California tax bill seeks to punish Scouts for gay ban

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,587
126
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- California lawmakers are considering taking some tax exemptions away from youth groups that do not accept gay, transgender or atheist members — a move intended to pressure the Boy Scouts of America to lift its ban on gay Scouts and troop leaders.

Some cities have withdrawn free rent and other subsidies from the Boy Scouts over the years, but legislation introduced by state Sen. Ricardo Lara would make California the first state to target the Scouts for its anti-gay policy.

The Long Beach Democrat's bill, SB 323, is scheduled for its first committee hearing on Wednesday.

"Our state values the important role that youth groups play in the empowerment of our next generation; this is demonstrated by rewarding organizations with tax exemptions supported financially by all Californians," Lara said. "SB 323 seeks to end the unfortunate discriminatory and outdated practices by certain youth groups."

The Boy Scouts of America reaffirmed the Texas-based organization's ban on openly gay members last summer then announced in January that it was revisiting the decision.

In February, the group said it would submit a resolution on rescinding the policy to the 1,400 members of Scouting's National Council in May.

Deron Smith, a spokesman for the Boy Scouts of America, told The Associated Press on Tuesday that the organization was aware of Lara's bill and would provide feedback on it to the Senate Governance and Finance Committee before Wednesday's hearing.

"Beyond that, and our previous statements on membership standards, we don't have anything to add at this time," Smith said.

The legislation, also known as the Youth Equality Act, would deny tax-exempt status to nonprofit youth groups that discriminate on the basis of gender identity, race, sexual orientation, nationality, religion or religious affiliation.

As a result, it would require those organizations to pay corporate taxes on donations, membership dues, camp fees and other sources of income, and to obtain sellers permits and pay sales taxes on food, beverages and homemade items sold at fundraisers. Because all tax returns are private in California, supporters do not know how big a tax hit the Boy Scouts would take if the proposal passes.

Churches that sponsor Boy Scouts troops would not lose their underlying tax-exempt status, but an array of nonprofits, ranging from the Young Men's Christian Association and Pop Warner football to the American Youth Soccer Association and 4-H clubs would have their tax returns and membership policies scrutinized by the state Franchise Tax Board, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office.

As a tax measure, the bill requires a two-thirds vote instead of a simple majority from both houses of the Legislature and the signature of Gov. Jerry Brown to become law.

"We would consider all legal options, including litigation, should SB 323 be enacted, but right now we are focusing on the legislative front," Pacific Justice Institute staff attorney Matthew McReynolds said. "We're not convinced that moderates will support, or the governor will sign, a tax increase that targets organizations based on ideology. "

The institute and other legal aid groups that represent religious conservatives have cautioned lawmakers that the measure conflicts with a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld the right of private groups such as the Boy Scouts to exclude gays and lesbians from serving as adult leaders.

"SB 323's primary purpose is to penalize BSA based on its constitutionally protected membership policy and the values that underlie it," lawyers for the Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom wrote in a letter to lawmakers last week. "This type of targeted punishment of a group based on how it exercises its associational and free speech rights violates the First Amendment."

The Legislative Analyst's Office, however, has assured the Legislature it has authority to decide which organizations qualify for tax breaks.

An analysis of the bill points to a 2006 ruling in which the California Supreme Court said the city of Berkeley could end its half-century-old practice of giving a nautical-themed offshoot of the Boy Scouts free rent at the city marina because of its gay ban.

The California Association of Nonprofits also has expressed concerns about the bill but is not taking an official position opposing it, Public Policy Director Kris Lev-Twombly said.

"In general, we think the place for ruling on discrimination should be in the courts rather than through the tax code," Lev-Twombly said.
http://news.yahoo.com/calif-tax-bill-seeks-punish-202749845.html?bcmt_s=m#ugccmt-container

Sounds like a good idea to me. If you want to continue your discriminatory practices, you gotta pay taxes. You want the benefit of tax breaks, you gotta be inclusive. I certainly don't like the idea of a group that is supposed to support and educate youths teaching those kids that discrimination and hate are ok, and I DEFINITELY don't want a group like that benefiting from tax breaks.
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
http://news.yahoo.com/calif-tax-bill-seeks-punish-202749845.html?bcmt_s=m#ugccmt-container

Sounds like a good idea to me. If you want to continue your discriminatory practices, you gotta pay taxes. You want the benefit of tax breaks, you gotta be inclusive. I certainly don't like the idea of a group that is supposed to support and educate youths teaching those kids that discrimination and hate are ok, and I DEFINITELY don't want a group like that benefiting from tax breaks.

Good luck getting this past the courts.

They have a right to choose who can be a member and who cannot. This is a private organization. Taxing them for executing their rights, first of which is their freedom of speech, is not going to end well. If they just dropped the tax exemption or just raised taxes on them without opening their big mouths there wouldn't be much to talk about here. But they chose to disclose the reasoning behind their actions. Lawmakers' first mistake here.

You may not agree with the Boy Scouts' decision but condoning illegal taxes as a way to "get em back" isn't gonna win you anything.

Oh and, the irony that you are ok with going after "discrimination" with discrimination is hilarious.
 
Last edited:
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
Anyone who supports this needs to have their head examined. Its a private organization and they have the right to allow or disallow whoever they want.

If this was a government organization then absolutely they cant discriminate.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,546
1,124
126
Good luck getting this past the courts.

They have a right to choose who can be a member and who cannot. This is a private organization. Taxing them for executing their rights, first of which is their freedom of speech, is not going to end well. If they just dropped the tax exemption or just raised taxes on them without opening their big mouths there wouldn't be much to talk about here. But they chose to disclose the reasoning behind their actions. Lawmakers first mistake here.

You may not agree with their decision but condoning illegal taxes as a way to "get em back" isn't gonna win you anything.

Oh and, the irony that you are ok with going after "discrimination" with discrimination is hilarious.

A state has the right to determine who can be considered a tax exempt organization under state law.

Tax exemption isn't a right.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,898
55,179
136
Good luck getting this past the courts.

They have a right to choose who can be a member and who cannot. This is a private organization. Taxing them for executing their rights, first of which is their freedom of speech, is not going to end well.

You may not agree with their decision but condoning illegal taxes as a way to "get em back" isn't gonna win you anything.

Oh and, the irony that you are ok with going after "discrimination" with discrimination is hilarious.

Interesting you would say this when the last part of the article is explicitly about how just this sort of measure was upheld by the courts in the past.

SCOTUS upholding the right of BSA to ban gays is not the same as saying states are required to give them tax breaks.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Right thinking will be rewarded, wrong thinking punished

George Orwell- "1984"

Brought to you by Talos IV

talosian.gif
 

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
Interesting you would say this when the last part of the article is explicitly about how just this sort of measure was upheld by the courts in the past.

SCOTUS upholding the right of BSA to ban gays is not the same as saying states are required to give them tax breaks.


I was just going to say.. but you said it for me..lol
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
Interesting you would say this when the last part of the article is explicitly about how just this sort of measure was upheld by the courts in the past.

SCOTUS upholding the right of BSA to ban gays is not the same as saying states are required to give them tax breaks.

Correct. But when they remove them for specific reasons, i.e. to discriminate, that is where the problem lies.

Again, the lawmakers screwed up by disclosing their reasoning. But then it wouldn't be a crusade if they hadn't.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,546
1,124
126
Correct. But when they remove them for specific reasons, i.e. to discriminate, that is where the problem lies.

Again, the lawmakers screwed up by disclosing their reasoning. But then it wouldn't be a crusade if they hadn't.

Citation? There is precedent going both ways in matters like this.

Also, the legislation isn't likely to be viewed as discriminatory. Especially if SCotUS ever decide gays are a protected class.

Doesn't matter though. It doesn't look like its necessarily going to have enough votes to pass(2/3 vote).
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,898
55,179
136
Correct. But when they remove them for specific reasons, i.e. to discriminate, that is where the problem lies.

Again, the lawmakers screwed up by disclosing their reasoning. But then it wouldn't be a crusade if they hadn't.

You're saying that states are required to provide tax incentives to anti gay groups? Are they required to give the same ones to the KKK or neo Nazi groups?

Is the state allowed any ability to discern between who it wants to give tax breaks to whatsoever?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
So you're trying to say that the state should be required to give tax breaks to openly anti-gay organizations?

Should the state be required to give tax breaks to the KKK? To Nazi groups? Their only crime is wrong thinking, and it sounds like you don't want wrong thinking to be punished.

Really? Huh. Well, which Boy Scout troop lynched gays or made gas chambers to kill them?

If you believe that Nazi's only thought wrong and didn't kill anyone or oh, start wars or anything like that, be my guest.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Would it be legal to remove the tax deductions of minority couples?

Why make it about minority couples?

Liberals have spent years whining that the government cannot deny tax deductions to gay couples.

Now they are turning around and saying that the government CAN deny tax benefits to organizations that do not approve of homosexuality.

In fact there is even a California Court case that is currently before the SC about this very issue.

:D
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Really? Huh. Well, which Boy Scout troop lynched gays or made gas chambers to kill them?

If you believe that Nazi's only thought wrong and didn't kill anyone or oh, start wars or anything like that, be my guest.

I wonder if the NAACP has white members?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,898
55,179
136
Really? Huh. Well, which Boy Scout troop lynched gays or made gas chambers to kill them?

If you believe that Nazi's only thought wrong and didn't kill anyone or oh, start wars or anything like that, be my guest.

I'm unaware of the US Nazi party engaging in any such behavior, which of course would be the relevant organization.

Regardless, I can rattle off tons of other organizations. Do we need to give tax breaks to NAMBLA? The list goes on.
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
You're saying that states are required to provide tax incentives to anti gay groups? Are they required to give the same ones to the KKK or neo Nazi groups?

Is the state allowed any ability to discern between who it wants to give tax breaks to whatsoever?

Nope, never said that. What I am saying is if they remove those tax breaks for discriminatory reasons, it wouldn't be legal.

Sure the state can discern between who it wants to give tax breaks too, as long as they don't say they are giving them to one group and not another based on discriminatory reasons.

Nice try putting words in my mouth.

Again, the issue isn't the removal of the tax exemption here, the issue is the reasons why its being removed.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,546
1,124
126
Nope, never said that. What I am saying is if they remove those tax breaks for discriminatory reasons, it wouldn't be legal.

Sure the state can discern between who it wants to give tax breaks too, as long as they don't say they are giving them to one group and not another based on discriminatory reasons.

Nice try putting words in my mouth.

Again, the issue isn't the removal of the tax exemption here, the issue is the reasons why its being removed.

You are acting like its a slam dunk that it is illegal.

It is not a slam dunk, its not that simple. If it passes(doubtful) it would take a minimum of 4-5 years to get sorted out in the courts.