Whether or not the SG could or should have answered differently, we can think about this with clear heads. I don't know what the "level of scrutiny" has to do with this question of tax exemption. Unmarried students at religious colleges have a right of sexual privacy against the state, but not against their schools. If a religious college had a policy of expelling any student who had sex outside of marriage, is it imaginable that the IRS would revoke the school's tax exemption? The IRS has never even revoked the tax exemption of a church that would not accept a inter-racial marriage.
The whole "Bob Jones" story look like a way to whip up fear among people with traditional beliefs. Does it not tell you something that the IRS has not exercised this sort of power in over 30 years? 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. > -- 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.
