Should Churches Be Eligible For SBA Bailouts?

[Ivytalk]

First, churches simply aren’t businesses, although megachurch impresarios like Joel Osteen might disagree. SBA may not have jurisdiction to award these loans in the first place.

Second, to the extent a “business” may be involved, SBA policy precludes giving loans if they would promote religious instruction or activities.

Third, there may be an Establishment Clause issue.

Jeeze...
way to throw a damp towel over a "hot topic" Ivy

What do you mean? It was a provocative question with no easy answers. I may be wrong on all three points.

[Chizzang]

Jeeze...
way to throw a damp towel over a "hot topic" Ivy

What do you mean? It was a provocative question with no easy answers. I may be wrong on all three points.

I'm just fukin' with ya
you do Yoemans work around here Ivy - we are a lesser group without you

[Ivytalk]

What do you mean? It was a provocative question with no easy answers. I may be wrong on all three points.

I'm just fukin' with ya
you do Yoemans work around here Ivy - we are a lesser group without you

Shucks, folks, I’m speechless!

Where’s Joe? Probably writing his First Amendment brief.

[kalm]

I'm just fukin' with ya
you do Yoemans work around here Ivy - we are a lesser group without you

Shucks, folks, I’m speechless!

Where’s Joe? Probably writing his First Amendment brief.

[Ibanez]

Should tax-exempt entities be allowed to take taxpayer money..?

Hm....how bout "No, Scott.

What about charities and other tax exempt entities?

I believe food banks, good will stores, etc. are tax-exempt.

This thread is about churches. Secular Groups like a food bank should be allowed.


But I’m not sure we should be giving tax payer money to groups that don’t pay any taxes in general. Although, this is a difficult time so different measure are needed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CAA Flagship]

,

[UNI88]

They're like the $1,200 individual payments but for organizations that employ people. Why turn away free money if the government is going to give it to you? Who is returning the $1,200?

This is one of the many reasons that I said Congress was rushing into the bailout and not putting the time they should have into designing a program that would help individuals and companies that really need it. They threw money at everyone rather than focusing it on problem areas.

That’s true only if you think $1200 is gonna suffice. Not to go all Andrew Yang but I think that might be the tip of the iceberg...forever.

And as someone applying for SBA free money, you can rest assured their are hoops to jump through with banks.

It's not that I think $1200 is going to suffice (it is likely the tip of the iceberg). It's that I think there are a lot of people getting $1200 who don't and likely won't need it. Why not set it up so that people who need the money get the money. Same with the PPP.

[Winterborn]

What about charities and other tax exempt entities?

I believe food banks, good will stores, etc. are tax-exempt.

This thread is about churches. Secular Groups like a food bank should be allowed.


But I’m not sure we should be giving tax payer money to groups that don’t pay any taxes in general. Although, this is a difficult time so different measure are needed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know some food banks are faith based, along with a couple of second hand stores that provide goods to the less fortunate. Should they be excluded just because they are "faith" based when they are identical to their "secular" counterparts? As far as I know they file their tax exempt status the same as the rest of 501c's. They just happen to associated with some groups of faith and not necessarily a church. One is associated with a non-profit, but has a faith background.

The question is where do you draw the line. Ivy laid out a couple of sticky points that may come into play.

Churches in the title is just "click-bait" IMHO. The broader question in my mind do you treat all 501c's the same.

[dbackjon]

That’s true only if you think $1200 is gonna suffice. Not to go all Andrew Yang but I think that might be the tip of the iceberg...forever.

And as someone applying for SBA free money, you can rest assured their are hoops to jump through with banks.

It's not that I think $1200 is going to suffice (it is likely the tip of the iceberg). It's that I think there are a lot of people getting $1200 who don't and likely won't need it. Why not set it up so that people who need the money get the money. Same with the PPP.

So how long will it take for you to set up your criteria? And the monitoring?

We seem to want more scrutiny over a person "undeservingly" getting $1,200 than big corporations undeservingly getting billions.


Maybe if we limited Corporate bailouts to $1,200 (since they are people, right?) then you'd have a better point.

[kalm]

It's not that I think $1200 is going to suffice (it is likely the tip of the iceberg). It's that I think there are a lot of people getting $1200 who don't and likely won't need it. Why not set it up so that people who need the money get the money. Same with the PPP.

So how long will it take for you to set up your criteria? And the monitoring?

We seem to want more scrutiny over a person "undeservingly" getting $1,200 than big corporations undeservingly getting billions.


Maybe if we limited Corporate bailouts to $1,200 (since they are people, right?) then you'd have a better point.

This.

[JoltinJoe]

The link is to Friendly Atheist and takes about two minutes to read, even if you’re as slow a reader as I am.

My initial take is that any SBA loans to churches are problematic, if not illegal. Perhaps in anticipation of that outcome, the bishop of my diocese sent a letter to all parishes asking them to refrain from laying off staff during the church shutdowns. But this thread cries out for a treatise by JoltinJoe, so I’ll wait for that.

Singling out church entities, and refusing them to provide them with government aid that is available to secular entities is unconstitutional, unless the proposed use of the funds is explicitly religious.

The constitution prohibits government from discriminating against religion in general or against any particular religion. Therefore, aid that is made available to any secular entity must be made available to religious entities on the same terms and conditions.

Take a look at Justice Kavanaugh's statement from a denial of certiorari in a recent case, The Presbyterian Church of Morristown v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, for a sense of where the Court is heading on this issue. Kavanaugh, with Gorsuch and Alito concurring, strongly infers that the lower court rulings were likely wrong in that case.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 4_08m1.pdf

It seems that the court majority took a strategic pass on that case. That case seems to straddle the two most notable Supreme Court precedent on this issue:
* Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer (2017) (denial of state aid to maintain playground of a religious school unconstitutional; use of funds was not for a religious purpose, so a state program funding maintenance of school playgrounds had to be made available to religious schools) and

* Locke v. Davey (2004) (upholding state scholarship law restriction on funding scholarships for those pursuing advanced theology degrees, as the state should not be paying to train ministers).

The Morristown case concerned a county historic building preservation fund that had advanced funds to preserve churches from the 18th century that were still active houses of worship. I'm not sure Chief Justice Roberts was ready to say that funds may be constitutionally used to preserve historic churches that were still active houses of worship. As you can infer from Kavanaugh's statement, the Court recognized that it could be a slippery slope when the criteria is whether the building is "historic." Kavanaugh states that the lack of information about how the county government administered the program was an impediment to review.

So, as I see it, SBA funds must be made available to churches on the same terms and conditions as any other entity, so long as the funds will be used for non-religious purposes.

[dbackjon]

So, we need a "Hyde Amendment" for that....

[UNI88]

It's not that I think $1200 is going to suffice (it is likely the tip of the iceberg). It's that I think there are a lot of people getting $1200 who don't and likely won't need it. Why not set it up so that people who need the money get the money. Same with the PPP.

So how long will it take for you to set up your criteria? And the monitoring?

We seem to want more scrutiny over a person "undeservingly" getting $1,200 than big corporations undeservingly getting billions.

Maybe if we limited Corporate bailouts to $1,200 (since they are people, right?) then you'd have a better point.

Who is this we that you're talking about? See the bolded part of my post, reading comprehension matters. I want better criteria and scrutiny for people and organizations. Don't just hand money out regardless of true need.

And employers do need help. They're the ones that actually employ people. Ignore them and they will go out of business and the resulting recession/depression will be worse and people won't have jobs to go back to. Help the employers that truly need it and they can keep employing people and be ready to go when things turn around. This isn't just about Fortune 500 companies but hair salons, bars & restaurants, etc.

How long would it take to set up the criteria?
For people - don't send everyone a check and set aside more money for unemployment benefits, allow for partial unemployment, and reserve the ability to extend the time period for collecting benefits if necessary would be a great start.
For companies - add criteria to limit it to organizations whose revenues are really being impacted by the virus.

The fact that people appointed by Trump will be responsible for oversight of this money scares the sh!t out of me.

[SDHornet]

Hard no. No taxpayer money for churches.

I'll make an exemption for Church's Chicken.

[Pwns]

If you can force churches to close down, then you have to also give them the money other non-profits might have access to.

[dbackjon]

Hard no. No taxpayer money for churches.

I'll make an exemption for Church's Chicken.

The local Church's Chicken (4 blocks away) is all set for the pandemic. While the location is too small for a drive through, they have always had an outside walk up window

[kalm]

The link is to Friendly Atheist and takes about two minutes to read, even if you’re as slow a reader as I am.

My initial take is that any SBA loans to churches are problematic, if not illegal. Perhaps in anticipation of that outcome, the bishop of my diocese sent a letter to all parishes asking them to refrain from laying off staff during the church shutdowns. But this thread cries out for a treatise by JoltinJoe, so I’ll wait for that.

Singling out church entities, and refusing them to provide them with government aid that is available to secular entities is unconstitutional, unless the proposed use of the funds is explicitly religious.

The constitution prohibits government from discriminating against religion in general or against any particular religion. Therefore, aid that is made available to any secular entity must be made available to religious entities on the same terms and conditions.

Take a look at Justice Kavanaugh's statement from a denial of certiorari in a recent case, The Presbyterian Church of Morristown v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, for a sense of where the Court is heading on this issue. Kavanaugh, with Gorsuch and Alito concurring, strongly infers that the lower court rulings were likely wrong in that case.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 4_08m1.pdf

It seems that the court majority took a strategic pass on that case. That case seems to straddle the two most notable Supreme Court precedent on this issue:
* Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer (2017) (denial of state aid to maintain playground of a religious school unconstitutional; use of funds was not for a religious purpose, so a state program funding maintenance of school playgrounds had to be made available to religious schools) and

* Locke v. Davey (2004) (upholding state scholarship law restriction on funding scholarships for those pursuing advanced theology degrees, as the state should not be paying to train ministers).

The Morristown case concerned a county historic building preservation fund that had advanced funds to preserve churches from the 18th century that were still active houses of worship. I'm not sure Chief Justice Roberts was ready to say that funds may be constitutionally used to preserve historic churches that were still active houses of worship. As you can infer from Kavanaugh's statement, the Court recognized that it could be a slippery slope when the criteria is whether the building is "historic." Kavanaugh states that the lack of information about how the county government administered the program was an impediment to review.

So, as I see it, SBA funds must be made available to churches on the same terms and conditions as any other entity, so long as the funds will be used for non-religious purposes.

Define non religious purposes.

[JoltinJoe]

Obviously, playgrounds. See Trinity Lutheran. Also, operating homeless shelters; soup kitchens; non-religious educational programs.

In fact, given the current court composition, I would believe that ANY use would be deemed non-religious if the money is going to be used in a way that a secular institution could also use it. That's the inference of Kavanaugh's statement in the Morristown case.

[UNI88]

Hard no. No taxpayer money for churches.

I'll make an exemption for Church's Chicken.

The name of one of the programs is the Paycheck Protection Program and nonprofits, veterans organizations, tribal business concerns, sole proprietorships, self-employed individuals, and independent contractors with 500 or fewer employees can apply.

If the purpose it to protect the paychecks of the workers, than why can't churches be considered? They are likely a nonprofit. They employ people. Their revenues and thus their ability to make payroll and continue employing people could be impacted by the virus. Why exclude churches and their employees from the protection?

And don't get tripped up over the semantics of a church not being a small business. This is being administered by the SBA but it is not limited to small businesses.

[Ivytalk]

Obviously, playgrounds. See Trinity Lutheran. Also, operating homeless shelters; soup kitchens; non-religious educational programs.

In fact, given the current court composition, I would believe that ANY use would be deemed non-religious if the money is going to be used in a way that a secular institution could also use it. That's the inference of Kavanaugh's statement in the Morristown case.

But if the SBA funds are used to enable churches to stay “in business,” doesn’t that necessarily imply the use of government funds to facilitate religious services in violation of the First Amendment? Churches are in the “business” of performing religious services. That is their principal function.

[Chizzang]

The link is to Friendly Atheist and takes about two minutes to read, even if you’re as slow a reader as I am.

My initial take is that any SBA loans to churches are problematic, if not illegal. Perhaps in anticipation of that outcome, the bishop of my diocese sent a letter to all parishes asking them to refrain from laying off staff during the church shutdowns. But this thread cries out for a treatise by JoltinJoe, so I’ll wait for that.

Singling out church entities, and refusing them to provide them with government aid that is available to secular entities is unconstitutional, unless the proposed use of the funds is explicitly religious.

The constitution prohibits government from discriminating against religion in general or against any particular religion. Therefore, aid that is made available to any secular entity must be made available to religious entities on the same terms and conditions.

Take a look at Justice Kavanaugh's statement from a denial of certiorari in a recent case, The Presbyterian Church of Morristown v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, for a sense of where the Court is heading on this issue. Kavanaugh, with Gorsuch and Alito concurring, strongly infers that the lower court rulings were likely wrong in that case.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 4_08m1.pdf

It seems that the court majority took a strategic pass on that case. That case seems to straddle the two most notable Supreme Court precedent on this issue:
* Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer (2017) (denial of state aid to maintain playground of a religious school unconstitutional; use of funds was not for a religious purpose, so a state program funding maintenance of school playgrounds had to be made available to religious schools) and

* Locke v. Davey (2004) (upholding state scholarship law restriction on funding scholarships for those pursuing advanced theology degrees, as the state should not be paying to train ministers).

The Morristown case concerned a county historic building preservation fund that had advanced funds to preserve churches from the 18th century that were still active houses of worship. I'm not sure Chief Justice Roberts was ready to say that funds may be constitutionally used to preserve historic churches that were still active houses of worship. As you can infer from Kavanaugh's statement, the Court recognized that it could be a slippery slope when the criteria is whether the building is "historic." Kavanaugh states that the lack of information about how the county government administered the program was an impediment to review.

So, as I see it, SBA funds must be made available to churches on the same terms and conditions as any other entity, so long as the funds will be used for non-religious purposes.

I love it...
There are a bunch of hipster cool churches in Seattle that make a huge difference with the food banks
They collect food at their services and have food drives
They are the delivery mechanism for the lunch delivery service provided by the Seattle Food Banks
They work in the food banks and help in droves

it would genuinely hurt the community if they went under...
I'm glad they have access to these loans

[JoltinJoe]

Obviously, playgrounds. See Trinity Lutheran. Also, operating homeless shelters; soup kitchens; non-religious educational programs.

In fact, given the current court composition, I would believe that ANY use would be deemed non-religious if the money is going to be used in a way that a secular institution could also use it. That's the inference of Kavanaugh's statement in the Morristown case.

But if the SBA funds are used to enable churches to stay “in business,” doesn’t that necessarily imply the use of government funds to facilitate religious services in violation of the First Amendment? Churches are in the “business” of performing religious services. That is their principal function.

At the moment, that is the gray area similar to the issue in the Morristown case.

The counterpoint would be that all SBA loans are used to start a business, or stay in business; therefore, the churches are using the money for a purpose that any secular entity would.

Following this line of thought, government would be discriminating against religious organizations because they are religious by denying them these funds. As Justice Kavanaugh states in his statement in the Morristown case: "Under the Constitution, the government may not discriminate against religion generally or against particular religious denominations. See Larson v. Valente, 456 U. S. 228, 244 (1982)." Notably, that is a precedent written by Justice Brennan -- who likely would have objected to the use of his precedent in the way that Kavanaugh cited it.

Essentially, this is a debate over the meaning and application of the Non-Establishment clause of the First Amendment. Starting in the early 1960s, the Supreme Court started reading and applying the Non-Establishment as separate and apart from the Free Exercise clause. By doing so, the Court broadened the application of the Non-Establishment Clause, so that often any government support to religion was seen as an unconstitutional "endorsement" of a particular religion or even of religion,. This position sees significant tension between the Non-Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.

There has been a push-back to that position from constitutionalists who contend that the purpose of the Non-Establishment clause is to promote the free exercise of religion -- which is why the two clauses are joined as one larger clause within the text of the First Amendment. These persons argue that there is no textual conflict between the two, and the Non-Establishment Clause should not be read, independently, to justify government discrimination against religion, in general, but rather in a way that promotes free exercise of religion. They argue that the two clauses intend to protect free exercise by prohibiting the government from discriminating against any particular religious faith (free exercise), or by favoring one religion over another (by "establishing" one religion, government disfavors the free exercise of others). In their view, use of the Non-Establishment Clause to restrict religion, or discriminate against it, would be improper and a violation of the right of free exercise that the Non-Establishment Clause intends to protect.

I believe that there are at least five votes for the latter position on the Court today. The position you identified may no longer command a majority. I suspect it was a majority position at one time.

[Ivytalk]

Thanks, Joe. When I was in law school, it was known as the Establishment Clause. Regardless, that’s the point I wished to make: the SBA loans raise more of a (Non-)Establishment Clause issue than a Free Exercise Clause issue.

[Ibanez]

Obviously, playgrounds. See Trinity Lutheran. Also, operating homeless shelters; soup kitchens; non-religious educational programs.

In fact, given the current court composition, I would believe that ANY use would be deemed non-religious if the money is going to be used in a way that a secular institution could also use it. That's the inference of Kavanaugh's statement in the Morristown case.

I've been involved in faith based soup kitchens and food banks. Along with providing a meal/food comes a healthy dose of scripture and prayer. I'm not sure you can get a church to accept a bailout for its soup kitchen and tell them to stop the prayers, scripture readings and other faith based services that are usually done at the same time.

[kalm]

But if the SBA funds are used to enable churches to stay “in business,” doesn’t that necessarily imply the use of government funds to facilitate religious services in violation of the First Amendment? Churches are in the “business” of performing religious services. That is their principal function.

At the moment, that is the gray area similar to the issue in the Morristown case.

The counterpoint would be that all SBA loans are used to start a business, or stay in business; therefore, the churches are using the money for a purpose that any secular entity would.

Following this line of thought, government would be discriminating against religious organizations because they are religious by denying them these funds. As Justice Kavanaugh states in his statement in the Morristown case: "Under the Constitution, the government may not discriminate against religion generally or against particular religious denominations. See Larson v. Valente, 456 U. S. 228, 244 (1982)." Notably, that is a precedent written by Justice Brennan -- who likely would have objected to the use of his precedent in the way that Kavanaugh cited it.

Essentially, this is a debate over the meaning and application of the Non-Establishment clause of the First Amendment. Starting in the early 1960s, the Supreme Court started reading and applying the Non-Establishment as separate and apart from the Free Exercise clause. By doing so, the Court broadened the application of the Non-Establishment Clause, so that often any government support to religion was seen as an unconstitutional "endorsement" of a particular religion or even of religion,. This position sees significant tension between the Non-Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.

There has been a push-back to that position from constitutionalists who contend that the purpose of the Non-Establishment clause is to promote the free exercise of religion -- which is why the two clauses are joined as one larger clause within the text of the First Amendment. These persons argue that there is no textual conflict between the two, and the Non-Establishment Clause should not be read, independently, to justify government discrimination against religion, in general, but rather in a way that promotes free exercise of religion. They argue that the two clauses intend to protect free exercise by prohibiting the government from discriminating against any particular religious faith (free exercise), or by favoring one religion over another (by "establishing" one religion, government disfavors the free exercise of others). In their view, use of the Non-Establishment Clause to restrict religion, or discriminate against it, would be improper and a violation of the right of free exercise that the Non-Establishment Clause intends to protect.

I believe that there are at least five votes for the latter position on the Court today. The position you identified may no longer command a majority. I suspect it was a majority position at one time.

So what defines a religion? It’s an easier call when you agree with the practices or at least see the community benefit. When it’s the First Church of Polydeism, or the Church of Satan, or Islam insisting on Sharia Law or every student in a majority Muslim school to face Mecca it might inspire a different view?

Of course the same argument can be made regarding tax status.

Great stuff Joe and IT and thanks for delivering the goods!