California Senate votes to revoke Boy Scouts' nonprofit status

  • metta

    Posts: 39079

    May 30, 2013 9:27 PM GMT
    California Senate votes to revoke Boy Scouts' nonprofit status

    http://www.sacbee.com/2013/05/30/5457390/california-senate-votes-to-revoke.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2013 9:46 PM GMT
    How is this fair without going after church property taxes similarly?
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    May 30, 2013 9:50 PM GMT
    theantijock saidHow is this fair without going after church property taxes similarly?




    Churches should be next to lose it.



    icon_idea.gif
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    May 31, 2013 1:32 AM GMT
    theantijock saidHow is this fair without going after church property taxes similarly?


    they're changing their tax code in a way that targets private entities that are not religious
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 31, 2013 1:43 AM GMT
    Way to go Cali!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 31, 2013 2:00 AM GMT
    California Sen. Ricardo Lara said, "They are out of line with the values of California and should be ineligible for a tax benefit paid for by all Californians."

    Although I do not agree with the Boy Scout's position, I think we are going down a slippery slope when the whims of the majority decide who gets the benefit of tax-exempt status. Who gets to decide what California's values are?

    If the justification is that the organization is "out of line with the values of California", you can target a lot of organizations for political or social reasons. This could set a dangerous precedent.
  • LuckyGuyKC

    Posts: 2080

    May 31, 2013 2:14 AM GMT
    I would think that the State's non-discrimation of protected classes requirements for not-for-profits and non-profits is enough standing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 31, 2013 2:16 AM GMT
    rnch said
    theantijock saidHow is this fair without going after church property taxes similarly?

    Churches should be next to lose it.


    Far be it from me to presume; I certainly would never suggest such a thing. [/Dolly Levi]

    calibro said
    theantijock saidHow is this fair without going after church property taxes similarly?


    they're changing their tax code in a way that targets private entities that are not religious


    I don't know quite how precedent setting works but does this bolster religion such that one day soon they'll have what amounts to diplomatic immunity? And as I was thinking this I hit refresh and saw FLgator's response. I also wonder if this could be dangerous.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 31, 2013 2:24 AM GMT
    theantijock said
    rnch said
    theantijock saidHow is this fair without going after church property taxes similarly?

    Churches should be next to lose it.


    Far be it from me to presume; I certainly would never suggest such a thing. [/Dolly Levi]

    calibro said
    theantijock saidHow is this fair without going after church property taxes similarly?


    they're changing their tax code in a way that targets private entities that are not religious


    I don't know quite how precedent setting works but does this bolster religion such that one day soon they'll have what amounts to diplomatic immunity? And as I was thinking this I hit refresh and saw FLgator's response. I also wonder if this could be dangerous.


    My point was simply that we are in the minority and I would not want California or any other state banning gay or other minority groups tax-exempt status because our "lifestyle" is not in line with "community values."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 31, 2013 2:32 AM GMT
    FLgator saidMy point was simply that we are in the minority and I would not want California or any other state banning gay or other minority groups tax-exempt status because our "lifestyle" is not in line with "community values."


    Yes, I got that we were coming at this from different angles and I didn't mean to mischaracterize your assessment but merely to note that there might be a whole host of ramifications to consider while possibly paving a road to hell with good intentions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 01, 2013 9:50 PM GMT
    FLgator said
    theantijock said
    rnch said
    theantijock saidHow is this fair without going after church property taxes similarly?

    Churches should be next to lose it.


    Far be it from me to presume; I certainly would never suggest such a thing. [/Dolly Levi]

    calibro said
    theantijock saidHow is this fair without going after church property taxes similarly?


    they're changing their tax code in a way that targets private entities that are not religious


    I don't know quite how precedent setting works but does this bolster religion such that one day soon they'll have what amounts to diplomatic immunity? And as I was thinking this I hit refresh and saw FLgator's response. I also wonder if this could be dangerous.


    My point was simply that we are in the minority and I would not want California or any other state banning gay or other minority groups tax-exempt status because our "lifestyle" is not in line with "community values."


    Fair is fair. If you want equal rights, it doesn't just apply to certain groups. No one is banning anything, but, if you wanna' be tax-exempt, and if you want use of public facilities you CANNOT be bigots, whether it's pro gay, or pro not gay. It's about fairness.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 01, 2013 10:15 PM GMT
    FLgator saidCalifornia Sen. Ricardo Lara said, "They are out of line with the values of California and should be ineligible for a tax benefit paid for by all Californians."

    Although I do not agree with the Boy Scout's position, I think we are going down a slippery slope when the whims of the majority decide who gets the benefit of tax-exempt status. Who gets to decide what California's values are?

    If the justification is that the organization is "out of line with the values of California", you can target a lot of organizations for political or social reasons. This could set a dangerous precedent.

    This is not about the political or social message of the Boy Scouts, it is about banning certain people from being involved with the scouts. When lgbt organizations start banning straights from attending pride festivals and events, then that would be the equivalent that should take away their tax exempt status, not the organization's social message.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 01, 2013 10:24 PM GMT
    Iceblink said
    FLgator saidCalifornia Sen. Ricardo Lara said, I think we are going down a slippery slope when the whims of the majority decide who gets the benefit of tax-exempt status. Who gets to decide what California's values are?

    If the justification is that the organization is "out of line with the values of California", you can target a lot of organizations for political or social reasons. This could set a dangerous precedent.


    Lol...the "whims of the majority."
  • n2Hoss

    Posts: 11

    Jun 01, 2013 10:41 PM GMT
    The only thing the Boy Scouts' changed was the inclusion of gay teens as scouts. If CA wants to remove their tax status, they will have to do it to the Girl Scouts, and all other non-profit groups that work with teaching and training children. Its all or nothing, otherwise the state is discriminating.

    It is a slippery slope. If many of CA's nonprofit groups disappear because of the taxation, will they have enough money to create programs left by the void.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 01, 2013 10:48 PM GMT
    FLgator saidCalifornia Sen. Ricardo Lara said, "They are out of line with the values of California and should be ineligible for a tax benefit paid for by all Californians."

    Although I do not agree with the Boy Scout's position, I think we are going down a slippery slope when the whims of the majority decide who gets the benefit of tax-exempt status. Who gets to decide what California's values are?

    If the justification is that the organization is "out of line with the values of California", you can target a lot of organizations for political or social reasons. This could set a dangerous precedent.

    Then what do you think of California's Proposition 8, which submitted gay civil rights to a simple majority vote? Prop 8 won by 52% as I recall. California has therefore already set that precedent of setting community standards by a simple majority.

    If gay civil right rights, and the tax benefits derived by legalized marriage, can be denied by a slender majority, then why can't the BSA be subjected to the same standard? That sword cuts both ways.
  • honestsweat

    Posts: 182

    Jun 01, 2013 11:04 PM GMT
    One house bill. Only good for posturing. Won't really go anywhere.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2013 1:05 AM GMT
    n2Hoss saidThe only thing the Boy Scouts' changed was the inclusion of gay teens as scouts. If CA wants to remove their tax status, they will have to do it to the Girl Scouts, and all other non-profit groups that work with teaching and training children. Its all or nothing, otherwise the state is discriminating.

    It is a slippery slope. If many of CA's nonprofit groups disappear because of the taxation, will they have enough money to create programs left by the void.

    Wrong. Where did you get the idea that the reason for California considering removing their tax exempt status was because the Boy Scouts was an organization that worked with children? The reason removing the tax exempt status of the Boy Scouts is because it does not allow gay adults to remain in the Boy Scouts or to be adult leaders in the organization. It's because the Boy Scouts are discriminating. If the reason for removing their tax exempt status was because it was a non-profit group that worked with teaching and training students, then yes the Girl Scouts and all other non-profits in that field would also have to lose their tax exempt status. But that is not the case.
  • n2Hoss

    Posts: 11

    Jun 09, 2013 12:16 AM GMT
    Sorry. I missed the first paragraph of the article.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 09, 2013 1:55 AM GMT
    theantijock saidHow is this fair without going after church property taxes similarly?
    It's a step in the right direction, and sets a precedence for the future.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 09, 2013 2:14 AM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    FLgator saidCalifornia Sen. Ricardo Lara said, "They are out of line with the values of California and should be ineligible for a tax benefit paid for by all Californians."

    Although I do not agree with the Boy Scout's position, I think we are going down a slippery slope when the whims of the majority decide who gets the benefit of tax-exempt status. Who gets to decide what California's values are?

    If the justification is that the organization is "out of line with the values of California", you can target a lot of organizations for political or social reasons. This could set a dangerous precedent.

    Then what do you think of California's Proposition 8, which submitted gay civil rights to a simple majority vote? Prop 8 won by 52% as I recall. California has therefore already set that precedent of setting community standards by a simple majority.

    If gay civil right rights, and the tax benefits derived by legalized marriage, can be denied by a slender majority, then why can't the BSA be subjected to the same standard? That sword cuts both ways.


    I agree with you somewhat - the sword can cut both ways. I don't believe that civil rights should be subject to a majority vote. They should exist outright. You are still arguing that the community can decide the standards that everyone has to abide by. That can be dangerous when the community decides they do not like people who don't share their standards.

    Also, look at the fiscal mess that California is in as a result of its voters passing propositions without knowing the long-term consequences. I still don't like the idea of voters deciding who gets certain rights or beneficial statuses based on the majority's values.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 09, 2013 2:18 AM GMT
    Trollileo said
    FLgator saidCalifornia Sen. Ricardo Lara said, "They are out of line with the values of California and should be ineligible for a tax benefit paid for by all Californians."

    Although I do not agree with the Boy Scout's position, I think we are going down a slippery slope when the whims of the majority decide who gets the benefit of tax-exempt status. Who gets to decide what California's values are?

    If the justification is that the organization is "out of line with the values of California", you can target a lot of organizations for political or social reasons. This could set a dangerous precedent.


    People pay to be a member of the BSA. You honestly can't consider them non-profit anymore anyway, because (as a person who dedicated the greater half of my childhood and adolescence to them) it's more about the bureaucracy in charge than it is about the youth who subscribe to them. I also disagree that taking away their non-profit status may not be the best idea, but at the same time it's hard for me to fight it knowing how fucked up they are as an organization.


    People pay membership dues to a lot of organizations and that does not have a legal bearing on whether they have a tax-exempt status. You believe their tax-exempt status should be revoked because their messed up as an organization (presumably their beliefs). But once again, you are saying your personal beliefs should dictate whether they have tax-exempt status. Your personal disagreement (or the community's disagreement) with them should not be the basis of revoking their tax-exempt status.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 09, 2013 3:22 AM GMT
    paulflexes said
    theantijock saidHow is this fair without going after church property taxes similarly?
    It's a step in the right direction, and sets a precedence for the future.


    My concern is that this could work in the opposite direction, particularly if, and I haven't read too deeply the details, caibro is correct that a new tax code further separates nonprofits into church and non-church and then if only the non-church become subject to losing nonprofit status where a church would not lose it for the very same infraction, then does that bolster the church's standing, making it more difficult to ever claim them unworthy of being tax exempt?

    I'm no lawyer but it seems to me it would only set precedence were the church and other non profits in the same category. Once separated out, I don't know that such precedence applies especially because now your precedence is saying, well, we've always considered the church as being special. And here it is again in the tax code. Well isn't that special.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 09, 2013 4:07 AM GMT
    Churches should not be non-profit / tax exempt. Many churches are very rich, very large, and have folks that hide a butt pile of money.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 09, 2013 4:31 AM GMT
    Taxing donations is a bit sticky. I don't think you can touch that as long as they play by already established rules (which we know they don't but are never called on it).

    My concern is property taxes. If they're not participating in politics and adhere to the rest of whatever reasonable regulations exist, I can see an exemption in a limited sense ie their sanctuary, maybe the rectory, the land under that and their parking lot. Seems to me the original intent was not to impede upon their ability to practice their religion, so we don't tax them out of a place.

    However, even with that, I don't think the intent was to give them lots of free government services paid for by the property taxes of county residents who don't attend their church. I don't see why they shouldn't be charged fees for services rendered. I don't see why that building permit couldn't come with a fire deposit.

    What of the rest of their property holdings? What if they have a building downtown that shelters/feeds the poor, that practice of their religion. I'm probably okay with that. The part that irks me most is how they abuse that advantage.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/worlds-biggest-landowners-2011-3?op=1

    #3 The Pope

    ...roughly 177 million more acreage of various lands owned by the Catholic Church throughout the globe...


    I don't know where this site gets info from but these are some hellish numbers if they are anywhere near accurate...

    http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/theodore_dreiser/church_and_wealth_in_america.html
    "church buildings alone in America, without parsonages, investments, securities, schools, orphanages, hospitals and monasteries, are valued at $3,800,000,000; the personages alone, and apart from the above, are reported to be worth $500,000,000. Furthermore, an estimate in the Literary Digest concludes that $7,000,000,000, at least, constitutes the total securities and property of the churches in America. "