Why would the tax exemptions of some religious institutions be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage?

You might find this article relevant. Apparently, specific justices cited a case involving a university that had banned interracial dating on campus, and faced losing tax-exempt status as a consequence.

However, since churches already have the discretionary power to refuse to marry any couple, I’m not sure how this is relevant. Maybe the links in the article have more to offer.

I can see how they might be afraid of losing the ability to receive grants or money from tax free student loans, but I doubt they would lose their tax free status.

From @dappled_leaves article:
“Alito raised a 1983 case involving the evangelical Christian Bob Jones University, which had refused to allow interracial dating on its campus. The Court ruled that the school could not be tax exempt if it maintained its ban; the university accepted the consequences, not changing its policy until 2000.”

I’m looking for the case right now.

Bob Jones University v. United States if anyone is interested.

A 1970 revision to IRS regulations limited tax-exempt status to private schools without racially discriminatory admissions policies.
‘The Court made clear, however, that its holding dealt “only with religious schools—not with churches or other purely religious institutions.”’

There’s a difference between doctrine within a church, and what it can get away with in regard to its practices regarding the society at large. If the Pope were to announce tomorrow that all people of color are agents of Satan and therefore excommunicated, there is absolutely no legal recourse for those ex Catholics. If however, the church is engaged in a program feeding the homeless And announces that it will no longer feed nonwhite people on the grounds that they are allied with the devil , The church can and should be sued for blatant discrimination.

Then again, what if the Church decides it will only feed homeless CATHOLICS? Perfectly legal unless the program receives a nickel of government money.

I am not sure, but I think that the tax-exempt status was granted to churches because they were seen as providing care and sustenance to the poor and infirm. In small communities, churches largely fulfilled this expectation for their congregation and to a lesser degree to the community in general, but often excluded those of a different color from their largess. Today, governments, municipal, state and federal, principally provide these services.

Individual churches, mosques, synagogues, temples and other recognized houses of religion should not be denied this status because the tenants of their faith that they practice discriminates. However, businesses should not have the same right. Morality, as defined by a religion, is to be embraced by the individual but not imposed on society. Everyone should have the right to choose a religion or reject them, but no one should be denied access to goods and services provided for profit because of their choice.

Taxes are necessary for governments to maintain and operate infrastructures that communities require. A flat rate, similar to the ten percent tithe many faiths request of their membership, would be reasonable if taxation was free from exemptions created to manipulate the actions of people, businesses and corporations, and the tax-exempt status for megachurches should be reconsidered. Exemptions should be allowed for not-for-profit organizations, especially those that do not pay the members of their boards of directors. However, it is unreasonable to tax the incomes of a significant proportion of our population that are insufficient to sustain them.

@Bill1939 , I think I read an article that said that the tax exempt status of churches was given in exchange for an unwritten agreement that they wouldn’t get involved in politics. That didn’t last long. Should have written it down better.

@Judi That has always been my understanding as well.

I have also frequently seen the First Amendment’s Establishment clause (from which freedom of religion descends) cited as the basis for extending tax-exempt status to churches. This makes sense because the power to tax includes the power to control.

The only justification for a church to lose its tax exempt status because of its opposition to same-sex marriage would seem to be if the church tried to overtly turn the issue into a far-flung political issue. Otherwise, why would the government even take notice?

I found some answers to this in an earlier post on this question, spurred by @dappled_leaves initial answer.

The churches themselves are not in danger of losing tax exempt status. Currently the law is that if a church has school open to the public that discriminates on the basis of race, the school can lose federal tax exempt. As far as I know they can still be exempted taxes by states.

Just to muddy the waters a little further, in Missouri thrift stores that are faith based are sales tax exempt (meaning state, county and local). In Illinois the sales tax at a faith-based thrift is the same as it is at Walmart. As far as I know all of the faith-based are exempt from federal taxes.

“Religious institutions,” not religions, are in danger of losing tax exempt status.

A Great place. I agree. Churches who want to not practice same sex marriage should file their taxes different.