Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your link does not back that up. What is your source that they have filed for non profit status? I doubt it's true as they could no longer keep the $120,000+ revenue as income - they'd have to use the revenues for worthy causes and could keep very little for "management fees".
Not at all. A non-profit institution can use all it's income for any number of legitimate purposes. Salaries are legitimate and have no legal restrictions, as does property costs and upkeep.
Non-profit status does not exempt a business from all taxes, however. Salaries are taxed, as are property and other civic taxes. The Knopps may now be running a non-profit wedding chapel, but they're still going to pay all the same fees and taxes they paid before. The only difference for them is some of their income must now be dedicated to another non-profit outfit if any money is made over their break-even point. The cause does not have to be charitable; it can be another church, a non-profit research lab, a non-profit environmental agency, or another non-profit business. Or an individual.
There are no restrictions as to how much or how little their LLC is required to pay or where the money goes. All that is needed is a clause in the LLC that dedicates some money to go somewhere at some time or other, and idaho laws are very loose in definitions.
At the same time, their new status doesn't allow them to write off business losses as easily as they could before.
I expect that the Hitching Post probably won't make or lose any more money that it did as a for-profit company. But it may face some new competition- their refusal opens up an opportunity for a chapel next door that caters to gays for some other straight couple who wants to get into the marrying business.
Since same sex couples have more disposable income than straight couples, I'm sure they will spend more on the weddings they have wanted for so long. Money doesn't care who spends it and who gets it.
Dunno about anyone else, but I certainly am not in favor of anyone lying or cheating.
If they are in the business of offering wedding services, they must offer those services to gay couples.
If that upsets them, as it apparently does, changing their tax status is a rational and legal action for them to take.
If they choose to change their tax status, they should get legal assistance, as they are apparently doing.
The story does say that the chapel is not currently operating as a nonprofit, but says nothing at all about whether they have applied for nonprofit status. You are right that the LLC in itself won't do what they need done.
It does strike me as odd that they have filed a lawsuit against the city when the city has taken no action against them. I can't imagine that lawsuit actually being tried.
The Knopps did apply, and they received their non-profit status before Idaho was forced to drop their anti-gay marriage laws. They filed a preemptive lawsuit, but I expect it will now be dropped.
Idaho still has some other anti-gay laws on the books, but they are all expected to be abandoned in the next session of the state legislature in January, as those laws will also be overturned. Some are in the appellate process right now, and Idaho's futile attempts to restrict gays has cost it's citizens about $2 million in wasted legal costs since 2006, when the first laws were passed. The most recent effort that failed a couple of weeks ago cost $68,000 in legal fees by itself. So far, 44 state appeals have been presented over the years, and not one has succeeded.
Not at all. A non-profit institution can use all it's income for any number of legitimate purposes. Salaries are legitimate and have no legal restrictions, as does property costs and upkeep.......<snipped>
What tax section or non-profit status are you referring to? 501(c)(3)?
"The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual."
I know this is Idaho but in Texas this wedding chapel business would fail the religious organization test: "a nonprofit religious organization must be an organized group of people regularly meeting at a particular location with n established congregation for the primary purpose of holding, conducting and sponsoring religious worship services according to the rites of their sect." http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinf...rms/ap-209.pdf
What tax section or non-profit status are you referring to? 501(c)(3)?
"The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual."
If the wedding chapel converts to a nonprofit, most likely it will be a 501(c)3.
A 501(c)3 is allowed to pay salaries, and those salaries may be above-market.
The clause you quote does not apply to salaries, because net earnings come *after* salaries are paid for.
A 501(c)3 may also be the parent organization of another kind of nonprofit. A 501(c)3 may own a forprofit business.
We don't have all the legal/accounting details of this particular entity.
Edited to add - whether or not a nonprofit's earnings inure to anyone is a technical/legal question which does not lend itself to an easy explanation. Very roughly, in determining this question, the issue is whether the nonprofit made a special deal with someone that is not available to all.
Should the government be granted the power to make laws such as that?
How far has society regressed back toward barbarism when otherwise reasonable people question anti-discrimination? What's next? Questioning the government's responsibility to make laws against assault? After all, "that goes against survival of the fittest". "The way to deal with people who commit assault is to strike back at them, or run away from them." The rationalizations that right-wing reactionaries come up with to try to excuse their offensive claptrap is never-ending.
If you don't agree with the business owner, DO NOT PATRONIZE THE BUSINESS! Just stay away. If enough people do that, the business owner will change his policies, or lock the door.
Of course, if enough people AGREE with the business owner, he will thrive.
THAT is how the issue should be handled, IMO.
It is so sad that this country that is supposed to be based on freedom for everyone and welcoming, had ever treated black people so bad and by THE PEOPLE themselves who thought that they were right and had the right to discriminate. Common consensus does not make what the people do to minorities right. I hope that any of the participants in the crowd in the photo recongize themselves and feel ashamed. In the future those that are against same sex couples having the same marriage rights too may feel ashamed. At least I can hope so.
Were blacks forcing those with strong religious views to accept their marriages to other races, they too used the courts to force the remaining 17 states in 1967 that still banned interracial marriage, to remove those bans. Should they have just waited for everyone to be supportive of it? This is not about forcing others to believe in our marriages, or to perform them in a church, this is about equal representation and equal rights from our government without being judged for our beliefs or our sexual orientation, we are not a theocracy with a church state that makes every one obey its tenets. No church in the USA rules this country, determining our laws and our rights. This country was colonized by people leaving Europe to escape persecution from the state church, why do so many want to turn it into the same type of country that those colonists left? How many of our ancestors passed the Statue of Liberty and knew its saying. You think any of them would have felt welcome in this country if they knew it was run by one church that would force their tenets on them?
I used blacks as an example for the interracial ban because that was what many people associate it with, but in reality those bans were for all races. Read up on the anti miscegenation laws and how many states still had those laws. In 1948, my Moms marriage to her first husband was legal in California, but not many other states. She was white, he was Mexican/Native American, but in 1948 California dropped its anti miscegenation laws. In 1967 there were still 16 states with anti miscegenation laws in their constitutions and even after Loving v. Virginia's decision that declared all those bans to be in violation of our 14th amendment rights, it took Alabama to 2000 to remove it from their constitution. All of the reasons for banning the mixing of races so resemble the rants from those against same sex marriage, that one wonders if some of it is familial, passed on angst and hatred generation to generation.
My ancestors came to this country to escape persecution from antisemitic Christians who didn't allow them to practice Judaism without governmental persecution.
The way gay terrorists are making it here in America I fully expect to flee this country from antisemitic homosexuals who wont allow me and my decedents to practice Judaism without governmental persecution.
My ancestors came to this country to escape persecution from antisemitic Christians who didn't allow them to practice Judaism without governmental persecution.
The way gay terrorists are making it here in America I fully expect to flee this country from antisemitic homosexuals who wont allow me and my decedents to practice Judaism without governmental persecution.
How would you be persecuted? What would occur that would cause the government to go after you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
My ancestors came to this country to escape persecution from antisemitic Christians who didn't allow them to practice Judaism without governmental persecution.
The way gay terrorists are making it here in America I fully expect to flee this country from antisemitic homosexuals who wont allow me and my decedents to practice Judaism without governmental persecution.
Doesn't your idea of practicing Judaism include executing homosexuals?
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
