And IMHO that’s the way it should be.
However, I feel a caveat needs to be established. It should only remain this way as long as all couples have the opportunity to marry outside the church. I have heard of a couple of states (WI being one of them) that have had legislation introduced to limit marriage ceremonies to be limited to religious organizations. If that should ever happen the ability of religious organizations to discriminate would then cease to exist.
Yet religious people are trying through legislation to shove DOMA-type & abortion laws down the throats of everyone.
That’s true. However, why is it ok to single out some non-profits for political activity while ignoring that of others? I’m part of a 501(c)3 organization that has had to maintain a hard line on its members not engaging in political talk regarding public officials, candidates or political legislation. Why is it that religious non-profits are allowed to speak about almost anything they want w/o losing their tax-exempt status?
Such a law would obviously be a violation of the constitution.
Can you give a specific example of speech that you believe would be forbidden to your 501(c)(3) but permissible if offered by a church?
My understanding is that 501(c)3 organizations can advocate for or against issues but not candidates. ( Yours may not, but that may be for other reasons such as not wanting to lose potential donations) But remember that not all non-profits are 501(c)3 organizations and different sections have different rules- for example 501(c)4 organizations can support or oppose candidates. And while I’m not going to say that churches never take a position for or against a particular candidate, that doesn’t mean it’s allowed- in fact some of them do it specifically to bait the IRS.
I know that discrimination is the cardinal sin of the Church of Social Justice but that doesn’t mean that you get to impose your religion on other religions.
In fairness, I do think Hocus Pocus is on to something in that as a matter of enforcement, the IRS is reluctant to drop the hammer on candidate endorsements from the pulpit.
I’d suggest that you and the organization you’re a part of do not have a very good understanding of the limits placed on a 501(c)(3) organization’s ability to lobby and engage in political speech.
I wish people would give actual reasons and explanations for things, rather than just shooting others down. “You don’t know what you’re talking about.” Okay: tell us the real deal. What limitations are there…or aren’t there…on non-profit organizations?
Some of us remember the Bush (the younger) administration siccing the IRS on a church, because the pastor delivered a sermon about peace.
First, there are all different sorts of non-profit tax exempt organizations which have different rules. For example,political organizations are usually exempt under section 527 (although those that expressly advocate for or against a candidate are additionally subject to campaign finance laws) and qualified tuition plans are exempt under section 529. So let’s restrict this to section 501(c)(3) organizations which include organizations involved in activities with the following purposes:charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering amateur sports competition, or preventing cruelty to children or animals. This is a fact sheet from the IRS regarding political activities and these organizations.It’s long and gives a number of examples, but the short version is that it’s OK for these organization to take positions on issues, but not to advocate for a specific vote. If Bill Y is related somehow to the organization’s purpose, it’s fine to say “Call Senator X and urge him to vote for Bill Y” whether the 501(c)(3) is a church a school or the ASPCA . It’s not fine to say “Candidate X is against Bill Y. Vote for Candidate Z who is for it”. They can hold candidate forums as long is there is no bias in who participates or how the forum operates. They can conduct non-partisan voter registration drives and "get out the vote " campaigns.
About Bush and the sermon , if it’s the one I’m thinking of , this sentence probably went over the line
for a sermon given days before the election.
For reference, the First Amendment:
Given the underlines portion, I can’t see how anyone can be of the mind that a devout wedding cake baker or wedding photographer should suddenly have to do work that celebrate an event that go against his beliefs. Or have to choose between that and closing his business. And I say that as someone who is not religious.
It’s the same reason that businesses can’t cite religious belief to discriminate against black couples, or interracial couples. If they were allowed to do so, then there would be no legal recourse to stop a new wave of “sundown towns” (for gay people) from appearing such that gay people would not be able to eat at restaurants, stay at hotels, etc., in certain towns, if the business owners decided that was the kind of town they wanted.
And I fail to see how baking a cake is somehow exercising your religion. If your business is baking wedding cakes, then you sell wedding cakes to anyone who wants to buy one, full stop. Nothing is impeding your right to be a fully participating member of your religion. If you’re a Jewish baker and I want a wedding cake filled with pulled pork, feel free to show me the door.
doreen: Thank you! Thanks for the summary, the link, and also the extra detail on the church sermon case, which I never heard back when the event occurred. That certainly changes the complexion of the case, and makes me more sympathetic with the administration and the IRS.
(I am the corporate secretary for a California 501©3 corporation – an arts advocacy group – and there is a whole hades of a lot that I do not know about the rules! Mostly I just take minutes of meetings, but it’s a little scary how much responsibility I have…and how very little knowledge!)
And as for lobbying activity, the IRS permits 501(c)(3) orgs to participate in lobbying, but leaves things purposefully vague as to the extent. Per this page on the IRS website, “In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.” Obviously, “a substantial part” and “too much” is hard to interpret. It’s usually considered to be around 15% (of its exempt expenditures). But why take the chance? Organizations looking to solidify their right to engage in lobbying can fill out a Form 5768 and take the 501(h) exemption, which places hard and fast guidelines down.
Why wouldn’t an organization do this? For one, it telegraphs out that it’s going to be lobbying, which a large percentage of the population still thinks the organization isn’t allowed to do, and you risk losing donations and support. Secondly, I’d be willing to bet that most organizations themselves still think they can’t lobby - and are completely unaware this option even exists.
Also because some types of organizations, including churches, aren’t permitted to file this election.
It’s pretty simple. No religion requires its adherents to open a bakery or photo studio but refuse to serve gay people. So not being allowed by law to practice that bigotry does not interfere with the free exercise of any religion. There seems to be a lot of confusion among the bigoted right concerning that; they seem to think waving a bible around while they do something makes that thing a religious practice. They are wrong.
Who determines what a given religion requires or does not require?
Regards,
Shodan