Beto Threatens to Strip Tax Exempt Status of Churches That Don’t Support Same Sex Marriage
“There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone or any institution, any organization in America, that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us.”
The longer Beto stays in the race, the more he embodies everything Democrats pretend they’re not.
Banning guns wasn’t enough. In the latest Democrat presidential primary debate, Beto upped the ante, saying churches who do not support same sex marriage would be stripped of their tax exempt status.
Watch:
Fox News with the story:
When the former Texas congressman was asked if religious institutions — “colleges, churches, charities” — should be stripped of tax-exempt status Thursday night by CNN anchor Don Lemon during the LGBTQ town hall, he immediately responded, “Yes.”
“There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone or any institution, any organization in America, that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us,” he said. “So as president, we’re going to make that a priority, and we are going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our fellow Americans.”
In O’Rourke’s “Plan to Pursue Equality for LGBTQ+ People and Ensure They Can Live Openly Without Fear of Discrimination or Violence,” he lists reversing the Trump administration’s “attempt to expand religious exemptions in order to enable discrimination or harm others.”
He adds, “Freedom of religion is a fundamental right, but it should not be used to discriminate.”
Matt Lewis, CNN political commentator, tweeted out, “This isn’t going to help win the electoral college. If you wonder why so many Christians are willing to hold their nose and support someone as horrible as Donald Trump, this helps explain it.”
Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, a religious liberty law firm, called it “blatantly unconstitutional,” adding “it’s also foolish because those groups provide billions of dollars in essential social services to their communities. Churches and ministries should be allowed to hold centuries-old beliefs without fear of government retribution.”
His outlandishness hasn’t helped his campaign one bit as he’s still polling under 2% nationally. Thankfully.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
This is supposed to be a lawyer site.
Apparently no one here remember Bob Jones University v.s. IRS from 1983 which (feel free to correct) says that public policy trumps religious freedom.
BJU rejected miscegany but otherwise didn’t discriminate. But SCOTUS said the IRS could grant or not based on “public policy”
“When they came for BJU, I didn’t speak out because I disagreed with their doctrine…”
Violation of a civil right in the name of so-called civil rights is an intolerable slippery slope, one that the neo-Marxists love to play on.
And don’t you think this is mighty hypocritical coming from
Robert Francis O’Rouke who’s never married a man once in his life!
Why is Robert Francis O’Rouke afraid of marrying a man himself?
If this report is correct, Robert Francis is even worse.
“…O’Rourke: I’d Revoke Tax Exempt Status For …. Historically-Black Colleges, Too”
https://www.weaselzippers.us/435165-beto-orourke-id-revoke-tax-exempt-status-for-mosques-and-historically-black-colleges-too/
This goes right to the heart of why the income tax should be abolished. In fact, this is exactly why it never should have been created in the first place.
tz: Apparently no one here remember Bob Jones University v.s. IRS from 1983 which (feel free to correct) says that public policy trumps religious freedom.
The Supreme Court specifically excluded “churches and other purely religious institutions” from the decision.
So…BJU is the final arbiter? Are you people serious?
Beto is the ghost of “Winter Holidays yet to come” He is saying everything the rest wish and believe but can’t yet say.
….and then Beto said, …..to HeII with The Constitution!!!
Many churches are already openly working for candidates and ballot measures in violation of the law. None I know of have lost their tax exempt status.
Churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, [spaghetti] Bowls, etc. And, of course, Chambers, the institution of the established Pro-Choice quasi-religion (“ethics”), selective, opportunistic, politically congruent (“=”), and it’s many for-profit non-profit tax shelters, not limited to operators of abortion chambers, normalization of transgender conversion therapy (mental and physical corruption), diversity rackets, etc.
I’m in favor of impeaching this guy now to bar him from ever holding public office. He’s for gun confiscation, encourages monopolies to block economic transactions of law abiding citizens, and now wants to force religious conformance? This guy is a danger.
Beta believes that we should have religious freedom so long as it conforms to his dictates.
This is the left. Pervert Biblical teachings to conform to only the one allowed view.
This is totalitarianism.
If you do not agree and conform to this sick twisted view you will be punished. And when that is not enough to make you break it will escalate. It always does.
The left has destroyed almost everything it touches. It is destroying this country. It is destroying religion while disguised as compassion. It makes a mockery of God and His Word. And too many churches are moving this way. Commandments are merely suggestions.
Look at all the institutions which have been destroyed with the intrusion of the left. The list grows daily.
oldgoat36: Beta believes that we should have religious freedom so long as it conforms to his dictates.
Not sure that losing a tax deduction is the same as the gulag.
Congress gave charities an exemption for the income tax in order to promote charities. Churches are not necessarily charities. Providing exemptions is not required by the Constitution, only that if you provide the benefit to one religion you must provide it equally to all religions.
The IRS has already determined that the religion of the Democrat Party is more equal then those that don’t believe in it…under Pres. Obama’s 8 years of ministry.
Congress gave charities an exemption for the income tax in order to promote charities
Obviously not. Were Congress susceptible to such reasoning, it wouldn’t tax business activity, either. That’s certainly far more important to the national economy than is charity, as taxes suck directly on the currency and lifeblood of business (which is, of course, money), removing it from where it might actually do most of us some good.
“The power to tax is the power to destroy” is the reason churches are not taxed. Courts have ruled on that basis repeatedly, affirming that the State has no right under the constitution to attack or hinder religious expression lacking actual criminal conduct. Of course, the Left has long held a goal of criminalizing disagreement (with what THEY believe), but thankfully it’s still not illegal to be a practicing Catholic, Orthodox Jew, Southern Baptist, or Muslim in this country…
For now…
tom_swift: Obviously not. Were Congress susceptible to such reasoning, it wouldn’t tax business activity, either.
Government has to tax something, and all taxes, whether on wealth or income or imports or beards, has an effect on economic activity. The legislative history of the charitable exemption predates the formation of the U.S., and is deeply rooted in common law. The original income tax law exempted “any corporation or association organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, or educational purposes, no part of the net income of which inures to the benefit of any private stockholder or individual.”
BobM: Courts have ruled on that basis repeatedly, affirming that the State has no right under the constitution to attack or hinder religious expression lacking actual criminal conduct.
The exemption is statutory. The closest ruling by the Supreme Court would be Walz v. City of New York, which found that the exemption did not violate the First Amendment, but the Court did not find that the exemption was required.
Wrong. Beto might, might, get away with something like stripping tax exemptions from church properties (these taxes are normally levied by the states, not the feds, but there may be similar federal taxes
but the fact remains that religious groups do operate federally recognized charities. You might argue the Catholic Curch is not a charity, but Catholic Charities is most definitely a charitable organization. Viewpoint discrimination is unconstitutional. As long as the government provides tax deductions to secular charities they must provide the same to religious charities. This goes far beyond your speculation that the government must treat all religious charities.
They page updated before I was finished editing my comment. But I believe my meaning was plain enough. Beto could not constitutionally deny a religious charitable organization tax exempt status simply because it is affiliated with a religious institution that refuses to perform same sex marriages.
This would violate two express provisions of the First Amendment and one derived right. The federal government can not prohibit the free exercise of religion, and the federal government can not abridge freedom of speech. The derived right is freedom of association. Beto would be doing all of the above if he tried to make a charitable organization’s tax exempt status dependent on compelling that organization to abandon its right to freely exercise its religion and on compelled speech. And members of religious congregations definitely have the right to only associate with people who share their beliefs when participating in constitutionally protected activities. Including the belief that same sex marriage is wrong.
Beto and the rest of the clowns vying for the Democratic nomination are demonstrating the truth of the old axiom; scratch a liberal and a dictator bleeds.
Arminius: You might argue the Catholic Curch is not a charity, but Catholic Charities is most definitely a charitable organization.
That’s right.
Arminius: Viewpoint discrimination is unconstitutional. As long as the government provides tax deductions to secular charities they must provide the same to religious charities.
That’s right, but the courts have found that a charity that discriminates by race is not being charitable. Consequently, a charity may be required to be charitable regardless of race, sex, or religion, in order to qualify for the exemption.
The question concerned purely religious organizations. The long-standing consensus is that they should be tax exempt, even though they have the constitutional right to discriminate.
Relax. The Irish dude is just another agitprop.
In trying to push the Overton Window to the left, O’Rourke reminds Evangelical Christians and Orthodox Jews why they need to vote for Trump.
Did he mention mosques?
Don’t think he did.
Discrimination and hatred are baked into the Muslim cake and heart. For example, this verse sets up the Us-v-Them scenario, explaining, among numerous other verses, the hatred Muslims have towards the kafir, most intensely against the Jews.
Pickthall: Ye [Muslims] are the best community that hath been raised up for mankind. Ye enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency; and ye believe in Allah. And if the People of the Scripture [Jews, Christians] had believed it had been better for them. Some of them are believers; but most of them are evil-livers.
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=3&verse=110
Same-sex marriage is exclusive. It’s transmarriage for all individuals in the transgender spectrum. However, that too is exclusive. Why so Pro-Choice? Unions for all consenting adults, for love, for “benefits”, or whatever reason. #NoJudgment #NoLabels
I heard somewhere that Beto has proposed that Drug Stores that do not stock Strap Ons be held criminally liable.
No idea if this is true – trying to verify the source.
There can be no reward . . . for anyone or any institution . . . that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us
The right to redefine words of the English language to suit some activist agenda is not a fundamental civil right.
An Orwellian right, perhaps, but not a civil right.
I do not see BETO as a serious contender, and do not see him as a threat.
Conversly, I believe he is doing a fine job of bringing the true mission of the Democrat party to light.
Veto Beto.
Tar him, feather him, and run him across the border on a skateboard.
Calling Mr. Branco, please give us this image!
Yes, one of this 58 year old “Beta male” cheap skate…er…skateboarder….
This is why I would vote for Trump over any Democrat, even if he turns out to be as corrupt as the MSM say he is. It is clear that today’s Democrats are sworn enemies of the First Amendment.
I think you would find it hard to discover any of the Bill of Rights that the left supports these days. They do not believe in the Constitution other than to make claims that Trump is breaking it, while I doubt any of them has even read it.
I believe it was the honorable Elijah Cummings who said recently that if the Constitution were to be written today that he didn’t believe it would be the same. D’oh! I truly believe that the old phrase, “If it doesn’t hurt me I don’t care what others do”. I also just read in the WSJ about a man who said that “The lack of judgment by others in our society will be its end”. Millennials have the “Live and let live” attitude that is heading down this path.
I would love to see President Donald J. Trump invite beta to a MAGA rally, tell the crowd “Please do not boo, let this man speak.” and give beta 10 minutes to speak about his agenda.
“There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone or any institution, any organization in America, that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us.”
I believe that the right to keep and bear arms, enumerated in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is also one of those “full civil rights”. So, it appears that he openly wishes to infringe on that civil right. So wrong!
“The longer Beto stays in the race, the more he embodies everything Democrats pretend they’re not.”
The longer Beto the Brainless stays in the race and shows what the Dems really stand for, the better.
He has already attacked the 1st and 2nd Articles of the Bill of Rights. Only eight to go.
Beto has enough political juice to spout craziness that the media picks up and will never have enough clout to impact anyone in any significant way again.
C’mon MSM! Show some balls. Ask him a logical follow up question.
“Would that include Mosques too who don’t believe in same sex marriages?”
It’s not guns. The Second Amendment defines a civil right to keep and bear Arms… and, logically, legs, a head, your life, too, shall not be infringed. Only the Chamber operates with the State-established quasi-religion that denies the civil and human right for the sake of social progress, social justice, taxable commodities, clinical cannibalism, and Democratic leverage.
As for transhomosexual marriage, why so Pro-Choice?
Exactly what is needed! Let’s create a whole new group of people defined by how they reach orgasm! Will they be made to demonstrate that they belong? How? Just asking.
I don’t think I’ll ever forgive Justice Kennedy for his vote on SSM. He knew the slipper slope would lead to things like this, yet he voted for it anyway. SCOTUS changed the definition of marriage. Civil unions was the answer. Pandora’s box is now wide open.
slippery
“were”
Daggone- prof, please include an edit feature.
Thanks.
It is horrifying to think that this leftist turd almost beat Ted Cruz to become a Senator.
Election fraud was in Robert’s favor…….
Nice scam the fake Latino has there.
The more radical agitrop nondense he spews, the more funding he gets.
I wonder if after the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, Pilgrim Paul said to Pilgrim Peter “hey, let’s get married”!
Established religions differ on many things but they all enjoy tax-exempt status (so long as they meet IRS requirements). Which means there’s no test for religious content in the tax code. This point is lost on Beto, whose religion, which he believes is the one true religion, is progressivism. If Jesus lived today and were like Beto, he would live stream the infliction of his stigmata.
Sadly a large portion of America’s churches have already jumped on board the gay train. It’s barreling full speed ahead with no idea where the tracks are taking it.
I am same-sex married, having done that in 2015 after the Supreme Court decision.
Beto O’Rourke is despicable. I reject his “protection.” With “friends” like him, I don’t need any enemies. He should find some other train to hitch a ride on. It’s bad enough that the T is wagging the LGB dog, but now the “progressives” want to screw around with freedom of religion? Not only “no,” but hell no. I don’t like what some of the ministers say about us, but freedom means nothing if you only support it for people and ideas that you agree with.
First he came after the second amendment, which did not exactly make him popular in our 14-gun household. He and other D candidates want to confiscate my AR-15, part of a category of firearms that was used in only 2.9% of firearms murders in 2018. Anyone who thinks they’ll stop there is a gullible fool at best.
Now he’s going after the first amendment. If there’s one upside in a twisted way, it’s that this shows that the Democrats who once stood for personal freedom have done a 180-degree turn. They have been taken over by their dictatorial extreme, and I can’t overstate the degree to which I stand against all of that.
The surest way to provoke a real backlash is by trying to abridge and deny the freedom to say things that you disagree with. It is flatly unamerican, and needs to be called out by everyone.
what adults do in the privacy of their own homes, provided it’s consensual and no one’s being harmed, is their own damned business
what o’rourke, in his delusions of grandeur(even employing the royal ” we “), is doing here is attempting to compel churches of any denomination to accept his viewpoint, abide by it or else
what an arrogant turd–too stupid to realize that his edict is fundamentally unconstitutional
honestly wish that duelling were legal again–his faux hispanic/faux texan turdish self would not last more than a few seconds with a sword in his hand
My personal stance has always been this: “As long as the parties are competent adults, and no one winds up in the emergency room or the psych ward, have at it.” This doesn’t mean I want to join all those fun parties, nor would I demand that anyone appreciate or endorse my own amusements, but I would cite Saint Hank Williams on the topic of minding one’s own business.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZH2bmbUTl4
Adolph speaks.
Fortunately, the closest this whackjob might come to real power in the USA is issuing a dog license. He will NEVER be elected to any important position. Never. So he can yammer on all he wants about big issues. He’ll never be in a position to decide any of them.
True enough, but that’s only part of the story. O’Rourke is saying what the “progressives” who run the Democratic Party right now are thinking but mostly will not say, at least so directly.