California tax bill seeks to punish Scouts for gay ban

[Darwin333]

I don't think so.

E.g., last I checked churches are tax exempt and you cannot become a member of a church unless you agree to its principals and teachings.

Fern

I have a question about the above that is completely irrelevant to this thread but you are the guy to ask.

Can a church legally discriminate against a person that does agree to its principals and teachings and still keep its tax exempt status?

Per the law and tax code can a church legally refuse to allow black or spanish or white or whatever race to participate for no other reason than race?

 

[Darwin333]

This makes no sense. If my three girls wanted to join the Girl Scouts and I found out their scoutmaster (or whatever the Girl Scout equivalent is) was a man, I would have some serious reservations about allowing them to go on camping trips. It's just not a good situation and I think most parents would agree that a bunch of teenage girls going out into the woods for a week with their male leaders is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

In the same vein, why would I want to send my sons out into the woods with men who are attracted to males? I'm not saying every homosexual is a raging pedophile just like not every heterosexual is either but why put them in a situation like that?

I don't think it's discriminatory to protect your kids from potential pitfalls as described above. California trying to force the Boy Scouts to do so is very short-sighted IMO. If the BS taught hateful anti-gay themes it would be different, but having been involved with Scouts for a few years I can say that isn't the case.

You know, I was thinking about the exact same thing yesterday afternoon and you are correct. I wouldn't send my daughters camping with a male supervisor that I didn't know absurdly well (like real close family member or something). The chances of the man being a pedophile or molesting my daughters is probably statistically irrelevant but still, why put them in that position?

Here comes the weird part, most people (well at least fathers) would send their sons camping with a hot ass chick for a scout leader. If they found out their son was "molested" by said hot ass chick I bet well over half would be high fiving the son and the other half would be pissed that the son is tapping it instead of them lol. Change hot ass chick into gay man and the reaction is 100% opposite.

You do have a valid point though and I would think it be reasonable for the BSA to add some sort of rule regarding it. Basically make the same rules that apply to opposite sexes apply to adults that are attracted to the same sex.

 

[Darwin333]

The state of California is discriminating against a group because it disapproves of its values. I cannot believe you do not see why this is a horrible idea.

Even the Republican Party has enough sense not to strip organizations like PP, NARAL, Pro same-sex marriage organizations of non-profit tax-exempt status.

The state of California is changing their tax code to prevent organizations that discriminate against a group of people that the state of California believes should be protected from receiving tax exempt status.

Do you believe that a state has the right to form their own tax code? Do you believe that a state has the right to determine what is in said states best interests? Do you believe that the Federal Government should instead have the power to determine individual states tax codes?

Its not about values its about what the state of California sees as discrimination.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I am no problem with [a non-profit organization designed to raise funding to promote eugenics and fight for an end to miscegenation] being label a tax-exempt non-profit.

This is where you and I have a massive disconnect in our thinking. I believe that the only reason to offer a government benefit (freedom from taxation) to an organization is because that organization is providing a benefit to society. You believe that any organization that is structured to not operate for profits should be granted tax exemption. I cannot possibly fathom why you would want groups that not only provide no benefit to society but actively work to undermine some fundamental principles to get special rewards from the government (and, yes, not having to pay taxes is a reward). I'm not even talking about the BSA here, I'm talking about my wild hypothetical of a eugenics organization that you said you'd be fine with granting tax-exempt status to. Why? Why would you say that group shouldn't have to pay taxes? It's like you have absolutely no concept of the rationale behind tax-exemption at all.

 

[nehalem256]

This is where you and I have a massive disconnect in our thinking. I believe that the only reason to offer a government benefit (freedom from taxation) to an organization is because that organization is providing a benefit to society. You believe that any organization that is structured to not operate for profits should be granted tax exemption. I cannot possibly fathom why you would want groups that not only provide no benefit to society but actively work to undermine some fundamental principles to get special rewards from the government (and, yes, not having to pay taxes is a reward). I'm not even talking about the BSA here, I'm talking about my wild hypothetical of a eugenics organization that you said you'd be fine with granting tax-exempt status to. Why? Why would you say that group shouldn't have to pay taxes? It's like you have absolutely no concept of the rationale behind tax-exemption at all.

Because I believe that free public discourse is in the public interest. And I believe that allowing the government to decide which organizations are "in the public interest" is an inherently dangerous idea.

As a supporter of same-sex marriage this should be obvious to you. Why couldn't Republican states decide that groups that support same-sex marriage are not in the public interest? As far as I know Republicans don't do this. Probably because it should be immediately obvious that only leads Democratic states then deciding that conservative groups are "not in the public interest".

Even take the example of eugenics. Can you say that advocating for improving the genetic stock of humans is not in the public interest? Also ironically you do realize that PP was founded by eugenicists right?

If a group is really only populated by fringe lunatics then it will not receive much in the way of donations making its status largely irrelevant. The only exception would be a group supported by say an eccentric Billionaire. I would have no problems limiting the amount of charitable donations that are tax deductible to say $10,000/yr to avoid that issue.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

If a group is really only populated by fringe lunatics then it will not receive much in the way of donations making its status largely irrelevant. The only exception would be a group supported by say an eccentric Billionaire. I would have no problems limiting the amount of charitable donations that are tax deductible to say $10,000/yr to avoid that issue.

Yes, let's completely destroy major philanthropy in the United States for all charities so that we can give tax exemptions to groups that don't do anything good for society. Holy shit man, are you completely insane?

As for my stance on homosexuality, obviously I'm pro-gay. But that doesn't affect my stance on charitable tax exemption as a state's rights issue. If a Republican state decided it would no longer offer tax exemptions to youth groups who allowed gay members, I'd be admittedly peeved and not in favor of it. But the state is free to do as it wants until the Federal government steps in and rules definitively on discrimination.

 

[nehalem256]

Yes, let's completely destroy major philanthropy in the United States for all charities so that we can give tax exemptions to groups that don't do anything good for society. Holy shit man, are you completely insane?

Charity is not suppose to be a tax loophole for the rich. Why shouldn't the rich have to pay their fair share?

As for my stance on homosexuality, obviously I'm pro-gay. But that doesn't affect my stance on charitable tax exemption as a state's rights issue. If a Republican state decided it would no longer offer tax exemptions to youth groups who allowed gay members, I'd be admittedly peeved and not in favor of it. But the state is free to do as it wants until the Federal government steps in and rules definitively on discrimination.

A state may have the ability to remove tax exemptions for groups it doesn't like. But in doing so, especially for group that enjoy widespread support like the BSA, it is showing itself to be intolerant.

If even the Republican Party doesn't stoop to removing the tax exempt status of groups that have views it dislikes that should tell you how far off the cliff the California Democratic Party is.

 

[thraashman]

If even the Republican Party doesn't stoop to removing the tax exempt status of groups that have views it dislikes that should tell you how far off the cliff the California Democratic Party is.

So for at least the tenth time in this thread now I will tell you that it's not about being a group that has views it dislikes. It's about a group that has practices that are discriminatory. And in California homosexuals are a protected class for the purposes of discrimination for reasons just like this. Abortion, which you keep bringing up, is legal in all states and no state has laws regarding it as a discriminatory practice. There is no legal precedence for a Republican state to remove tax exempt status from a group like Planned Parenthood, there is plenty of legal precedence for what California is doing (I've posted a link twice in fact). But you do have Republican states that are actively passing laws to make it impossible for abortion clinics to operate, which is even more destructive to that private business than just removing tax exempt status.

 

[Fern]

I have a question about the above that is completely irrelevant to this thread but you are the guy to ask.

Can a church legally discriminate against a person that does agree to its principals and teachings and still keep its tax exempt status?

Per the law and tax code can a church legally refuse to allow black or spanish or white or whatever race to participate for no other reason than race?

IDK.

I don't recall ever seeing anything in tax law for nonprofits about nondiscrimination, at least not in the law itself.

Nor have I ever seen it discussed in a court case, but then again I've never looked.

I'm guessing here, but I would think the ordinary course would be a civil fine for the offending institution and no affect on their nonprofit tax status.

To target their nonprofit status indicates a law that pertains only to nonprofits. If the behavior was to be prohibited I don't know why it wouldn't apply to all organization, meaning those that are for profit too.

Fern

 

[Fern]

They aren't forcing anything. The Boy Scouts can carry on as they always have. They are just no longer eligible for tax exempt status in the state of California. If they don't like those terms, they can feel free to not operate the organization in California.

Aren't conservatives generally in favor of state's rights? Does that argument not apply when it's not a state voting in favor of "one man, one woman" or the like?

You're shifting the argument.

My suggestion to go out and create a Gay Scouts, instead of causing the existing org to morph into something else to fit your views has nothing to do with legal technicalities or constitutional issues; it's simply a question.

Personally, I think this effort has less to do with a genuine effort to get gays into scouting and more to do with hating on Boy Scouts because they have a Christian element.

If you have the genuine interest, then go create the Gay Scouts.

Fern

 

[Fern]

This isn't Federal law; this is specific to California's state tax law. Are you saying states no longer have the right to determine their own tax laws?

They don't if their own tax laws are found to violate federal law or constitutional precedent, although admittedly from the looks of it I mistaken in believing that tax-free status was given to any non-profit organization practicing their First Amendment rights, and not just the religious ones. That's pretty disappointing to me, actually.

Yes, I also think states are free to enact their own tax laws, however they must not violate the Constitution.

Atomic Playboy, can Alabama decide to tax Black people at a higher rate under their state laws? I doubt it, the Constitution would prohibit that.

As regards the Boy Scouts and CA, I have not researched it but suspect the proposed CA law may violate the 1st Amendment, specifically the "Free Association" clause.

Fern

 

[Fern]

This makes no sense. If my three girls wanted to join the Girl Scouts and I found out their scoutmaster (or whatever the Girl Scout equivalent is) was a man, I would have some serious reservations about allowing them to go on camping trips. It's just not a good situation and I think most parents would agree that a bunch of teenage girls going out into the woods for a week with their male leaders is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

In the same vein, why would I want to send my sons out into the woods with men who are attracted to males? I'm not saying every homosexual is a raging pedophile just like not every heterosexual is either but why put them in a situation like that?

I don't think it's discriminatory to protect your kids from potential pitfalls as described above. California trying to force the Boy Scouts to do so is very short-sighted IMO. If the BS taught hateful anti-gay themes it would be different, but having been involved with Scouts for a few years I can say that isn't the case.

Ahhh. Someone had to go and inject common sense into a P&N thread.

Killjoy.

I see the risk going both ways. If you're that male Girl Scout leader and some little beyotch makes a bogus claim you harassed her, you're probably screwed (i.e., life ruined). Likewise for the gay Boy Scout leader.

Fern

 

[Fern]

What if I start a non-profit organization designed to raise funding to promote eugenics and fight for an end to miscegenation? Should that be eligible for tax exempt status? What is the point of tax exemption? Is it solely because something is not designed to raise a profit, or is it because an organization's mission is contributing a benefit to society?

I think what you're really arguing here is the subjective evaluation of merit. The tax code has many categories of nonprofits.

E.g., we have for churches, does the IRS have complete freedom to decide if your particular 'flavor' of church has merit? No, they don't, nor would that be desirable.

Likewise in science. Scientific orgs can be nonprofit. Do we want the IRS deciding what research projects are worthy or unworthy? No, I don't think so.

I believe that as long as the org meets the parameters laid out they should probably be granted nonprofit status. I don't think we need the government drilling down to the granular level and making a subjective evaluation on it's particular merits.

Incidentally, regardless of whether a non-profit is "private," the vast majority get funding from government sources through grants and various government subsidies. The BSA actually used to have considerable government support, in terms of real monetary donations/sponsorships and free access to government property until the ACLU pitched a fit because of the ongoing "no gays" rules. To imply that private non-profit organizations are completely detached from government funding is flat-out wrong.

No, the "vast majority" don't. Now, the vast majority might like to, but govt funding isn't easy to obtain.

Actually, I'd say it's a pretty small minority who get govt funding, certainly regular or reoccurring govt funding.

Fern

 

[Fern]

I fail to see how California is forcing the BSA to do anything. They are still perfectly free to convey any message they so deem.
-snip-

You may be correct, although I highly doubt it.

I seem to recall a recent case where some gay girl in school, or similar, is making a complaint against a teacher who look at her wrong because she was gay. I.r., she claims harassment.

I strongly expect any scout leader going the BSA principals of non-gay activity etc. would be hit with a harassment charge of some type too.

Fern

 

[thraashman]

Yes, I also think states are free to enact their own tax laws, however they must not violate the Constitution.

Atomic Playboy, can Alabama decide to tax Black people at a higher rate under their state laws? I doubt it, the Constitution would prohibit that.

As regards the Boy Scouts and CA, I have not researched it but suspect the proposed CA law may violate the 1st Amendment, specifically the "Free Association" clause.

Fern

It doesn't violate any amendments. Supreme Court ruled in a similar situation that it was legal for the IRS to revoke the tax exempt status from Bob Jones University when it discriminated against interracial couples.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0461_0574_ZS.html

I'll even reuse a quote I from the first post I used that link in.

that an institution seeking tax-exempt status must serve a public purpose and not be contrary to established public policy. Thus, to warrant exemption under § 501(c)(3), an institution must fall within a category specified in that section, and must demonstrably serve and be in harmony with the public interest, and the institution's purpose must not be so at odds with the common community conscience as to undermine any public benefit that might otherwise be conferred

 

[Fern]

It doesn't violate any amendments. Supreme Court ruled in a similar situation that it was legal for the IRS to revoke the tax exempt status from Bob Jones University when it discriminated against interracial couples.
-snip-

But there are other SCOTUS cases where the Free Association clause was relied upon to permit the so-called discriminatory practice.

Fern

 

[thraashman]

But there are other SCOTUS cases where the Free Association clause was relied upon to permit the so-called discriminatory practice.

Fern

Those were about allowing the discriminatory practice, which the state of California cannot prevent. However the state can still revoke tax exempt status. Those other cases you refer to would be far more likely to work in favor of the woman who refused to supply flowers to a gay wedding in that other thread.

 

[Fern]

Those were about allowing the discriminatory practice, which the state of California cannot prevent. However the state can still revoke tax exempt status. Those other cases you refer to would be far more likely to work in favor of the woman who refused to supply flowers to a gay wedding in that other thread.

I'm thinking of the argument that a state cannot punish you for exercising your constitutional rights. I don't believe an outright prohibition is necessary to find a violation.

Fern

 

[zinfamous]

I've been saying, quite clearly, that discrimination should not be used as the reasoning to remove a tax exempt status.

Like I said in my first post, the irony that people are ok with fighting "discrimination" with discrimination is hilarious.

EDIT: To be clear, the state is using a discriminatory premise to remove the tax exemption status.

oh, you're one of "those" people that actually thinks this is type of comment is clever.

Now I can see that there isn't much reason to discuss anything with you.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Yes, I also think states are free to enact their own tax laws, however they must not violate the Constitution.

Atomic Playboy, can Alabama decide to tax Black people at a higher rate under their state laws? I doubt it, the Constitution would prohibit that.

The difference is that race is a protected class at the Federal level, so no state can make a tax code that specifically discriminates on the basis of race. Sexual orientation is not a protected class at the Federal level, but it is at the state level in California. As such, if California finds that an organization violates their discrimination code with regards to sexual orientation, they can revoke a tax exemption specifically within their state.

Using an example of a non-protected class of people, let's say the obese (obesity not being a protected class from discrimination at the Federal or state level): If Alabama were to revoke tax exemptions for any non-profit organization set up to help obese people, they would be perfectly within their rights to do so (although it's difficult to think of a non-profit that would specifically be set up to benefit the obese...). The point is, if something is defined as discrimination at the Federal level, no one can discriminate on that basis (hence the reason the Scouts couldn't refuse black applicants). If something is defined as discrimination at the state level, that state can set specific rules, including in the tax code, to punish behavior inconsistent with local laws.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

No, the "vast majority" don't. Now, the vast majority might like to, but govt funding isn't easy to obtain.

Actually, I'd say it's a pretty small minority who get govt funding, certainly regular or reoccurring govt funding.

Fern

Yes, that was my mistake. I was reading a study on non-profit funding, but it was actually looking at Canadian non-profits and not American ones, and even though a large percentage of funding came from the government, it was in the form of major subsidies and grants for a few large institutions (hospitals and universities) rather than across a broad base of smaller charities.

 

[Fern]

The difference is that race is a protected class at the Federal level, so no state can make a tax code that specifically discriminates on the basis of race. Sexual orientation is not a protected class at the Federal level, but it is at the state level in California. As such, if California finds that an organization violates their discrimination code with regards to sexual orientation, they can revoke a tax exemption specifically within their state.

Using an example of a non-protected class of people, let's say the obese (obesity not being a protected class from discrimination at the Federal or state level): If Alabama were to revoke tax exemptions for any non-profit organization set up to help obese people, they would be perfectly within their rights to do so (although it's difficult to think of a non-profit that would specifically be set up to benefit the obese...). The point is, if something is defined as discrimination at the Federal level, no one can discriminate on that basis (hence the reason the Scouts couldn't refuse black applicants). If something is defined as discrimination at the state level, that state can set specific rules, including in the tax code, to punish behavior inconsistent with local laws.

Good conversation and I general agree with the bolded section, but you've managed to side-step the constitutional issue.

My contention would be that the state may not be able to punish behavior inconsistent with its laws if that behavior is protected under the Constitution. If it is, that's a higher form of protection than even laws at the federal level.

Fern

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Good conversation and I general agree with the bolded section, but you've managed to side-step the constitutional issue.

My contention would be that the state may not be able to punish behavior inconsistent with its laws if that behavior is protected under the Constitution. If it is, that's a higher form of protection than even laws at the federal level.

Fern

That's fair, but I don't know that you can argue that defining more types of discrimination is somehow stepping on rights at the Federal or Constitutional level. The Federal discrimination laws set a minimum; here are the things that no one is allowed to discriminate against. A state isn't allowed to have fewer groups on their specific discrimination list than what's at the Federal level; why couldn't they have more? They're not restricting rights, they're expanding protection for classes of people not covered by the Federal regulations.

I suppose it could be determined by the Supreme Court, but as thraashman pointed out, the USSC has already determined that an organization can lose those designations if they are "so at odds with the common community conscience as to undermine any public benefit that might otherwise be conferred." Whether or not state's can determine that for themselves is the only issue that I can see might be argued.

 

[Fern]

Claims of discrimination often involve competing rights.

E.g., "it's my business and I have a right to refuse to serve customers if I choose". And this is certainly valid in cases. I'm a tax accountant and the govt cannot make me take on all people who want me to do their tax returns etc. I believe the reasons I have for refusing are important.

The person wanting to be served has a right, as the general public, to be served like anyone else.

So, the question becomes how do we resolve the issue of competing rights.

I don't claim to know the answer, but am suggesting the possibility that in this case the constitutional right to Free Association may outweigh the (state provided) right of the person wishing to join.

Fern

 

[xBiffx]

oh, you're one of "those" people that actually thinks this is type of comment is clever.

Now I can see that there isn't much reason to discuss anything with you.

Not really. Apparently you are, however, since you brought it up.

Edit: Nice to know I have a stalker who likes to go into threads and gutter snipe me for comments that are days/pages old. I like being stalked.