can only hope that these organizations start paying their fair share same as any other business that owns real estate and collects money.

many of whom also own real estate and collect money.

To exclude religious groups from this status would be a 1st amendment violation and could lead to very serious unintended consequences.

OTOH, there are clear rules regarding non-profits, and religious organizations should be held to those rules just like any other group.

making them adhere to those 501(3)c rules like my youth athletic program does would be a great start...if I do too much politicking I run the risk of losing that status...churches seem to not have that issue.

Some churches flagrantly violate the rules about endorsing candidates. They even advertise it and have a designated day a year when they all get together to do it at the same time.

They are basically thumbing their noses at the IRS and the IRS does nothing.

That needs to change.

This issue has to do with churches that will remain opposed to glbt marriage even if SCOTUS endorses it. The comparison is to how Bob Jones University lost their status because they prohibited inter-racial dating.

I'm not are how it would be applied, but it's an interesting issue.

it's because they were attempting to disobey a federal law banning discrimination which is illegal for any supposed non-profit.

A non-profit that offers goods and services, such as a church that offers and education through a church owned religious university must comply with all federal regulations regarding discrimination or face loss of non-profit status along with any federal funding, if any, currently supplied.

So non-profits who discriminate are going to be at risk of losing their tax status!

Hah!

if the government decides that some entities perform a charitable service that benefits the community and offers a tax incentive to do so it stands as fair that the government can decide that those entities whose discriminatory practices no longer serve the entire community no longer deserve that tax incentive.

There is no inherent right of churches or any other organization to avoid paying taxes. Paying taxes doesn't restrict your right to worship as you choose, nor does a church lose its right to exist should it be required to pay taxes.

The government determined that incentivizing certain behaviors encouraged organizations to provide services that either the government could not or substantially extended other government benefits. Which I've no real issue with as long as those organizations receiving the benefit all conform to the same measure of the law.

schools, shelters and others.

The inherent right is to be able to exercise your religion without government interference. Prohibiting religious groups from accessing the tax havens that are available to everyone else just because they are religious would violate that right, imo.

But I think we are in full agreement that those organizations must be held to the same rules and laws as any other organization.

In light of that, I would like to see the parsonage exemption removed and the yearly filing requirements imposed.

to be honest you've read how much I am not a religion fan, but in the end I'm not looking to hurt churches.

Many feed and clothe the poor in their neighborhoods, offer those services you mention. If keeping their tax rates down including their housing keeps those services operating at peak efficiency there's no real harm or foul to us as a nation.

The potential tax benefit from those things is not nearly as large as people think nor does it substantially aid the budget process so there's no need to press hard for that from a practicality standpoint.

Using it as a carrot/stick to motivate behavior from churches is perhaps appropriate.

The government can never win the trust in a neighborhood that a good and decent preacher or minister can, I know that.

My frustration lies with those who don't adhere to that service unto others before self philosophy and look to enrich themselves or force people into behaviors that benefit no one, not even the church really.

You said something about starving the bad while feeding the good, I'm not certain it can work that way but I do believe that starving the bad while at least attempting to work with the good towards a common goal is a realistic outcome that benefits the community. I do actually have some good church going friends who don't pressure me regarding belief, I suspect they pray I will eventually see the light and return to the fold but at least they keep that to themselves.

When I poke at religion it's to irritate the turds floating in the punch bowl because they are the ones ruining the party.

Not sure any of that makes sense, but it's the best I can do today.

I am a fan of religious groups and individuals that do good things. Though not a believer, I was raised in a church that was very politically active and worked for social justice, economic equality and taking care of the less fortunate.

I mistakenly assumed that most churches were like that, and now I am focused on making the distinction so that we (liberals/progressives) can support those doing good while fighting against those doing bad.

So, I think we are very much on the same page. It sickens me to see those religious groups that abuse some people and enrich others.

It seems to me to be counter-productive to not make any distinctions and attack all religious groups as if they were the same.

If the turds in the punch bowl are ruining the party, let's get rid of them, but maybe we can keep the finger sandwiches.

You are doing a great job of expressing yourself. As I said, I think we have much more in common than we do differences.

I say game on.

Great discussion here, by the way.

All the analyses I am hearing on the radio today are very optimistic.

I'm feeling confident that we have a win here!

It sounds as if the advocates are distilling it down to the legal basics aside from the various social hair-on-fire hoopla being put out from the right wing.

We don't deny tax exemptions for other kinds of discrimination (e.g., against women). And we don't deny tax exemptions to churches even for race discrimination.

I don't really understand the whole tax issue regarding Bob Jones, but they did eventually reverse their policy.

In fairness, he said he didn't know enough of the details to give a good one. But he should have pointed out that the Supreme Court has granted heightened scrutiny to other classifications (for example, sex) without the IRS denying tax exemptions to religious institutions that discriminate on that basis.

It sounded like a stretch, but you apparently understand it much better than I do, and even better than the attorney who answered!