It is an analogy to try to get through to your thick skull, the difference between
de facto reality, and
de jure laws. I shouldn't be surprised you didn't get it though. And you are right, it doesn't change the fact that Tree "can't," engage in the business that he does, but he does.
If no one enforces law that was put in place for purely partisan and political reasons? The churches can do whatever they please. And they should be able to, and they do.
The only reason those laws haven't been repealed? As I have given you links to, is to keep massive amounts of dark money out of the system.
Now, if you choose to remain in denial of these facts? That is on you.
It is clear you do not understand the history of why those laws were put there in the first place back in the 1950's, or why they are allowed to remain, on the books, as they are.
And, it is becoming apparent, you do not understand the difference between
de jure law, and
de facto reality. I had given examples of those to, but it is apparent, you do not care about that either.
It is
de facto, that Churches can say, and do, whatever the hell they want, despite the
de jure law, on the books.
I am done with your nonsense now.
De jure facto and de facto are commonly confused to mean the same thing. While they are often used in the same contexts, they are distinctly different concepts.
www.upcounsel.com