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
deleted by creator
If they are doing as much charity work as they claim they are, then there’s no issue, since it will all be deductible.
No harm, no foul. Only hurts the liars and the cheats. Win, win.
deleted by creator
Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but they already do that.
No violation of the first amendment at all.
deleted by creator
The same way they do for 501c3’s.
deleted by creator
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?
deleted by creator
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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
Lol k