prop 8 revisited

[applegoddess]

So thinking back, I think there's this huge disconnect between people who support equal rights for gay people and people who don't, purely because the latter don't fully understand the situation. I'm sure there are some people in the latter group who do understand everything fully, I think it's then safe to call those specific people bigots

Comments

[nc_seventeen]

as for non-political, that is unfeasible. Pastors, Rabbi's, the head guy in certain Islamic sects (forget the sect name and the position title) are going to do that. It's their right. Laws have morality tied to them. Morality is well within the realm of religion. They can preach politics from the pulpit.

However, donating actual funds like the Catholic Church did, (LDS didn't actually use donation plate money, btw), however, should result in the loss of Non-Profit status. Which, in the case of Catholic Churches would equal hundreds of millions of dollars.

Of course, this will never, ever happen. Why? Because whichever party pushes for this loses the Catholic vote. You know who the single largest body of religious folks is in the US? That's right, Catholics. You you know who the second largest is? Lapsed Catholics.

[applegoddess]

haha, lapsed catholics.

The thing is, the IRS already restricts political activities by ALL nonprofits. I just want the existing defined restrictions to be even more restrictive, i.e. not just a complete ban on campaigning for a politician, but for legislation as well.

[nc_seventeen]

I disagree. It doesn't follow logically.

[applegoddess]

How does it not follow logically?

- nonprofits are restricted on what they can do re: political activities
- they cannot support a specific candidate under any circumstances
- they can support anything else with a cap on how much effort/money/time they spend in relation to the rest of their activities for (i believe) that year, anything over that will mean they may lose their nonprofit status and be taxed

why is it that they can't support a candidate but they can support legislation?

[nc_seventeen]

As I said, Law has a morality component. Morality is within the realm of religious expression. To deny a church the right to discuss pertinent issues of the day in a religious context for fear of legal repercussions is a basic violation of their First Amendment rights.

It cuts both ways, that first amendment.

[applegoddess]

It does, but what I'm focusing on is how hypocritical and selective that first amendment right is when a church cannot talk about, say, voting for Barack Obama, but it's completely okay for them to get everyone to donate money to "Yes on Prop 1A" or something like that without risking their nonprofit status.

Also, I'm strictly talking about the nonprofit status. How would a church be prevented from discussing the issues if they are stripped of their nonprofit status? It's a legal repercussion that doesn't entirely make sense.

[nc_seventeen]

The legal precedent is on the side of non-profit status. Your argument fails to pass either the Lemon or the Sherbet test (weirdly, pretty much every ruling on StateV.Religion shares a name with a food).

There is compelling public interest to keep houses of worship as tax free organizations. They do provide services to the public at large and are seen as a social net-positive, And people like them. And weirdly, that last thing is taken into consideration with these tests.

[applegoddess]

Yeah I figured. I should read up on that but I know it's moot. Even if the IRS bothered to investigate any of the organizations there'd be an uproar from everyone.