Pardon my lack of knowledge on the subject (being that I have not done exhaustive research using Google about it to enlighten myself), but I am not aware of either why or how the Internal Revenue Service, in the first place, granted (or was directed to grant) not simply "Christian" [both Protestant and Catholic] religious worship and Bible-study-education corporations (such as "churches"), various "Christian" special-interest groups, "Christian" colleges and universities, "Christian" hospitals and social-service agencies, etc. tax-exempt status to let them not pay property taxes on their magnificent buildings and massive land lots, but also why the IRS granted that tax-exempt status to non-Christian whatevers, such as public and private schools, synagogue 501(c)(3) corporations, mosque 501(c)(3) corporations, and especially "non-profit" 501(c)(3) status to anti-Christian political-agenda, hostile-and-subversive-against-public-morality shenanigans such as The American Civil Liberties Union, People For the American Way, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Planned Parenthood, Southern Poverty Law Center, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, and many more.

Perhaps it was done by a far-back-in-the-past bipartisan Act of Congress, signed and not vetoed by the then-President.

I would guess that such IRS-administered exemption for both religious and anti-religious "non-profit" corporations was not put into place by Amendment to the United States Constitution.

If it was done through an Act of Congress, it is logically assumed that, at the time, the aggregate majority intention was generally to largely benefit as-"Christian"-as-they-were entities without excessive and debilitating debate as to what exactly constituted "Christian" regarding all the doctrinal and denominational particulars, varieties, preferences, interpretations, liturgies, more....and that the congressionally-based Act was obviously deemed (by the then-present federal Senators and Representatives) to neither violate nor interfere with the Non-Establishment/Non-Prohibition Clauses of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Currently, rumor has it that inferior-gender Wisconsin "senator" Tammy Baldwin presumes that that long-ago-established historical Congressional decision to grant especially religious groups tax exemption was a mistake, a grievous error, and/or that that more-than-merely-tolerant, benevolent-toward-free-religious-expression allocation not merely by those of Congress but by and for extended and related government officials "of the people, by the people, and for the people" -- is presently no longer there to justify continued financial tax-exemption favor to not merely "Christian" churches and those thereof, but also to morality-espousing synagogues and those thereof, mosques and those thereof, their humane hospital and educational offshoots, plus scholastic academics within public and private schools tolerating or even encouraging open-minded instruction of scientific creationism in contrast to heretical evolutionist mythology as part of the curriculum, and of course to previously-cited anti-Christianity-morality, anti-Jewish-morality, anti-Islamic-modesty, anti-social terrorist-like propagandists (e.g. the Anti-Christian Licentious Union, People Against the American Way, Antagonists United for Severence of Church from State, Southern Perniciousness Law Center, Freedom from Religion Foundation, and so forth).

A recent anti-Christian-churches bullyboy shill (namely, Felix Salmon of Fusion) published a despicably-impious, derogatory, and scurrilous rant and diatribe [commented upon by a National Review operative] relating to a NR question:

Should churches [notice the discriminatory specific-religion targeting!] that [or should it have instead been: 'who?'] refuse to marry [should instead have been: 'officiate'] same-sex [should instead have stated: 'gender'] couples be stripped of their non-profit status?

Sarcastically speaking, I did not know that lifeless and inanimate construction materials of intelligently-designed churches, synagogues, and mosques have a mind, will, and capacity of their own to officiate anything. Why blame brick and mortar?

To which question, reviler Salmon retorts with a plethora of ridiculously-overbroad-and-presumptive weaselword semanticizing, blasphemously spewing out the rancid-vomit stench of his prejudicial hate-speech:

"Now that the US government formally recognizes marriage equality as a fundamental right, held by all Americans, it really should not skew the tax code to groups which steadfastly remain bigoted....If your organization does not support the right of gay men and women to marry, then the government should be very clear that you are in the wrong and should not bend over backwards to give you the privilege of tax exemption....Religious organizations are entirely free to espouse among themselves by themselves whatever crazy, fanatical, and hurtful views they like in clinging to their narrow-minded and anachronistic views."

Maybe Lois Lerner and her accomplices have been in the process of "skewing the tax code" by depriving not-necessarily-religious Tea-Party types tax exemption, but which hideous and absurd miswordings of Salmon should be picked apart first?

Has the entire U.S. Government (especially respectably-honorable Republican Senators and Representatives of Congress, plus High-Court judges Alito, Thomas, Roberts, and Scalia, along with Republican-Presidential-candidate hopefuls) "formally" [in contrast to informally?] "recognized" [whatever that means and does not mean] "marriage equality" as "fundamental" mandate or privilege?

What the fk/hell/whatever is "marriage" "equality?" Should it be understood as homosodomy-unions-licensing opportunity equal with heterosexual-unions-licensing opportunity? Has heterosexual-partners-uniting-in-Biblically-defined-marriage ever been, now is, or ever will be, on equal status with homosodomy-unions uniting in sordid-and-rebelliously-defiant animalistic pseudo-"love" lust?

The alleged "right" [but, Scripturally-speaking: wrong] to commit homoeffeminate/homosodomite passion after "officially" licensed to do so is supposedly "held by all Americans?"

Really? Are heterosexuality-oriented Billy Graham, attorneys Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel, Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association legal team, Alan Sears of Alliance Defense Fund, Jay Sekulow of American Center for Law and Justice, Tony Perkins of Freedom Research Council, and yours truly....also Americans? Do we samples of Americans agree with pro-homopervert Salmon and his comrades at Fusion? If not, and as we do not, are we not injustly being fraudulently misrepresented, and therefore at liberty to initiate and win a class-action lawsuit for defamation against Salmon and conspirators?

Salmon, blatantly contradicting himself as to who's who, states that those sample Americans opposed to equating the two vastly-different and diametrically-opposed sexually-related attitudes and actions are "bigoted."

"Bigoted," huh? And who, hypocritically, is the log-in-his-own-eye one who himself is bigoted - boasting a sloganizing buzzword both possibly and usually manipulated by the immorally depraved to divert blame off themselves and onto innocent opponents, a self-justification word often used by degenerates implying non-reasonable prejudice of someone else without legitimate grounds for partiality.

So, "steadfast" anti-homosexual Biblical contents (along with Christians adhering to them) which condemn homoeffeminate homosodomy [e.g. Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-28, and First Corinthians 6:9-10...all "in context"], are "bigoted?" The Holy Spirit who "steadfastly" inspired human authors to pen anti-homosexuality verses in Scripture is also "bigoted?" And what did Jesus and His apostles "steadfastly" warn about committing the Non-Pardonable Sin of blasphemy against the Spirit, defaming God's Spirit as Evil and Wicked?

The desire of the faithful is that Mr Salmon and those who agree with him be either voluntarily or involuntarily transported to Iran and convey their anti-religion sentiments to both the government and populace of said fundamentalist islamic country, be promptly arrested and held without bond, bail, plea bargain, parole, whatever...be convicted of deserving the death penalty in Iranian court, and expeditiously beheaded.

The two-men-three-women slight majority of the Supreme Court has not given, nor ever will give, any "right" to do anything against their and anyone else's Creator, but merely approved the capacity to misbehave immorally in a sexual framework.

Salmon slyly slurbed that those "gay" (whatever that means and does not mean) can marry. Of course they can marry. But marry who, Salmon? A selection of their opposite gender...or instead of their own gender? Try to not be like The Tempter in the Primal Garden of Eden, with his deceptively-overbroad query to innocently-naked Eve of: "Has God said that you cannot eat of any tree in the Garden?"

Salmon did not specify which gender could legitimately be married to which gender, although his homosexual proclivity oozes out like uncontrollable diarrhea. Mere inference does not substitute for precise and sufficient specification.

Are Christian saints "in the wrong" (according to Scripture) as decreed by Salmon and his slight-majority High-Court black-robes? Are sacred, holy, Biblically-based-morality, homosexuality-and-homosexuals-despising Christians [both Protestant and Catholic types] diabolically detrimental and destructive, thus "in the wrong", along with morality-promoting, homosexuals-and-homosexuality-castigating orthodox Jews and even fundamentalist muslim insidiously "in the wrong" with their very-modest-and-decent hijab and burka attire in even warm weather?

Are the aforementioned actually insane, crazy, fanatical, hurtful, narrow-minded, and anachronistic (whatever that fancy word is supposed to infer about the heterophobic creep and jerk who imposed it)? Did Christ Himself advocate being on the straight and narrow, and thus be righteously "narrow-minded" instead of being on the broad and loose way to perdition?

Do the tiny minority of Salmonite human filth speak for the entire United States Government and all agents and officials therein? Are they the Final Determiners of what is in-constant-change-and-fluid-alteration "legal?" Was not the "legal" 18th Amendment prohibiting sale and transport of liquor understandably and thankfully repealed by a subsequent "legal" Amendment?

For that matter, should not the sexist 19th Amendment inciting women to lord it over men in every area of life also be repealed, so that men visually assaulted by irritating feminist impudence and immodesty, besieged with non-asked-for and non-wanted harassive mopheaded, sleevesless, slacksless, socksless assault, would be less likely to chauvinistically resort to superior-gender homosexuality?

Has the High Court's Roe-v-Wade decision stopped anti-abortion activists in their tracks? Is the crime and sin of committing and not "performing" abortion homicide on the decrease, and not simply because fewer women are getting pregnant? Ask National Right to Life and the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life!

Has tyrannous guns-and-ammo-registration-and-confiscation Obamanation slowed the sale and possession of firearms, and prevented an increase in conceal-carry? Ask the National Rifle Association and Second Amendment Foundation!

Have religious hymnals, religious masses and requiems and oratorios been removed from Amazon? Have cemeteries all across the nation retained tombstones with religious insignia and Bible verses inscribed thereon? Is the In God We Trust motto yet on our monetary currency bills?

Religious inclinations and fervor are irrevocably and deeply embedded within not only Biblically-oriented religious Americans, but even secular ones who have rejected the Christ Jesus they should and should have accepted as their God, and are preparing themselves to set up Obama or whoever as a substitute-idol False-Prophet god mentioned in the New-Testament book of Revelation.

Salmon's inflammatory rhetoric and belligerent blattering is rife and reeking with arguably-dangerous-and-threatening fighting-words vitriol, inevitably leading to probable-cause implied and impending violence, and if he and his ilk intend them as an escalating call to militant physical aggression and assault with bayonets and bullets as Kingsmen-copycat imitators, against not only Christians, "Christians," Jews, Islamic, and they would be surprised to discover who else, they had better be fully prepared for bloody and even lethal retaliatory reaction and response. Are any of them "faster on the draw" than Matt Dillon of Gunsmoke or calmly-and-deadly-accurate American-Sniper professional-sharp-shooter Mark Wahlberg? Are they ready to take on a furiously-raging combination of Stallone, Eastwood, James Bond, Bronson, Stratham, Neeson, Jet Li equivalents all at once?

And if [I said: if] whoever in homosexual-patsy consort murders the aforementioned heroes encountering and confronting the bloodied/bashed/beaten-lifeless homosexual aggressors, both proverbial "sheep" and "goats" groups of deceased will stand resurrected for Final Judgment in the presence of The Almighty Judge, and to which groups will the God of Heterosexuality reveal His guilty and not guilty verdicts, before He apportions eternal reward and eternal punishment accordingly?

Now that homoqueers, homofaggots, homodikes [and whatever other creative and appropriate name they can generously be attributed with] are on their arrogant high horse because of the recent pro-homosodomy-unions-licensing decision by a slight majority of the High Court, the demented homo-deviant activists might be "tempted" (tempted?) to continue further and go on a wild rampage suing anyone who is dating or married to someone of the opposite gender, on the [frivolous] grounds that such heterosexuality-displaying citizens [mis-considered diabolically anti-social "criminals"], of whatever religious or non-religious inclinations or allegiance, are unlawfully discriminating against homosexuality by not instead dating or being married to someone of their same gender.

Or even having sex with someone of the opposite gender - whether married to them, or not.

That very well could get such homo-crusaders into some phenomenally serious and extremely non-pleasant duckydoo with even billion-dollar-per-year major XXX porn models, producers, and distributors who partially specialize in very profitable heterosexual pics and vids.

And, of course, male Obama would have to divorce female Michelle on the [frivolous] grounds of them discriminating against homosexuality by being heterosexual spouses to each other.

Consider the massive fines and extraordinary jail time homo-activists would incur against themselves by entering national and global art museums only to smash, cut up, spray paint, and otherwise destroy priceless "art" "treasures" of paintings and sculptures depicting heterosexual connections instead of homosexual connections -- all meticulously protected by armed security guards and even the FBI.

One would suppose that if some homosexual would have the gall to take it upon himself to file a lawsuit against a local cop for that local cop being heterosexually married, that police officer just might take it upon himself to initiate and pursue a probably-non-declared retaliatory vendetta against that homosexual in round-the-clock surveillance and scrutiny....performing quick and decisive arrests against that homosexual for even the slightest illegalities the homosexual did -- such as littering by tossing a used cigarette out the car window, recklessly endangering traffic by stopping too soon at a red stoplight, obstructing traffic by not accelerating fast enough at a green traffic light, tailgating "just a little too close," going even one mph over the posted speed limit, and/or not stopping completely each time the homo comes to a neighborhood stopsign.

Meanwhile, the [presumed Pansy] God of Neutral Non-Involvment, frightened silly by the audacity of homosexual bullies, [supposedly] intimidated into terrified cowardice, would [allegedly] never even consider not impartially sending His rain on both the peacefully-coexisting(?) righteous heterosexuals and the wicked homosexuals so as to not be accused of being "bigoted." After all, the LORD never once helped the good and hurt the bad in the entire gamut of Biblical history, right?

Revelation chapter 13 verses 16 and 17 gives the ultimate pocketbook-related way every heterosexual and heterosexually-oriented individual (be they male or female) can counter and defend themselves against homos who belligerently try to force them to no longer be heterosexual but instead become homosexual.

For those readers who do not readily recall the contents of said Scripture reference, it might behoove them to look it up themselves.

The American Family Association, among many others, with their blessed history of declaring boycotts against those promoting depravity, have the right idea.

To wit, known homosexuals are ingrained and embedded in practically every form of buying and selling products and services. That being as it is, and not may be, it almost goes without saying that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for high-minded homo activists to force each and every person across the nation, and the world for that matter, to buy and sell only with known homosexuals for each and every large or small commercial transaction.

Once a heterosexual has bought goods or services from another known heterosexual, that heterosexual has, thereafter, neither the money nor the need anymore to buy the same or similar goods or services from a known homosexual.

Lawsuits imposed by discrimination-claiming homosexuals are expensive, especially considering the incredibly-numerous heterosexuals on planet Earth continuously engaging in everyday incredibly-numerous commercial transactions...and losing such lawsuits to judges who throw frivolous cases out of court, is even more expensive.

Added to that is the shame and reputational disgrace of losing discrimination-claim court cases, which is nothing to be sneezed at.

So there you have it. Never ever deliberately (or even accidentally) buy from nor sell to any Bible-despising, church-defaming, Christians-reviling homosexual having the satanic Mark of the Beast tattooed on him or her...by simply buying and selling whatever is necessary from known heterosexuals first and instead.

There is no need to explain the cause for the first-and-only [heterosexually-related] buying and selling, and one can be discreet in answer to anyone about any commercially-related situation. Merely say: "Sorry, I already bought that thing (or service). I do not presently need yours, I do not need two of them, I would not have the money now for it anyway, and I have no assurance that I will ever get more money to get replacements or repeat service from anyone ever again."