• RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    4 days ago

    The 1A conflict is because they are religious and the government deciding what charity they can engage in violates the stablishment clause

    • Bronzebeard@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 days ago

      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.

    • AllPintsNorth@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 days ago

      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?

      • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        4 days ago

        As I said the establishment clause. If the government can decide what constitutes charity for a religion then the state is establishing a religion.

        • AllPintsNorth@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          I know you tried to, incorrectly, invoke the establishment clause. That wasn’t my question. I asked for the case law/ruling.

          Because I don’t recall anything coming up in my Con Law classes even remotely close to that, and since you seem to be so confident in the issue, I assume you have something more than just your own feelings on the matter to back it up.

          So, what case law lead you to your conclusion? Please be specific.