Beto needs to hire some lawyers on his campaign to advise him

[StarfishSaver]

It might keep him from proposing things that are unconstitutional.

Link to tweet

[liskddksil]

1. Nothing unconstitutional about taking away tax exemption. nt

[StarfishSaver]

5. Taking tax exemptions away from ALL religious institutions isn't unconstitutional

Taking them away from certain ones based on their religious beliefs is.

[dawg day]

2. The catholic church discriminates against women

As well as gay people. Good luck taking them on.

[GeorgeGist]

3. What?

[brooklynite]

4. My Twitter response...

Link to tweet

[StarfishSaver]

6. Wow. Your response is just flat out wrong

Tax exemption isn't a constitutional right. But it IS unconstitutional to deny equal protection of the law based on religious beliefs. Removing a tax exemption from certain churches based on their religious beliefs while allowing other churches to keep their exempt status because they have different religious beliefs is so blatantly unconstitutional, I'm surprised that has to even be explained.

[brooklynite]

7. It isn't equal protection; Churches have unique rights (again from the Internal Revenue code)...

...and are not required to meet the same requirements as other 501(c)(3) institutions.

[StarfishSaver]

8. You are so off-base, it's not worth even discussing it with you any further.

[TidalWave46]

9. Go Beto. Keep it up.

A lot of policies put forward often contain things that are unconstitutional. When new and large legislation is passed we have often seen parts of them struck down as being unconstitutional in the courts, no matter the party.

I'm not convinced that this would be unconstitutional though he should have simply said "religious institutions." I do know it will not happen.

I'm pretty confident that it can be added to the tax code that any church opposing human or civil rights will lose the benefits of being a tax exempt organization(followed up with an understanding of human and civil rights).

[StarfishSaver]

10. This is blatantly unconstitutional - not a close call - and proposing it makes him seem unserious

[TidalWave46]

11. I don't think the last sentence in my post that you replied to...

is "blatantly unconstitutional."

[StarfishSaver]

12. It is.

[TidalWave46]

13. lol. Solid.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287306019#post8

[The Mouth]

14. Churches that allow politicians

to use their pulpit, and/or expound on how one should vote should lose it for sure. I don't care *WHO* they let speak or what view they preach.

[The Mouth]

15. Also, beware the opposite, should the Republicans keep power.

If Beto could enact this, Trump could enact taking tax exemption away from any church that *SUPPORTS* LGBTQ rights, or racial equality, or taking in refugees, etc.

Taking tax exempt status away base simply on the POSITIONS taken by a church is a very very dangerous path; especially since some churches I know take in and provide for people of undocumented status, it would be far less of a stretch to remove tax exempt status for 'any organization that hinders the enforcement of immigration laws', for example.

[StarfishSaver]

16. Yes.

There's a difference between opposing a law or view because of a religious beliefs, and "hindering" laws, which is illegal.

[aikoaiko]

17. First, the 2nd Amendment, now the 1st. What next?