Also, the SG's answer was virtually risk-free. He had only two audiences -- Justice Kennedy and the public. And his argument was, IMHO, pitch perfect as to both of those audiences, elegant and powerful; one of the best I've ever heard. Justices Scalia and Alito might be worried about the Bob Jones analog 20 years from now; but their votes were preordained.
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
