Churches and other non-profits can now endorse political candidates

[initforme]

So, in your view, is the point of the tax exemption to silence religions politically?

More l8ke kerp politics out. Vcandidates and religion should be separated. Bigly.

 

[Papageorgio]

Free speech is a constitutional right, so there’s not any differentiation between a church and a concert hall.

The point is that they weren’t “singled out” as you claim.

1. Constitutional Protections Are Not All Equal

Freedom of religion is a First Amendment right, explicitly protected in the U.S. Constitution. It is considered a fundamental right.

Going to a concert is not a constitutional right. It is a recreational activity protected only under general freedoms (like freedom of assembly or movement), which are subject to greater regulation.

Courts apply strict scrutiny when government restrictions interfere with religious freedom — the highest standard of judicial review.


Entertainment and commercial activities are subject to rational basis review, a much lower legal standard.

2. Supreme Court Precedent Confirms the Difference

In Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (2020), the Supreme Court struck down COVID-related restrictions on churches while similar restrictions on concerts or businesses were allowed.

The Court ruled that religious services cannot be treated less favorably than secular gatherings if both pose similar risks.

Quote: “Even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.”

3. Not About “Desire” — It’s About the Nature of the Right

People want to go to concerts. But people have a constitutionally protected right to gather and worship.

The Constitution doesn’t guarantee us the right to entertainment, but it does guarantee us the right to practice religion freely.

4. Public Health Still Matters — But Must Be Balanced

• No right is absolute — not even religious freedom.
• But government must show that restrictions on religion are:
  1. Narrowly tailored
  2. Serving a compelling interest (like preventing viral spread)
  3. And applied evenly across similar situations
  4. If they allow concerts but restrict churches, that’s discriminatory under the Constitution.

Conclusion (Summed Up Simply):

“Going to a concert is a privilege. Going to church is a protected right. In times of crisis, rights don’t disappear — they become even more important to protect. The Constitution draws that line, not our preferences.”

 

[dblack]

1. Constitutional Protections Are Not All Equal

Freedom of religion is a First Amendment right, explicitly protected in the U.S. Constitution. It is considered a fundamental right.

Going to a concert is not a constitutional right. It is a recreational activity protected only under general freedoms (like freedom of assembly or movement), which are subject to greater regulation.

Courts apply strict scrutiny when government restrictions interfere with religious freedom — the highest standard of judicial review.


Entertainment and commercial activities are subject to rational basis review, a much lower legal standard.

2. Supreme Court Precedent Confirms the Difference

In Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (2020), the Supreme Court struck down COVID-related restrictions on churches while similar restrictions on concerts or businesses were allowed.

The Court ruled that religious services cannot be treated less favorably than secular gatherings if both pose similar risks.

Quote: “Even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.”

3. Not About “Desire” — It’s About the Nature of the Right

People want to go to concerts. But people have a constitutionally protected right to gather and worship.

The Constitution doesn’t guarantee us the right to entertainment, but it does guarantee us the right to practice religion freely.

4. Public Health Still Matters — But Must Be Balanced

• No right is absolute — not even religious freedom.
• But government must show that restrictions on religion are:
  1. Narrowly tailored
  2. Serving a compelling interest (like preventing viral spread)
  3. And applied evenly across similar situations
  4. If they allow concerts but restrict churches, that’s discriminatory under the Constitution.

Conclusion (Summed Up Simply):

“Going to a concert is a privilege. Going to church is a protected right. In times of crisis, rights don’t disappear — they become even more important to protect. The Constitution draws that line, not our preferences.”

Yep. Another one the SC screwed up. The First was never meant to be a special perk for religious institutions. The opposite actually. It was there to ensure religions weren't treated differently. Now we use it as a demand that they get special treatment.

 

[Papageorgio]

Yep. Another one the SC screwed up. The First was never meant to be a special perk for religious institutions. The opposite actually. It was there to ensure religions weren't treated differently. Now we use it as a demand that they get special treatment.

Thanks dblack, I respect the perspective, but the First Amendment was absolutely intended to give religious practice a unique protection—not as a perk, but as a shield from government overreach.

Let’s look at the actual text:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

That’s not vague. It creates two protections:

1. No state-sponsored religion (Establishment Clause), and
2. No interference with religious practice (Free Exercise Clause)

That is special treatment—not in the sense of privilege, but in recognition that religious liberty is fundamental to a free society. It’s listed in the very first line of the Bill of Rights for a reason.

The Supreme Court didn’t “screw up”—they simply affirmed that religious gatherings can’t be treated worse than secular ones. That’s not favoritism; that’s equal treatment, which ironically is the very thing you say you support.

If the government lets people crowd into Walmarts or casinos, it can’t then say churches are too dangerous. That’s the inconsistency the Court corrected in Diocese v. Cuomo.

The First Amendment protects religion from discrimination—not from relevance.

 

[konradv]

matters none. A simple meaningless slogan. Taxes are paid on profits. Church's have none.

You’d be surprised how much bingo brings in and aren’t donations income. I’ve never seen my salary called profits and SS, that we were promised would be untaxed, aren’t profits either.

 

[pknopp]

You’d be surprised how much bingo brings in and aren’t donations income. I’ve never seen my salary called profits and SS, that we were promised would be untaxed, aren’t profits either.

Bingo brings in a lot of money in some cases. Its not profit. GM doesn't pay taxes on what they bring in.

 

[dblack]

Thanks dblack, I respect the perspective, but the First Amendment was absolutely intended to give religious practice a unique protection—not as a perk, but as a shield from government overreach.

Let’s look at the actual text:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

That’s not vague. It creates two protections:

1. No state-sponsored religion (Establishment Clause), and
2. No interference with religious practice (Free Exercise Clause)

That is special treatment—not in the sense of privilege, but in recognition that religious liberty is fundamental to a free society. It’s listed in the very first line of the Bill of Rights for a reason.

It shouldn't be in the sense of "privilege", but that's what it's been twisted into. The First Amendment doesn't mean religious people don't have to follow the same laws as the rest of us. It's not a carve out giving them elevated status. It just means the government can't persecute, or promote, an establishment of religion.

If a law is found to violate religious freedom, then the law should be struck down. Making special accommodations for religious institutions, granting them special exemptions or carve outs that let them ignore laws that the rest of us have to follow, is an affront to equal protection and not at all the intent of the First Amendment.

 

[konradv]

Bingo brings in a lot of money in some cases. Its not profit. GM doesn't pay taxes on what they bring in.

Salaries aren’t profit either.

 

[pknopp]

Salaries aren’t profit either.

Of course not. Point?

 

[konradv]

Of course not. Point?

It was your point to say what is and isn’t profit. Have you lost the thread of the conversation?

 

[pknopp]

It was your point to say what is and isn’t profit. Have you lost the thread of the conversation?

Still no idea your point.

 

[1srelluc]

I look forward to white churches holding special services then loading up buses to take folks to the polls.

Sauce for the goose Mr. Saavik.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

giving Christian conservatives their most significant victory involving church political organizing in 70 years.

meh, Reverends Al and Jesse [good men both] will have to teach them a thing or two then, they don't need no court rulings to justify their work for God and country...it's their/your right.

 

[Papageorgio]

It shouldn't be in the sense of "privilege", but that's what it's been twisted into. The First Amendment doesn't mean religious people don't have to follow the same laws as the rest of us. It's not a carve out giving them elevated status. It just means the government can't persecute, or promote, an establishment of religion.

If a law is found to violate religious freedom, then the law should be struck down. Making special accommodations for religious institutions, granting them special exemptions or carve outs that let them ignore laws that the rest of us have to follow, is an affront to equal protection and not at all the intent of the First Amendment.

I do agree with you, churches should be taxed, and no special privilege but when you allow protests and not allow churches to congregate, then there is an issue.

 

[Doc7505]

You do realize the origins of the ban was to prevent black churches during the civil rights era from vocalizing their opinions on civil rights legislation, right?

~~~~~~
Democrat racist slave laws found again to bite them today.

 

[Correll]

I look forward to white churches holding special services then loading up buses to take folks to the polls.

Sauce for the goose Mr. Saavik.

**** yeah.

 

[scruffy]

You do realize the origins of the ban was to prevent black churches during the civil rights era from vocalizing their opinions on civil rights legislation, right?

The AME Church has been endorsing candidates from the pulpit for dozens of years.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Of course.

The government has every right to regulate non-profits, just not religion.

Agreed.

Endorsing a candidate is a political action not a religious one.

WW

 

[Marener]

1. Constitutional Protections Are Not All Equal

Freedom of religion is a First Amendment right, explicitly protected in the U.S. Constitution. It is considered a fundamental right.

Going to a concert is not a constitutional right. It is a recreational activity protected only under general freedoms (like freedom of assembly or movement), which are subject to greater regulation.

Courts apply strict scrutiny when government restrictions interfere with religious freedom — the highest standard of judicial review.


Entertainment and commercial activities are subject to rational basis review, a much lower legal standard.

2. Supreme Court Precedent Confirms the Difference

In Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (2020), the Supreme Court struck down COVID-related restrictions on churches while similar restrictions on concerts or businesses were allowed.

The Court ruled that religious services cannot be treated less favorably than secular gatherings if both pose similar risks.

Quote: “Even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.”

3. Not About “Desire” — It’s About the Nature of the Right

People want to go to concerts. But people have a constitutionally protected right to gather and worship.

The Constitution doesn’t guarantee us the right to entertainment, but it does guarantee us the right to practice religion freely.

4. Public Health Still Matters — But Must Be Balanced

• No right is absolute — not even religious freedom.
• But government must show that restrictions on religion are:
  1. Narrowly tailored
  2. Serving a compelling interest (like preventing viral spread)
  3. And applied evenly across similar situations
  4. If they allow concerts but restrict churches, that’s discriminatory under the Constitution.

Conclusion (Summed Up Simply):

“Going to a concert is a privilege. Going to church is a protected right. In times of crisis, rights don’t disappear — they become even more important to protect. The Constitution draws that line, not our preferences.”

There’s no hierarchy of rights and any attempt to invent one has no constitutional basis.

 

[Papageorgio]

There’s no hierarchy of rights and any attempt to invent one has no constitutional basis.

Nightclubs, concert halls are not guaranteed rights, they are like driving, a privilege.

Religions have a right, they are like protests, they are protected by the 1st Amendment. That is why the courts ruled so heavily that rights were denied when the protests kept going and churches were closed. The courts have decided, not me, go argue it with them.