Prejudice and Discrimination as Charity: More on Tax Exemption for Hate Groups
In Northern Ireland, the National Secular Society has filed a complaint against a church that opposes same-sex marriage and whose trustee compared homosexuality to bestiality in a 2015 sermon:
The National Secular Society has raised concerns about a new charity whose trustee compared gay marriage to bestiality. David McLaughlin, minister and trustee of Carryduff Free Presbyterian Church, made the remarks in a 2015 sermon entitled ‘the myth of gay marriage’. He said same-sex marriage “opens the floodgates” and asked, “could a man get married to his dog or his donkey? Why not?” The 38 minute sermon came ahead of a motion in the Northern Ireland Assembly to legalise same-sex marriage. It was legalised in 2020.
Charity trustee: Gay people “should not have children”
McLaughlin described homosexuality as “unnatural” and said it is “rooted in lust not love, it’s nothing to do with love”. He said homosexuality is “the enemy of the family” and “destroys the family”. He added that he agrees “homosexuals should not have children”. Carryduff Church is affiliated with the larger Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, also a registered charity. It calls lawmakers who approved same-sex marriage “legislators of evil”. It describes same-sex marriage as “utterly abhorrent” and compares its proponents to “Sodom and its allies”. Carryduff Church is one of 61 Free Presbyterian Churches which registered as charities in February. All are registered under the charitable purpose of ‘the advancement of religion’. Another of these charities, Clogher Valley Free Presbyterian Church, says on its website that “Satan is endeavouring to catch the church” through progressive policies on gay rights and abortion, and that Gay Pride should be “more properly called Gay Shame”.
NSS: “Preaching homophobic hate doesn’t benefit the public – it harms the public”
The National Secular Society has raised concerns with the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland. The commission’s guidance specifies charities’ purposes must “be beneficial, not harmful”. In 2021 the commission refused to take action against Core Issues Trust, a Christian charity accused of promoting ‘gay conversion therapy’. The NSS also called for similar reforms in Scotland earlier this month, after the Scottish charity regulator refused to intervene on religious charities promoting misogyny and homophobia. NSS campaigns officer Alejandro Sanchez said: “It is shocking and disturbing that a church which compares same-sex marriage to bestiality can register as a charity and be exempt from tax. “Charities should exist for the public benefit. Preaching homophobic hate doesn’t benefit the public – it harms the public.
The complaint would be a legitimate one even in the United States despite the First Amendment, but only if the U.S organization was any charity other than a church. The Congress, if it desired could validly deny tax exemption to an organization whose purpose — whatever its speech — was to bring about discrimination and denial of civil rights. In fact, longstanding regulations do just that. The regulations define charity broadly, but one thing can’t be another. So charity, by regulatory definition includes “(ii) efforts to eliminate prejudice and discrimination, and (iii) defending human and civil rights secured by law.” We don’t know ex ante everything that is charitable, but the opposite of what we know is charity cannot be charity. A discriminatory purpose, by the way, is discernable despite speech content. We have all sorts of laws triggered by the presence of a discriminatory purpose, none of which are defined by particular speech content. Our reluctance to clearly preclude tax exemption for hate groups is thus a matter of will not constitutional law.
Suppose there was a U.S. nonprofit, not a church, called “The Taliban.” The nonprofit professed its love and admiration for women, along with its desire to protect women and girls from the immorality of the world. In furtherance of its love for women, it advocated that women remain uneducated, barefoot but otherwise covered head to foot while escorted by a man or boy in public, and pregnant from age 13 to 45. The Taliban would not be entitled to tax exemption because its purpose — whatever its speech — would be to perpetuate discrimination against, and deny civil rights for women. Its all right here in this Nobel/Pulitzer worthy essay. You know I am right.
By the way, none of this works to deny tax exemption if the organization were “The Taliban Church.” Have I mentioned that churches can do whatever they want with their tax exemption?
darryll jones