Is there information about Gordon College more recent than this: http://www.worldmag.com/2015/03/review_board_gordon_college_accreditation_not_at_risk
The IRS is already under tremendous political pressure over treatment of political advocacy groups. The idea that it will choose now to go after religious colleges because of their teaching about sexuality is preposterous. Yep, no one can give assurances 10-20 years down the road. Perhaps colleges that permit sex between unmarried students will lose their tax exemptions then. I guess it depends on who is in power, and how restrained they are about unleashing the IRS for their own cultural and social purposes. But if it hasn't happened in 30 some years, that might be a bit reassuring. If you are still afraid despite that pattern, I think that is your problem, not the government's. On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Michael Worley <mwor...@byulaw.net> wrote: > Chip and James, > > Why aren't threats to take away accreditation (at Gordon College) > indicative of future tax-exempt issues? I'll stipulate the IRS hasn't > extended Bob Jones a bit since, but I suspect you could say the same about > any accreditation fights. > > What logic (even if you disagree with it) supports Gordon College losing > accreditation but not tax-exempt status, other than "Congress won't do > it"-- which may not be true in 8 years time (It may be true, it may not be > true)? > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 8:40 PM, James Oleske <jole...@lclark.edu> wrote: > >> "As far as I know, no one thinks these schools will be in danger >> immediately" >> >> Professor Michael Greve, in a piece on the Law and Liberty blog that has >> been excerpted favorably in relevant part on the CLR Forum, argues that the >> threat will be immediate on July 1 if the Court rules in favor of same-sex >> marriage. For the reasons I give below, I don't think that is correct. >> >> Could it be an issue in 2022? Possibly, but the fact that Democrats have >> never tried to extend the prohibition to sex discrimination in the three >> decades since Bob Jones makes me skeptical that this rule governing >> nonprofits is going to be a priority in future efforts to combat >> sexual-orientation discrimination. Almost all of the talk by Democrats in >> this area has been about combating discrimination by for-profit businesses, >> not nonprofit religious organizations. >> >> - Jim >> >> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Michael Worley <mwor...@byulaw.net> >> wrote: >> >>> As far as I know, no one thinks these schools will be in danger >>> immediately, but the accreditation issues arising (Gordon College, for one) >>> seem foreshadowing pressure on religious schools to change their policies >>> on sexual orientation. >>> >>> Why should we be confident in 2022 under a democratic congress and >>> President, they won't put pressure on the same schools that have had their >>> accreditation threatened (Gordon and perhaps others) using the "tax-exempt >>> status" hammer? >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 8:18 PM, James Oleske <jole...@lclark.edu> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> My quick take is that, at least in the short term, the prospect of such >>>> schools losing their tax-exempt status is very low for the following >>>> reasons: >>>> >>>> 1. Unlike most antidiscrimination statutes and regulations, which >>>> typically extend beyond racial discrimination to religious discrimination >>>> and sex discrimination, and often to a host of non-constitutionally suspect >>>> types of discrimination (age, disability, marital status), the IRS rule at >>>> issue in Bob Jones has never been extended beyond racial discrimination. >>>> Thus, a religious school that prohibits interfaith marriages or marriages >>>> between divorced individuals, or that excludes individuals from certain >>>> activities based on sex, has never been at risk of losing its tax-exempt >>>> status under the long-standing IRS rule, which has always been limited to >>>> racial discrimination. >>>> >>>> 2. The threshold issue in Bob Jones was whether the IRS's >>>> interpretation of the statute, which makes no mention of racial >>>> discrimination, was reasonable. In the unique context surrounding issues of >>>> race and education, and in light of Congress's acquiescence in the agency's >>>> interpretation, the Court deferred to that interpretation (over the dissent >>>> of two justices). I'm skeptical that the current Court would defer to a new >>>> interpretation of the statute, whether extending it to prohibit religious >>>> discrimination, sex discrimination, sexual-orientation discrimination, or >>>> any other type of discrimination. Perhaps if the Court rules in Obergefell >>>> that strict-scrutiny applies to sexual-orientation there would be an >>>> argument to add sexual-orientation to the IRS rule when sex has never been >>>> added, but I don't think anyone believes the Court is going to adopt strict >>>> scrutiny for sexual-orientation discrimination. >>>> >>>> 3. There is virtually no chance that the current Congress would amend >>>> the statute to strip tax-exempt status from religious schools that prohibit >>>> same-sex marriages among their students. >>>> >>>> Of course, if Congress was to amend the statute, or if the IRS was to >>>> reinterpret the statute and that interpretation was upheld by the Court, >>>> the schools would still be able to make a RFRA claim. And given that Hobby >>>> Lobby interpreted RFRA as providing more protection than the pre-Smith free >>>> exercise jurisprudence, and given that sexual-orientation is not likely to >>>> be deemed a fully suspect class like race, it would seem the schools would >>>> have a better chance of prevailing than did Bob Jones. >>>> >>>> - Jim >>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 6:39 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. >> > > > > -- > Michael Worley > J.D., Brigham Young University > > _______________________________________________ > 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.
