Gettysburg and non-profit status

[MikeWaters]

I long ago said that if this is in fact the church's "Gettysburg," then it would be worth losing the church's non-profit status over.

Losing that non-profit status would be a huge financial hit on members, but more importantly, on the church itself. There would then be less money for missions, temples, buildings, activity budgets, etc.

Imagine the property tax bill.

I have my opinion on whether the gay marriage fight in California (which incidentally still allows civil unions) is worth this cost.

The die has been cast. We will see how it plays out.

[il Padrino Ute]

I have a 2 part question for the lawyers or anyone else who can answer it:

Is the ACLU a non-profit organization? If so, why would it not have it's tax-exempt status threatened for all of the political involvement in which it gets itself?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I long ago said that if this is in fact the church's "Gettysburg," then it would be worth losing the church's non-profit status over.

Losing that non-profit status would be a huge financial hit on members, but more importantly, on the church itself. There would then be less money for missions, temples, buildings, activity budgets, etc.

Imagine the property tax bill.

I have my opinion on whether the gay marriage fight in California (which incidentally still allows civil unions) is worth this cost.

The die has been cast. We will see how it plays out.

I could be in error, but the precedent would have to change and the IRS code in order for these flailings to prevail. Absent a dramatic shift, the tax exempt status is secure. Does this embolden the Church or make it reticent in the future?

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

I have a 2 part question for the lawyers or anyone else who can answer it:

Is the ACLU a non-profit organization? If so, why would it not have it's tax-exempt status threatened for all of the political involvement in which it gets itself?

Not all non-profts are tax exempt. those two terms are not synonymous.

The ACLU has several branches, but yes, by and large it does enjoy tax exemption.

The reason being is that the ACLU does not lobby for legislature. It gets involved in plaintiff lawsuits for people of both political persuasions. there really is no nexus there.

You don't see the ACLU saying "Vote For Obama!" or "Don't Vote for such and such proposition."

i think the ACLU represented a mormon kid in the past several years, iirc.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Not all non-profts are tax exempt. those two terms are not synonymous.

The ACLU has several branches, but yes, by and large it does enjoy tax exemption.

The reason being is that the ACLU does not lobby for legislature. It gets involved in plaintiff lawsuits for people of both political persuasions. there really is no nexus there.

You don't see the ACLU saying "Vote For Obama!" or "Don't Vote for such and such proposition."

i think the ACLU represented a mormon kid in the past several years, iirc.

Thanks for the answer.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

i think the ACLU represented a mormon kid in the past several years, iirc.

They also filed an amicus brief on behalf of Rush Limbaugh, if memory serves. Not the norm, of course, but you know what they say about politics and bedfellows.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Tex

They also filed an amicus brief on behalf of Rush Limbaugh, if memory serves. Not the norm, of course, but you know what they say about politics and bedfellows.

lol. good call. I forgot about that one, but i think you are correct. ACLU as friends to Rush Limbaugh.

basically, the ACLU will represent anyone, as long as they feel they have a good case.

It is a tough argument to make that the ACLU spends any time lobbying for legislature (I know you are not making that argument, I am speaking generically).

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

i think the ACLU represented a mormon kid in the past several years, iirc.

http://www.skeptictank.org/pinschl.htm

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I long ago said that if this is in fact the church's "Gettysburg," then it would be worth losing the church's non-profit status over.

Losing that non-profit status would be a huge financial hit on members, but more importantly, on the church itself. There would then be less money for missions, temples, buildings, activity budgets, etc.

Imagine the property tax bill.

I have my opinion on whether the gay marriage fight in California (which incidentally still allows civil unions) is worth this cost.

The die has been cast. We will see how it plays out.

This is like expecting people to start a revolution if they really believe abortion is killing babies. It's not that they don't believe, it's that you're asking too much of humans. Mormons don't truly live what they believe, but they're human and are more worried about their stomachs than innocent victims, or abstract principle, like the French, or even more starkly, like the German people in the 1930's to 1945, like all humans.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by YOhio

http://www.skeptictank.org/pinschl.htm

My first thought was this one:

http://www.acluwv.org/Newsroom/Press.../07_19_07.html