The question, "Colleges, Churches, Charities - should they lose their tax exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage?" was asked in a democratic presidential nominee town hall (or whatever they called it), and a democratic candidate for President replied "yes." I don't understand how you shrug that off as Ben Shapiro banging a drum and not the direction the Democratic party is wanting to move. It looks, to me, as if it is actively moving that direction as we speak. I think the chance of these institutions losing 501c3 status in the next 20-30 years is extremely high, but it's the additional steps that worry me. I think it's a little more likely than you are giving it credit at the moment, but to each his own.
If you removed "religious" a church could still fall under "cheritable." If you remove cheritable, you have to remove the following: There is no way all of this is removed, which means it can't be removed. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-p...-purposes-internal-revenue-code-section-501c3
Given the definitions Float posted, I just don't see how it could ever happen. To our detriment, because it will be abused and abused.
A (singular) church, absolutely could, depending on what they are preaching, and doing. But "churches" in general, no way. Major on brand religions, no way. Not without getting rid of lots of other tax exempt organizations, too.
Nope, Nicholas Lavery. You'd think a meme about heroes would name them. https://www.uml.edu/news/stories/2017/laveryflag.aspx
the actor that wore a dress to an awards show a couple years back. Calling him a hero of the left just shows how disingenuous some on the right are.
I'm way out of my element here, but: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf This speaks to the part circled in red above: I point that out to say that there are "exceptions" to your definitions that can cause an institution to lose its tax exempt status. I highlighted the last bullet because it seems like the easiest place where religious institutions could jeopardize their status, should public policy be written in a way to target them. And when you have presidential candidates calling for them to lose their status, I see no reason why we shouldn't expect this sort of targeting in the near future. But again, I'm far from an expert on any of this. Would love to hear Card's input.
Yes. A "church" that preaches Nazi propaganda would lose their status. That doesn't mean all churches would, and that is the argument. One or two here are there that are operating way off course from the rest are absolutely at risk. A place that feeds the homeless, meets on Wednesday and Sunday, passes around a plate to collect donations, and has talks and groups and discusses the Bible is absolutely free to do so as a not for profit organization. There is no difference between the above and a "church," and as such, no way they can "lose their status" without also taking away all other not for profits. But all not for should be brought under the same regs re: filing tax returns and the like, and currently churches enjoy more privilege than other not for orgs.
Don't sell him short. He is Billy Porter; triple threat actor, singer dancer. Known for Quotes like - "The reason why our country is in the mess we're in is simply because of whiteness. White supremacy. White people choke-holding power and sucking the life out of humanity". A Google search of Billy Porter yields 38,200,000 results; compared to actor George Clooney - 29,300,000
