At least initially, there was exactly such a threat on Gordon. http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/07/11/agency-review-whether-gordon-college-antigay-stance-policies-violate-accrediting-standards/Cti63s3A4cEHLGMPRQ5NyJ/story.html
And Trinity Western in Canada is faring worse. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865614952/Legal-threats-on-religious-schools.html?pg=all Sorry about CLS-- Marty is right. On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 10:03 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > Do you mean *CLS v. Martinez*? The U.S. didn't file in that case. (If > you want to know the Administration's "position on sexual orientation," > listen to Don Verrilli's argument yesterday.) > > And there hasn't been any threat to pull Gordon College's accreditation. > > Other than that, though , , , > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:44 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
_______________________________________________ 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.
