a new school construction, kept real estate taxes from going up. We had existing industry on our side because the impact was noticeable and they would have had to carry the brunt of the cost of increased services. An exempt organization occupying a large tract of valuable real estate could have the same impact, on the other hand the larger temples also tend to improve surrounding real estate values. I do not believe Temples and Chapels are in danger, but not sure about BYU.