Her work has appeared in The Washington Post, The Guardian, The Atlantic, The American Prospect, The Nation, Salon, and other publications.
Keenly observed and meticulously reported, "God's Profits" examines the unholy alliance between a new breed of corrupt televangelists and the Republican Party, which is eagerly courting "values voters" in the nation's largest megachurches.
None of that is relevant in the least to the points I have made in this speech.
Caroline Mala Corbin, a professor at the University of Miami Law School, reiterated what she told me last year: that if the IRS and the courts had not applied the principle to revoke the tax exempt status of organizations that discriminated based on gender, it seemed unlikely that they would extend this principle to sexual orientation discrimination.
As I noted then, the religious right was galvanized in the 1970s by the IRS’s revocation of the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University over its policy banning interracial dating.
That revocation–upheld by the Supreme Court–was a result of an IRS rule that permits the agency to deny or revoke a non-profit’s tax-exempt status if it violates a fundamental public policy (in that case, public policy against race discrimination).
Schmalbeck pointed out that how the Supreme Court’s ruling in the marriage cases would impact the tax-exempt status of organizations that oppose same-sex marriage would depend on the specifics and the breadth of the holding. and believe in the things that their doctrines hold.
If, for example, the Court ruled that “states cannot withhold the benefits of marriage on grounds of sexual orientation,” that would “not necessarily reach religious institutions exercising their rights to worship . The Court could even drop a footnote saying that they weren’t deciding that case, and that no such inference should be drawn,” he said.