Technical corrections only. The reported version (v2) includes additional sponsors and procedural reporting information, and the legislative text is presented in italic as is customary for reported bills. There are no substantive policy changes between v1 and v2.
Fair Treatment of Religious Organizations Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Moore, Blake D. [R-UT-1]
- Committees
- Ways and Means Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 27, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to protect the tax-exempt status of religious organizations that hold traditional views on marriage, sexuality, or gender identity by limiting the IRS's ability to use such views as a basis for denying or revoking their 501(c)(3) status.
What it actually does
This bill amends Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to specify that a religious belief or practice concerning marriage, sexuality, or gender identity shall not be treated as being inconsistent with law or public policy for the purpose of determining tax-exempt status. It also clarifies that a belief does not fail to be treated as a religious belief merely because it is not compelled by or central to a system of religion.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill ensures religious freedom by preventing the government from discriminating against religious organizations based on their sincerely held beliefs regarding marriage, sexuality, or gender identity. They contend it clarifies existing law to protect organizations from losing their tax-exempt status due to evolving interpretations of public policy, thereby upholding the First Amendment's protection of religious exercise.
Opponents contend
Opponents may argue that the bill could be interpreted as sanctioning discrimination by tax-exempt organizations, potentially undermining civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ individuals. They might contend it could allow organizations to claim religious exemptions for practices that would otherwise be considered discriminatory under federal or state law, thereby creating a loophole in public policy requirements for tax-exempt status.
The bill text is very short and can be read quickly, but its implications are substantial and require careful consideration beyond a superficial reading.
Section 2(a), adding new subsection (s) to Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
Clarification of Religious Purpose for Tax-Exempt Status
This provision amends the tax code to explicitly state that the IRS cannot deny or revoke an organization's tax-exempt status solely because its religious beliefs or practices relate to traditional views on marriage, sexuality, or gender identity, even if those views might be seen as inconsistent with broader public policy. It also ensures that a belief is considered religious even if it's not a core tenet of a widely recognized religion.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is essential for safeguarding religious liberty, ensuring that faith-based organizations can operate according to their doctrines without fear of government reprisal through tax penalties. They believe it prevents the IRS from acting as an arbiter of religious dogma or imposing secular public policy views on religious institutions.
Critics contend
Critics contend this provision could grant a license to discriminate under the guise of religious freedom, potentially allowing organizations to deny services or employment to individuals based on their sexual orientation or gender identity while retaining tax-exempt status. They argue it could undermine efforts to ensure equal treatment for all citizens.
Tradeoffs
The provision navigates the tension between protecting religious freedom and ensuring non-discrimination. It seeks to define the boundaries of religious exercise within the context of tax law, potentially at the expense of other public policy goals related to equality and civil rights.
Clarifies that a belief does not fail to be treated as a religious belief merely because such belief is not compelled by or central to a system of religion.
Section 2(a), new subsection 501(s)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to provide definitional clarity within a new statutory section. It's not necessarily evasive but could expand the types of beliefs that qualify for protection.
Case for: Proponents argue this broadens the protection for sincerely held individual religious beliefs, ensuring that less formalized or non-traditional religious practices are also recognized for tax-exempt purposes, aligning with a broad interpretation of religious freedom.
Case against: Opponents might argue this could open the door for individuals or groups to claim religious exemptions based on loosely defined or personal beliefs, potentially making it harder for the IRS to distinguish genuine religious organizations from those seeking to exploit tax benefits.
Estimated impact: Potentially broadens the scope of what qualifies as a 'religious belief' for tax-exempt status, impacting a wider array of organizations or individuals seeking such status.