Ssm And Byu Tax Exempt

[Mystery Meat]

Surely it would be easy to find something in print then and link? Note, I am not referring to the tax exempt status of the church, but auxiliaries similar to a university or say catholic charities or some such.

 

It is interesting to note that in the wake of anti sex discrimination laws the church was forced to change its policy of firing any woman that had children for example. On the other hand, until recently it kept it's discriminatory (used in a descriptive non-judgmental way as I understand the reasons behind it) policy of firing female CES seminary teachers once they had young children as they were classified as religious ministers.

 

I can't provide what has been said to me personally. And it was said in relation to charities, universities and other organizations that are run by religious institutions and not the religious institutions themselves. I don't know how you expect me to provide a link to a personal conversation.

[tonie]

lvjd66

if the Establishment Clause establishes absolute rights for religion, then does that mean that a religious gay couple has an absolute right to same sex marriage?

[Daniel2]

I have been told that numerous times (almost word for word) by SSM supporters.

CFR

[Tacenda]

Recent studies have shown that 60% of the US population supports SSM. I think that is all well and good. I wonder, though, how much that number would drop if the solicitor general's comment on tax exempt status for universities (and by extension religious organizations) and the detrimental effect it would have on their Faith-based organizations were included in such surveys.

In other words, I wonder how many people would be in support of SSM if they knew its approval would necessarily impact religion? I would say yes.

My thoughts exactly, I think the support for SSM is going to go way down. Very surprised Obama would even attempt this, he being a supporter of SSM, boggles my mind.

[strappinglad]

CFR

As has been noted , it is not required to answer a CFR about personal conversations. If that personal conversation was posted on facebook , for example, I suppose one could link to it. But what is gained by such action ?

Maybe I'm just obtuse, but it seems to me that as soon as a government makes a law that TAXES a religion, it automatically has made a law which effects the ' establishment ' of said religion. Is that not ' unconstitutional ' ?

The problem faced by government is what constitutes a bona fide religion. There are examples of organizations being formed to explicitly use religion for a tax haven. Just as we have Medicaid fraud and Social Security fraud and welfare fraud , religious fraud exists. Wading into that swamp attracts all kinds of deadly creatures.

[Mystery Meat]

CFR

 

Yeah, no. I am not going to respond to CFR on personal conversations that happened over three years of law school.

 

But I do find it funny that now the administration is starting to push for things that SSM proponents have said would never happen, they are now claiming to have never made such a claim.

[Mystery Meat]

lvjd66

if the Establishment Clause establishes absolute rights for religion, then does that mean that a religious gay couple has an absolute right to same sex marriage?

 

Sure. I am not arguing against SSM here. What I am arguing against are the types of things the Obama administration is advocating for. 

 

Additionally, the problem is, and what I told my law school classmates all along, is that the legal precedent is in place (such as with the Bob Jones case) that by making SSM legal you open a whole bunch of problems and now we are going to have a bunch of laws that conflict. So by making SSM a fundamental right with the case law being what it currently, you necessarily have to take away rights from religious institutions, their related entities and their individual members. If I was smart enough to figure this out with little legal training a few years back, I have a hard time imagining that many proponents of SSM didn't either.

 

Not to go way over the top on you, but if you follow the implications of what the Solicitor General said to its logical conclusion, it is going to result in some bad stuff for faith based institutions, like BYU, Catholic Charities, Baylor and their sponsoring organizations. Mark my words now: the first battle is over, but the war is about to get a whole lot uglier. 

 

In ten to fifteen years you won't even recognize religion in America.

[Mystery Meat]

As has been noted , it is not required to answer a CFR about personal conversations. If that personal conversation was posted on facebook , for example, I suppose one could link to it. But what is gained by such action ?

Maybe I'm just obtuse, but it seems to me that as soon as a government makes a law that TAXES a religion, it automatically has made a law which effects the ' establishment ' of said religion. Is that not ' unconstitutional ' ?

The problem faced by government is what constitutes a bona fide religion. There are examples of organizations being formed to explicitly use religion for a tax haven. Just as we have Medicaid fraud and Social Security fraud and welfare fraud , religious fraud exists. Wading into that swamp attracts all kinds of deadly creatures.

 

The fact we even have to have a conversation about what is a bona fide religion should say enough about our country.

[tonie]

Sure. I am not arguing against SSM here.

 

Well you are not arguring for SSM directly. But if the Establishment Clause creates absolute rights, then you have to agree that religous same sex marriage is an absolute right, that neither the Federal Government nor State Government can prohibit.

 

 

What I am arguing against are the types of things the Obama administration is advocating for. 

 

I understand that Obama is the devil to many, but what does Obama have to do with a precedent that was set in late 1970s early 1980s? Hint: Bob Jones University v United States. 

 

 

Additionally, the problem is, and what I told my law school classmates all along, is that the legal precedent is in place (such as with the Bob Jones case) that by making SSM legal you open a whole bunch of problems and now we are going to have a bunch of laws that conflict. So by making SSM a fundamental right with the case law being what it currently, you necessarily have to take away rights from religious institutions, their related entities and their individual members. If I was smart enough to figure this out with little legal training a few years back, I have a hard time imagining that many proponents of SSM didn't either.

 

 

You have failed to show that tax exempt status is a absolute right under the Establishment Clause. Now not to go over my wittybitty head, lets attempt a reasoning exercise:

 

IF tax exempt status is an absolute right....Bobs Jones University would not have lost its tax exempt status.

 

Not to go way over the top on you,

 

Are you always so arrogant?  I discuss legal case(s), you provide bites of rhetoric, yet the discussion is already over my head.

[Robert F. Smith]

My thoughts exactly, I think the support for SSM is going to go way down. Very surprised Obama would even attempt this, he being a supporter of SSM, boggles my mind.

I think that you misunderstand both the Obama Administration position, as well as the polls which people claim show high support for same sex marriage.  In both cases, we are obtaining the result of acceptance of such non-traditional marriage because of the claim to Constitutional protection of all sorts of marriages, not because people want to practice it themselves, or that they want such marriage to become the norm.  Being big-hearted and generous in this case does not mean that one has suddenly become a believer in ssm, but rather that one has become more tolerant.  It is, after all, intolerance which led the Nazis to persecute Jews, and many Americans to persecute Mormons.  We need to be more tolerant of our differences and not so narrow minded.  We need not support anything which we regard as immoral, but rather treat the practitioners with kindness and mercy -- the way the Lord did.

[Robert F. Smith]

.........................................................   

You have failed to show that tax exempt status is a absolute right under the Establishment Clause. 

........................................................  

There are no absolute rights under any part of the Constitution.  Constitutionalism does not depend upon absolute rights of any kind.

[Robert F. Smith]

................................................................

.................Church-owned universities are defined as secular organizations. 

Is this actually true?

[Robert F. Smith]

And since you got a perfect score, maybe you can answer a few questions:

Did the Court discuss in McCullock tax exempt status of religious organization under 501©3 of the IRS Code.

Did the Court discuss 501©3?

Did the Court discuss the authority of the IRS to issue/revoke tax exempt status to religious organizations?

You have a fundamental misunderstanding about Constitutionalism:  A constitution is written to embody general principles; a court interprets those principles whenever there is a disagreement about them; but legislatures write the laws which tell how that and other principles will operate in a statutory way; and the executive department issues regulations to make those statutes work smoothly.  If at any point, the legislative laws or executive regulations contradict the constitution, they can be declared null and void by the supreme court.  The system isn't designed to be perfect, but rather self-correcting.

 

The 501©3 and most other sections of the IRS code/regulations did not exist when McCulloch was adjudicated, but that in no way makes it less applicable.

[Mystery Meat]

Are you always so arrogant?  I discuss legal case(s), you provide bites of rhetoric, yet the discussion is already over my head.

 

This was not meant as a over your head type of comment because I am so much smarter than you, but as a "not to go to crazy on you and exaggerate what I think will happen" type of comment.

[Mystery Meat]

Is this actually true?

 

No.

[Mystery Meat]

There are no absolute rights under any part of the Constitution.  Constitutionalism does not depend upon absolute rights of any kind.

 

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

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Yeah, no. I am not going to respond to CFR on personal conversations that happened over three years of law school.

 

But I do find it funny that now the administration is starting to push for things that SSM proponents have said would never happen, they are now claiming to have never made such a claim.

It's fine not to respond. I personally have never made such a claim, but I'm sure its possible that some people somewhere have. The only point I was trying to make is that if the claim was truly as wide spread as you seem to think, it shouldn't be too hard to find something in print. Whatever though.

[Gray]

I think that you misunderstand both the Obama Administration position, as well as the polls which people claim show high support for same sex marriage.  In both cases, we are obtaining the result of acceptance of such non-traditional marriage because of the claim to Constitutional protection of all sorts of marriages, not because people want to practice it themselves, or that they want such marriage to become the norm.  Being big-hearted and generous in this case does not mean that one has suddenly become a believer in ssm, but rather that one has become more tolerant.  It is, after all, intolerance which led the Nazis to persecute Jews, and many Americans to persecute Mormons.  We need to be more tolerant of our differences and not so narrow minded.  We need not support anything which we regard as immoral, but rather treat the practitioners with kindness and mercy -- the way the Lord did.

 

I always find your posts reasonable, constructive and well-considered.

[Gray]

Is this actually true?

 

I swear I remember reading that in regards to the Bob Jones case. But looking for it now, I'm not seeing it. I may have hallucinated it

[tonie]

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

 

So why did you claim, in this very thread, that tax exempt status is an absolute right under the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution.

[tonie]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding about Constitutionalism:  A constitution is written to embody general principles; a court interprets those principles whenever there is a disagreement about them; but legislatures write the laws which tell how that and other principles will operate in a statutory way; and the executive department issues regulations to make those statutes work smoothly.  If at any point, the legislative laws or executive regulations contradict the constitution, they can be declared null and void by the supreme court.  The system isn't designed to be perfect, but rather self-correcting.

 

The 501©3 and most other sections of the IRS code/regulations did not exist when McCulloch was adjudicated, but that in no way makes it less applicable.

 

I am aware of McIntosh, Marybury v. Madison, McCullock, and many other cases...I do not have a misunderstanding. 

 

Given that the IRS did not exist at the time of McCullock, it applicability to tax exemption is very limited, perhaps to only one line "the power to tax".

[tonie]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Mystery Meat]

So why did you claim, in this very thread, that tax exempt status is an absolute right under the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution.

 

Congress shall make no law....

 

No means no, or so I am told. 

[Mystery Meat]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Take your pick.

[Gray]

Congress shall make no law....

 

No means no, or so I am told. 

 

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