Except now you have the government deciding what constitutes charity for those religions which is a huge violation of the first amendment rights of those churches.
This isn’t remotely how this works. It’s not based on the acts being done, it’s based on whether the organization is being run to make money, or of it’s spending all it’s revenue in pursuit of a purpose.
You chosing to ignore the abusers doesn’t mean it’s not happening. One would think you would WANT those taking advantage of the system to make the thing you like look bad to be fixed. But here you are defending them
I know you tried to, incorrectly, invoke the establishment clause. That wasn’t my question. I asked for the case law/ruling.
Because I don’t recall anything coming up in my Con Law classes even remotely close to that, and since you seem to be so confident in the issue, I assume you have something more than just your own feelings on the matter to back it up.
So, what case law lead you to your conclusion? Please be specific.
Except now you have the government deciding what constitutes charity for those religions which is a huge violation of the first amendment rights of those churches.
This isn’t remotely how this works. It’s not based on the acts being done, it’s based on whether the organization is being run to make money, or of it’s spending all it’s revenue in pursuit of a purpose.
And churches aren’t for profit
Lol k
Many of them ARE. That’s the problem.
You chosing to ignore the abusers doesn’t mean it’s not happening. One would think you would WANT those taking advantage of the system to make the thing you like look bad to be fixed. But here you are defending them
Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but they already do that.
No violation of the first amendment at all.
In what way does the government determine what are appropriate acts of charity for religions? Please be specific.
The same way they do for 501c3’s.
The 1A conflict is because they are religious and the government deciding what charity they can engage in violates the stablishment clause
That’s quite the claim, given there’s nothing in the 1A about charity or taxation. What case law/SCOTUS ruling are you basing that off of?
As I said the establishment clause. If the government can decide what constitutes charity for a religion then the state is establishing a religion.
I know you tried to, incorrectly, invoke the establishment clause. That wasn’t my question. I asked for the case law/ruling.
Because I don’t recall anything coming up in my Con Law classes even remotely close to that, and since you seem to be so confident in the issue, I assume you have something more than just your own feelings on the matter to back it up.
So, what case law lead you to your conclusion? Please be specific.
If they’re being treated the same as any other nonprofit, how is this in violation of the establishment clause?
NOT treating them the same, like they currently are, is the thing in violation of that clause.