Jeff the Baptist wrote:Religious validity covers a broad range of precepts that can include things like divorce or sexual orientation. Churches let anyone attend, but it is entirely permissible for them to discriminate based on religion when they hire, fire, or choose to fill lay leadership positions.
Only where the religion, gender or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business.
My church will not marry you if one or both people are not Christians, if you do not receive pre-marital counseling, or if you are already living together. This is all completely legal.
Do you happen to know if it has ever been challenged in court? I'd be interested in seeing if there is actually any case law to back up our positions, one way or the other.
Your reading of the "private interests" clause is simply wrong. The clause actually means that you can't create a "charity" whose sole purpose is to benefit individuals.
From the IRS: A section 501(c)(3) organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, such as the creator or the creator's family, shareholders of the organization, other designated individuals, or persons controlled directly or indirectly by such private interests.
Firstly, it is not specifically for a "charity", 501(c)(3) exemptions apply to corporations, funds, foundations or community chest that is operated for scientific, literary, religious, charitable or educational purposes. Additionally, it can be argued that paritioners would qualify as "persons controlled" by those private interests where "Control" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edition) as "To exercise power or influence over."
Nowhere in the statute does it define "benefit" strictly as monetary compensation and the scenario your presented, while is indeed a valid scenario, is not the only possible one.
This is tax code. It is talking about donations of money or something of monetary value (like man-hours of work) to specific individuals, not something amorphous like marriage which might bring recognition to a group of unspecified people.
It's also law and, unless it is specifically defined in the code as such, "benefit" is an amorphous term that can mean anything that puts an organization or individual(s) into a position greater than what was before.
501(c)(3)s are even allowed to lobby and advocate for public policy within monetary limits and under certain rules like not working for a specific candidate or party. So even if this was social advocacy, it is still allowed.
Well, it's not even working for a particular candidate, it's if they even attempt to
influence the outcome of public office election. But the question here isn't about social advocacy, it about potentially actionable decisions.
I'd like to keep this a constructive and respectful debate about the law and not about religion, though the issue itself does play a role. I don't know whether there's a right or wrong answer for this or if it's ultimately a matter of opinion, but if it needs to disagreed upon, that's fine, but I don't want this to descend into a strict religious argument.
Rob/Wynder
Delaware Open Carry, Founder
Notary Public