4 ms·

It seems wrong that faith-funded organizations are allowed to discriminate based on religious belief. This also seems like a different scenario than, say, payin

by drb91 8y ago

It seems wrong that faith-funded organizations are allowed to discriminate based on religious belief. This also seems like a different scenario than, say, paying for birth control.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
TimTheTinker 8y ago
> It seems wrong that faith-funded organizations are allowed to discriminate based on religious belief. Not that I think it's morally acceptable for faith-funded charities to turn away some people based on their lack of faith, but: a) Individuals acting on their own founded and run the organization. It would be a violation of several important rights (theirs) for a government to regulate how they choose to run their charity, or whom they choose to help. b) I have a hunch that a lot of these anecdotes attribute discrimination incorrectly -- i.e. I suspect the person in question was more than "not a believer". People who get turned away because they're chronically abusing the system (or for similar reasons) tend to infer malice where there is none, and level accusations accordingly. That being said, I strongly disagree with any open-to-the-public charitable organization discriminating on the basis of religion or any other categorization, beyond the "this person is abusing the system and we don't want to hurt them further by continuing to enable this destructive pattern in their life -- so we can't provide further X to them until they do Y and Z".
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- DanBC 8y ago
  > It would be a violation of several important rights (theirs) for a government to regulate how they choose to run their charity, They formed a charity to get the tax relief from that same government. With that relaxation on taxation comes a restriction on activity.
  - TimTheTinker 8y ago
    > They formed a charity to get the tax relief from that same government. Not at all. They formed a charity because they wanted to make a positive difference in the world. That US law originally recognizes charities, churches, and other non-profits as tax-exempt is a a recognition of the solid, positive contribution to society that such organizations make. Their tax-exempt status was originally granted as such, and not with any idea of using it to stipulate how they should do things. So I strongly disagree that tax-exempt status somehow grants the government authority over an organization's affairs. It would be better to revoke all organizational tax exemptions than to begin to use it as such leverage.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > That US law originally recognizes charities, churches, and other non-profits as tax-exempt ...Is a false statement. It doesn't “originally recognize” any such thing. It permits charities, including churches and some other non-profits with specific functions, to voluntarily apply for status that includes tax exemption, a public subsidy via tax deductibility of donations, and a wide variety of restrictions on behavior.
  - loco5niner 8y ago
    > They formed a charity to get the tax relief from that same government. Nope. They formed a charity to help people.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > It would be a violation of several important rights (theirs) for a government to regulate how they choose to run their charity No, it wouldn't, especially if they want the tax subsidy of being a 501(c)3 charity; they aren't merely tax exempt, but donations to them are tax deductible. That's an outright public subsidy: the government literally is paying people (and paying rich people more) for every dollar they donate. Government subsidies come with government restrictions. You can have a lot more freedom if you choose not to drain the public treasury, and even more freedom if you also don't choose the liability shield associated with the corporate form (which also comes with favorable tax treatment, in some regards.) And even more if all the work is done by partners in the effort committed to the cause for its own sake, and not as wage labor. But, yeah, volunteering for optional, preferential government status and engaging in the employment market subjects you to government rules associated with those things

by drb91 8y ago

It seems wrong that faith-funded organizations are allowed to discriminate based on religious belief. This also seems like a different scenario than, say, paying for birth control.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

TimTheTinker 8y ago

> It seems wrong that faith-funded organizations are allowed to discriminate based on religious belief. Not that I think it's morally acceptable for faith-funded charities to turn away some people based on their lack of faith, but: a) Individuals acting on their own founded and run the organization. It would be a violation of several important rights (theirs) for a government to regulate how they choose to run their charity, or whom they choose to help. b) I have a hunch that a lot of these anecdotes attribute discrimination incorrectly -- i.e. I suspect the person in question was more than "not a believer". People who get turned away because they're chronically abusing the system (or for similar reasons) tend to infer malice where there is none, and level accusations accordingly. That being said, I strongly disagree with any open-to-the-public charitable organization discriminating on the basis of religion or any other categorization, beyond the "this person is abusing the system and we don't want to hurt them further by continuing to enable this destructive pattern in their life -- so we can't provide further X to them until they do Y and Z".

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
DanBC 8y ago
> It would be a violation of several important rights (theirs) for a government to regulate how they choose to run their charity, They formed a charity to get the tax relief from that same government. With that relaxation on taxation comes a restriction on activity.
- TimTheTinker 8y ago
  > They formed a charity to get the tax relief from that same government. Not at all. They formed a charity because they wanted to make a positive difference in the world. That US law originally recognizes charities, churches, and other non-profits as tax-exempt is a a recognition of the solid, positive contribution to society that such organizations make. Their tax-exempt status was originally granted as such, and not with any idea of using it to stipulate how they should do things. So I strongly disagree that tax-exempt status somehow grants the government authority over an organization's affairs. It would be better to revoke all organizational tax exemptions than to begin to use it as such leverage.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > That US law originally recognizes charities, churches, and other non-profits as tax-exempt ...Is a false statement. It doesn't “originally recognize” any such thing. It permits charities, including churches and some other non-profits with specific functions, to voluntarily apply for status that includes tax exemption, a public subsidy via tax deductibility of donations, and a wide variety of restrictions on behavior.
- loco5niner 8y ago
  > They formed a charity to get the tax relief from that same government. Nope. They formed a charity to help people.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> It would be a violation of several important rights (theirs) for a government to regulate how they choose to run their charity No, it wouldn't, especially if they want the tax subsidy of being a 501(c)3 charity; they aren't merely tax exempt, but donations to them are tax deductible. That's an outright public subsidy: the government literally is paying people (and paying rich people more) for every dollar they donate. Government subsidies come with government restrictions. You can have a lot more freedom if you choose not to drain the public treasury, and even more freedom if you also don't choose the liability shield associated with the corporate form (which also comes with favorable tax treatment, in some regards.) And even more if all the work is done by partners in the effort committed to the cause for its own sake, and not as wage labor. But, yeah, volunteering for optional, preferential government status and engaging in the employment market subjects you to government rules associated with those things