I should have added that I agree wholeheartedly with Chip that the odds of the IRS doing such a thing in the next decade or two are remote -- my point is simply that the SG is situated very differently from us.
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 10:30 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > Chip, I'm not sure the SG could have said much differently, except that he > probably should have said that that's a question that would ultimately be > up to Congress. Remember, the U.S. was asking for heightened scrutiny for > all discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Could the SG really > have said that even if the Court were to apply heightened scrutiny, the IRS > would not act against a college that, e.g., precluded same-sex "dating," > regardless of what societal mores are say, 10-15 years from now? If the > issue didn't arise in the SG's prep, then he couldn't make such a promise > at oral argument. And if the issue did arise, and the SG consulted with > IRS, I'd be shocked if the IRS was willing to lock itself in with respect > to what it might do 15-20 years from now, in cases with facts that are hard > to foresee. > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 10:08 PM, Ira Lupu <icl...@law.gwu.edu> wrote: > >> Verrilli gave a terrible answer. The IRS ruled in Bob Jones (and in the >> companion case, Goldsboro Christian Schools) that these schools no longer >> qualified as charitable organizations under IRC sec. 501(c)(3). The IRS >> was moved in large part by a concern that all-white Christian academies >> would undermine the racial integration of public schools. Denying tax >> exempt status meant that contributions to these schools, which racially >> discriminated against students, would no longer be deductible. The schools >> would also face other expensive tax consequences. >> >> The IRS has never extended its reasoning in the Bob Jones case to any >> religious organization that discriminates based on sex, sexual orientation, >> etc. There is no reason to believe that it would act against faiths that >> reject same sex marriage, any more than it would act against a faith that >> rejected divorce, inter-faith marriage, etc. This is just more >> fear-mongering. >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:39 PM, Brad Pardee <bp51...@windstream.net> >> wrote: >> >>> In an article from the Weekly Standard, the question was raised about >>> the implications for religious organizations losing their tax-exempt status >>> if they continue to oppose same-sex marriage. The article talked about the >>> case of Bob Jones University v. United States (1983), where they lost their >>> tax-exempt status based on their opposition to interracial dating. Given >>> the number of instances I've seen where parallels are drawn between >>> interracial relationships and same-sex relationships, it seems realistic to >>> ask if religious organizations would be similarly stripped of their >>> tax-exempt status if the Supreme Court finds a constitutional right to >>> same-sex marriage. The article includes this piece of discussion between >>> Justice Samuel Alito and Solicitor Donald Verrilli Jr. >>> >>> >>> >>> JUSTICE ALITO: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a >>> college was not entitled to tax-exempt status if it opposed interracial >>> marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or >>> a college if it opposed same-sex marriage? >>> >>> GENERAL VERRILLI: You know, I -- I don't think I can answer that >>> question without knowing more specifics, but it's certainly going to be an >>> issue. I -- I don't deny that. I don't deny that, >>> >>> JUSTICE ALITO: It is -- it is going to be an issue. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-admin-religious-organizations-could-lose-tax-exempt-status-if-supreme-court-creates-constitutional-right-same-sex-ma >>> >>> >>> >>> What is the consensus of this list? Would a ruling in favor of same-sex >>> marriage lead to the same requirement that religious organizations accept >>> same-sex marriage to avoid losing their tax exempt status, or would the >>> religious freedom provisions of the First Amendment prevail here where they >>> did not prevail where Bob Jones University is concerned? >>> >>> >>> >>> Brad Pardee >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu >>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see >>> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw >>> >>> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as >>> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are >>> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or >>> wrongly) forward the messages to others. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Ira C. Lupu >> F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law, Emeritus >> George Washington University Law School >> 2000 H St., NW >> Washington, DC 20052 >> (202)994-7053 >> Co-author (with Professor Robert Tuttle) of "Secular Government, >> Religious People" ( Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2014)) >> My SSRN papers are here: >> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=181272#reg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu >> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see >> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw >> >> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as >> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are >> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or >> wrongly) forward the messages to others. >> > >
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
