Ssm And Byu Tax Exempt

[Tacenda]

Non members can attend all these schools. It's just when you're a member already and quit believing, that the degree or credit will be withheld. http://www.freebyu.org/

The link is the mission statement of freebyu. I thought the church was pro freedom of religion. But in this case they're not. These students that have a change of faith, which occurs in many cases with young adults, they change or come back, they can be punished for that freedom of thought.

[tonie]

Agreed.

 

Alas, however, Tonie is likely going to win this argument in what will be the law of the land as decided by the Supreme Court ...

 

The CURRENT law of the land is BJU v United States; which stands for the "law", that the IRS (which grants tax exempt status) can revoke tax exempt status, if the IRS determines  that a tax exempt entity violates public policy.

 

Non-discrimination against LGBT is not prohibited by Federal Law, neither is discrimination against same sex married couples.   I think the IRS would be stepping out of its bounds, in claiming non-discrimination against same-sex couples or LGBT, when there is no current (generally applicable) Federal policy against it.

 

 

To date, Notre Dame nor BYU have lost their tax exempt or had it questioned due to policies agaisnt homosexual conduct.

 

When discrimination agaisnt LGBT and same-sex married couples, becomes public policy, then yes, private religious schools may need to worry. The time for worry was decades ago, but it is never too late to lobby for policies allowing moral conduct standards and tax exempt status.

[tonie]

I think some very learned writting on the topic will be found in a collection of essays edited by Dallin H. Oaks titled "The Wall Between Church and State."

[Daniel2]

So you are denying that not being for ssm would never be used as a way to get regions and other organizations taxed? Because I swear you said so your self that this would never happen. That we would always have freedom of religion?

I haven't said anything like your first mischaracterization about taxation of religious organizations (i.e. schools and hospitals).

In fact, the reverse is true: I have repeatedly predicted that in the coming decades, BYU can expect to experience the same types of legal and peaceful actions that were previously brought to bear when social and legal attempts were under way to overcome the negative effects of racial didiscrimination (such as boycotts against BYU's sports programs and losing it's tax exempt and/or accreditation status).

I have said I support (and continue to support) religious freedom in the public accomodations and private realms, and for religious clergy members, as it has been legally understood for the last several decades (including the decision from the Bob Jones University vs United States case).

Since the CFR has gone unanswered, and since your assertion has the negative effect of making me look as if I have nefariously flip-flopped positions (when in fact I have remained consistent in my stance), please retract your comment that I've previously said anything to the contrary.

[Gray]

Oh brother. This is just ridiculous. "Generous"? Give me a break.

 

If the government declared me tax-exempt, I'd call that pretty generous. 

[Gray]

Give it a few more decades.

 

I'm sure I'll be completely obliterated within four or five decades

[Daniel2]

Bump for my updated previous post

[tonie]

Bump for my updated previous post

 

 

Daniel, I appreciate that you defend your integrity against false accusations and/or false assertions.

 

The problem with Mola Rom, and many others, is that he has no support for his false assertions. The false, and unfounded, accusation against you is that if you do not support tax exempt status, you do not support religious freedom.

 

As others in this thread have failed to show, Mola Rom also can not show:

 

freedom of religion = tax exempt status.

 

 

What has been shown, based on currently law of the land, is that tax exempt status is not a guarantee.

[Daniel2]

Daniel, I appreciate that you defend your integrity against false accusations and/or false assertions.

The problem with Mola Rom, and many others, is that he has no support for his false assertions. The false, and unfounded, accusation against you is that if you do not support tax exempt status, you do not support religious freedom.

As others in this thread have failed to show, Mola Rom also can not show:

freedom of religion = tax exempt status.

What has been shown, based on currently law of the land, is that tax exempt status is not a guarantee.

Thanks, Tonie.

A brief review of even the most basic of websites regarding the Bob Jones University case demonstrates that any insinuation by Mola that taxation of religious universities somehow violates religious freedom is simply incorrect, legally speaking, and has been a matter of settled law for over two decades:

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

Perhaps Mola-van-Winkle-Som just slept through the 80's...?

Joking aside, I'd welcome your substantive response here, Mola, and hope you'll chime in with such.

[Stargazer]

Have taxes on churches ever been declared unconstitutional? I mean by the courts, not by anti-tax activists.

 

So far as I know the constitutional question of taxing churches has never been raised in any court.  I could be wrong, but I've never heard of it, and reading court decisions used to be a hobby of mine.

[thesometimesaint]

So far as I know the constitutional question of taxing churches has never been raised in any court.  I could be wrong, but I've never heard of it, and reading court decisions used to be a hobby of mine.

I'm no tax lawyer.

Its been raised more than a few times with mixed results. Mostly depends on the tax in question, and/or the organization claiming the exemption. Generally speaking a for profit organizations can qualify under a 401c exemption while churches, and the like, qualify under a 501c exemption.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I haven't said anything like your first mischaracterization about taxation of religious organizations (i.e. schools and hospitals).

In fact, the reverse is true: I have repeatedly predicted that in the coming decades, BYU can expect to experience the same types of legal and peaceful actions that were previously brought to bear when social and legal attempts were under way to overcome the negative effects of racial didiscrimination (such as boycotts against BYU's sports programs and losing it's tax exempt and/or accreditation status).

I have said I support (and continue to support) religious freedom in the public accomodations and private realms, and for religious clergy members, as it has been legally understood for the last several decades (including the decision from the Bob Jones University vs United States case).

Since the CFR has gone unanswered, and since your assertion has the negative effect of making me look as if I have nefariously flip-flopped positions (when in fact I have remained consistent in my stance), please retract your comment that I've previously said anything to the contrary.

IF it was not you then I take back what I said. There were others that stated this would never happen. And on top of that you and I would be in agreement that this issue (SSM) will force a great deal many changes.

[Daniel2]

IF it was not you then I take back what I said. There were others that stated this would never happen. And on top of that you and I would be in agreement that this issue (SSM) will force a great deal many changes.

"IF it wasn't" me... you "take it back"...

Hm. An interesting, rather lacsidasical non-retraction. I appreciate the generosity in extending me the benefit of your doubt.

Come to think of it, I really don't recall any other posters on this site ever suggesting BYU would not be subject to the same social and legal pressures as those by Bob Jones University, as per your previous claim in this thread...

In fact, unintentionally or not, I believe your post is blurring two separate and distinct issues:

1. "That churches would not lose tax exemptions because they refuse to marry same-sex couples,"

as opposed to:

2. "That church-owned universities or other propeeties regulated by public or accreditation laws may lose tax benefits or other public-related incentives if they break discrimination laws"(also the topic of this thread and the topic of our last few exchanges)

The result of the blurred lines makes it seem like same-sex supporters flip-flopped their position after winning some rights.

Just in case I missed them, can you please provide evidence that any one else has made the claim that #2 wouldn't happen?

Consider this a second CFR--same claim you leveled against me, but that anyone else said it.

[tonie]

IF it was not you then I take back what I said. There were others that stated this would never happen. And on top of that you and I would be in agreement that this issue (SSM) will force a great deal many changes.

 

"There were others that stated this would never happen."

 

What is "this"?

[tonie]

Concerning racially discriminatory policies of schools, tax exempt status, and Bob Jones University, the Supreme Court was unanimous that Congress can deny tax exempt status.

 

Dissent, Justice Renhquist:

 

I have no disagreement with the Court's finding that there is a strong national policy in this country opposed to racial discrimination. I agree with the Court that Congress has the power to further this policy by denying § 501©(3) status to organizations that practice racial discrimination.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

"IF it wasn't" me... you "take it back"...

Hm. An interesting, rather lacsidasical non-retraction. I appreciate the generosity in extending me the benefit of your doubt.

Come to think of it, I really don't recall any other posters on this site ever suggesting BYU would not be subject to the same social and legal pressures as those by Bob Jones University, as per your previous claim in this thread...

In fact, unintentionally or not, I believe your post is blurring two separate and distinct issues:

 

1. "That churches would not lose tax exemptions because they refuse to marry same-sex couples,"

as opposed to:

2. "That church-owned universities or other propeeties regulated by public or accreditation laws may lose tax benefits or other public-related incentives if they break discrimination laws"(also the topic of this thread and the topic of our last few exchanges)

The result of the blurred lines makes it seem like same-sex supporters flip-flopped their position after winning some rights.

Just in case I missed them, can you please provide evidence that any one else has made the claim that #2 wouldn't happen?

Consider this a second CFR--same claim you leveled against me, but that anyone else said it.

 

You are probably right. Not the first time I have been confuse in following all the different threads. I will admit that anything I said in this thread so far I was wrong on.

[Stargazer]

I'm no tax lawyer.

Its been raised more than a few times with mixed results. Mostly depends on the tax in question, and/or the organization claiming the exemption. Generally speaking a for profit organizations can qualify under a 401c exemption while churches, and the like, qualify under a 501c exemption.

 

But I was talking about, for example, a law which might have been passed at a local or state level that generally taxed the proceeds of donations to churches, which then found its way through the court system that found the law unconstitutional, or what have you.  Not some church that had its tax-exempt status challenged because some pastor was seen as operating a for-profit business instead of a qualifying charity.

 

A case that might have been decided in some precedent-setting venue and not some Tax Court ruling.

[thesometimesaint]

But I was talking about, for example, a law which might have been passed at a local or state level that generally taxed the proceeds of donations to churches, which then found its way through the court system that found the law unconstitutional, or what have you.  Not some church that had its tax-exempt status challenged because some pastor was seen as operating a for-profit business instead of a qualifying charity.

 

A case that might have been decided in some precedent-setting venue and not some Tax Court ruling.

 

I don't know of any. Some of our lawyers here might be able to tell us.

[Anijen]

Um, guys it does not have to be in the Constitution to be Constitutional. For example the word Privacy is not in the Constitution, yet many cases over privacy has been ruled on and made Constitutional.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Anijen the  2L

 

Edited to add; from what I am learning the Constitution has been hanging by a thread for some time. I can easily see a future legal fight the Church will be undertaking (and not just on SSM).

[Daniel2]

Um, guys it does not have to be in the Constitution to be Constitutional. For example the word Privacy is not in the Constitution, yet many cases over privacy has been ruled on and made Constitutional.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Anijen the  2L

 

Edited to add; from what I am learning the Constitution has been hanging by a thread for some time. I can easily see a future legal fight the Church will be undertaking (and not just on SSM).

 

Hi, Anijen,

 

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying here.   Could you clarify how your comments are applicable to previous comments in the thread?

 

Also, what, in particular, is happening/has happened that leads you to characterize the constitution as currently "hanging by a thread"?

[Anijen]

Hi, Anijen,

 

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying here.   Could you clarify how your comments are applicable to previous comments in the thread?

 

Also, what, in particular, is happening/has happened that leads you to characterize the constitution as currently "hanging by a thread"?

 

Hi. Daniel,

Any thread over about 6 pages, for me, is hard to keep up on. I only read the first 3 or 4 pages. In those first few pages the Constitution was often mentioned, many times in the context of; "it's not in the Constitution," or where in the Constitution does it say...,"  

So I responded to those posts, if later in the thread, that theme died out I can see where the confusion might be here on page thirteen.

 

My point on the Constitution "hanging by a thread" is brought up often in LDS history. As a student of LDS history and of history this country, and as a second year law student, the Constitution comes up every day for me. As I study either for my history class, my Con Law class, Civil Procedure class, or just from personal study it has become very clear to me the eroding of the original intent that Madison and others contributors of that inspired doctrine had. Hope that helps.

 

Jeff aka Anijen

[Kenngo1969]

Brother Jeff,

 

Best wishes for success in (and especially after) law school.

 

Alas, law is an expensive hobby for me (although I am currently modestly employed as a support professional at a disability law firm.)

 

Your brother in Christ,

 

-Ken

[Tacenda]

Brother Jeff,

 

Best wishes for success in (and especially after) law school.

 

Alas, law is an expensive hobby for me (although I am currently modestly employed as a support professional at a disability law firm.)

 

Your brother in Christ,

 

-Ken

That sounds like the perfect job, I don't recall seeing where you posted of what your new job was. Hope it's going well.

[carbon dioxide]

If BYU lost its tax exempt status, that is a small price to pay to upholding important standards.  On the other hand, BYU could then support and endorse candidates and other things that it currently can't do. 

[carbon dioxide]

Say a certain church has a private school and they allow SSM.  Will they continue to retain tax exempt status?  The first amendment does not allow the government to pick winners and losers when it comes to religion.  It must treat all of them the same.  They can't give preference to one over another.  It seems to me that all private religious universities must lose their tax exempt status if a school loses its status because they are against SSM.