"The idea that it will choose now to go after religious colleges because of their teaching about sexuality is preposterous."
Why is that different than HHS choosing to go " after religious colleges because of their teaching about sexuality?" Political capital on this issue is building in the IRS' favor, as the Indiana RFRA debacle demonstrated. On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:44 PM, Michael Worley <mwor...@byulaw.net> wrote: > Given this administration's position on sexual orientation articulated in > *CLS*, along with the Gordon College issue, " if it hasn't happened in 30 > some years," seems to me a narrow and ultimately unpersuasive argument as > to why it won't happen as a policy issue. > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Volokh, Eugene <vol...@law.ucla.edu> > wrote: > >> Well, it’s possible that many people who, today, believe >> that it would be sinful for their religious institutions to treat same-sex >> relationships the same as opposite-sex relationships take solace in the >> notion that a couple of decades for now, their religious groups will have >> changed their minds. I just suspect that many others don’t take that view; >> they think (rightly or wrongly) that their theology of today is sound, and >> are troubled by the prospect that in a couple of decades adherence to this >> theology will render them legal and social outcasts. >> >> >> >> I also don’t think the history below is quite accurate. >> Unless I’m mistaken, the IRS began to deny tax-exempt status to >> institutions that discriminate based on race in 1970. At that point, >> according to Gallup, about *20% *of whites approved of interracial >> marriages, and 60% of blacks; and I’m pretty sure that in 1970, we couldn’t >> say that “[race] discrimination [was] anathema to almost all Americans.” >> Even if we use 1981 as the baseline, at that point about 35% of whites >> approved of interracial marriages, and about 70% of blacks did. See >> http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx . >> What drives these things, I think, is not the judgment of “almost all >> Americans”; it’s the judgment of particular political and legal elites. >> That judgment may sometimes be more sound than the judgment of the public – >> but I don’t see how the public can reasonably take comfort in the notion >> that certain policies won’t be adopted until “almost all Americans” believe >> in them. >> >> >> >> But at least I appreciate Marty’s acknowledgment that, in >> a couple of decades, we might well see denial of tax exempt status to >> colleges that discriminate against gays. The fear that Chip suggests is >> being whipped up thus seems, as I noted, a reasonable fear. >> >> >> >> Eugene >> >> >> >> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: >> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman >> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 29, 2015 8:22 PM >> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics >> *Subject:* Re: Religious organizations, tax-exempt status and same-sex >> marriage >> >> >> >> The Court isn't going to hold that strict scrutiny applies. (Indeed, I >> doubt it'll even go to heightened scrutiny -- it's too easy simply to say >> that the denial of SSM does not satisfy rational basis review.) >> >> >> >> Moreover, whatever the Court holds, the IRS will not deny tax-exempt >> status to colleges that discriminate against gays, if at all, until such >> discrimination is anathema to almost all Americans, and all religions, the >> same way race discrimination had become by 1981. That day is probably >> still a couple of decades away. But whenever it might be, I'm fairly >> confident of this: It won't happen until after Congress enacts ENDA, and >> adds sexual orientation to Title VI. At which point, the idea will not >> seem so outrageous to anyone still participating in this listserv. >> >> >> >> And Eugene, I'd be willing to wager that very few of today's conservative >> Christians' organizations will be "legally and socially marginalized" at >> that point, because by then they, too, will have voluntarily ended their >> discriminatory practices. >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:02 PM, Volokh, Eugene <vol...@law.ucla.edu> >> wrote: >> >> It sure is a way to whip up fear among people with >> traditional beliefs. But fear may often be perfectly logical, and a sound >> stimulus to political action. The gay rights movement has been trying hard >> to stigmatize sexual orientation discrimination, and hostility to >> homosexuality, as legally and morally tantamount to race discrimination. >> I’ve heard it again and again. If the Supreme Court accepts the argument >> that governmental sexual orientation discrimination is constitutionally >> tantamount to governmental race discrimination, that equivalence will >> become much easier to argue in other contexts – including when it comes to >> IRS policies. >> >> >> >> If I were a conservative Christian (which I most certainly >> am not), I would be very reasonably fearful, not just as to tax exemptions >> but as to a wide range of other programs – fearful that within a generation >> or so, my religious beliefs would be treated the same way as racist >> religious beliefs are: my institutions will be legally and socially >> marginalized, I and people who think like me would be cut out of jobs for >> visibly holding our beliefs, and so on. Many on this list might think this >> result would be perfectly just. But I can’t see why conservative >> Christians should be expected to take this with equanimity, or ignore >> reasonable warnings that this is the way things may well go. >> >> >> >> Eugene >> >> >> >> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: >> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Ira Lupu >> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 29, 2015 7:40 PM >> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics >> *Subject:* Re: Religious organizations, tax-exempt status and same-sex >> marriage >> >> >> >> 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? >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. >> > > > > -- > Michael Worley > J.D., Brigham Young University > -- 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.
