But that's exactly what the Christian Nazionalists want. They demand that the Free Exercise Clause be interpreted as overriding any laws that force them to play by the same rules as everyone else. And the only time they will agree that Free Exercise doesn't override generally applicable laws is when those laws restrict other religions.
No, it doesn't. Unless your definition of "faith-based" means "conservative Catholic only" and excludes the faith of every other faith based group that follows the anti bigotry rule.
Something tells me that the Becket legal group would argue exactly that.
I blame Harry Reid and Mitch "missing in action" McConnell for this. By getting rid of the judicial filibuster for lower federal judicial nominees, Reid opened the door for McConnell to do the same for Supreme Court nominees. That's how we got several of the current whizbangs in robes in the current SC. I can only hope that the Dems and enough moderate GOP'ers somehow get the votes together to impeach several of the current justices.
Reid and McConnell are only the latest fools to be guilty of lack of action. This crap was going on, starting in the Reagan administration, and no one seemed to care about it back then. Too much money and its accompanying influence has the potential to wreck our government ... and I have to cite this again for the umpti-umpth time:
They are inching closer to a ruling that states the Establishment Clause means Congress is only prohibited from declaring one specific sect of Christianity to be the official Church of the United States.
Which is doubtless the goal that the Heritage Society has been aiming at for the past half-century or longer. Their influence on politics should have been nipped in the bud the moment it became obvious.
It wasn't, and we are paying for that lack of action now.
𝗪𝗥𝗢𝗡𝗚!!! If ANY organization, religious or not, receives taxpayer dollars, they can either toe the line as it comes to their social behavior, or the bucks go bye-bye, faster than you can say, "Holy Mary, mother of god." If they are completely privately funded, they can do as they please (and be reprehensible at the same time).
Any other court, this one would be nine to zip against the RCC. These days? I'm not so sure.
I’m pretty sure being a bigot isn’t a belief, but rather a sickness. Until the corrupt SCOTUS justices are impeached/removed, nothing fair or sane will come out of it.
Not one red cent of taxpayer $ should go to an institution that has its hands on the public's wallets as much as it does on the private parts of children.
Let them support themselves. Let them pray to their god to support them.
“Catholic school cannot treat a same-sex couple as a family equivalent to the natural family without compromising its mission and Catholic identity.”
No one is asking you to do so. They're asking you to treat the children of same sex couples like you would treat any other child. Even under your archaic rules, the child is not guilty of anything. You just have to accept an innocent child and treat them with kindness, respect, and love.
Now-now-now! Let's be fair here. You're expecting the Catholic Church to be HUMANE. Sadly, they may know how to spell the word, but its meaning escapes them.
The Church can't even be consistent in WHO they want to discriminate against on their doctrinal grounds. The LGBTQ+ community is, to them, an easy mark and one they can single out without any serious legal consequence.
It is entirely possible that there are some gay couples that would have an immediate problem with that stance AND with the Church and would take legal action. Further, said action would be supported by the likes of the FFRF and Americans United, among other organizations.
The NFL season is about to start, but THIS little game may be worth the popcorn and beer.
And again, a church is complaining that government funding cuts into their profits, when the church is able to provide preschool at a discount or even free. They often do which is how they attract the lower income parents to their bigot factory. Then the government comes along and gives lower income parents a choice and the church claims foul.
Wait, so for American Christian churches, wouldn't that mean they would be officially controlled by the gov't if SCOTUS does use this case to override the beliefs of individual American churches across America, including the blue states?
Wouldn't that also mean there would be intra-Christian conflict over who is the 'True Christian' between the different Christian sects?
It sounds like 'Trad Catholics' will also claim they are persecuted by Bible Literalist Evangelists and say they are spreading the Gospel by ensuring there is enough kinds of Christianity (really 'Christianities') for people to get pipelined to gov't-mandated Christianity. I think this could happen even with intra-Christian conflict at same time because Christians want to spread the Gospel even though they themselves disagree on the meaning of the Gospel, ever since Christianity transitioned from being about Service and Right Action to the Church and Right Belief from ancient times.
Also, it would mean Gilead would happen in Red States, as recent social media trends like the 'trad wife' movement show that ongoing trajectory. But, there would be a war between Christians and non-Christians in politics, especially in blue states, if there is any concentration of MAGA loyalists / Conservative Christians (regardless of Christian sect) and the previously progressive churches act as enablers for this regime in individual churches, colleges, and other 'third spaces' people use.
So, I wonder how will blue states fare because red states are deadset on becoming Gilead from The Handmaid's Tale, especially as separation between church and state weakens in USA, with there being paradoxically increasingly authoritarian religious laws even as the West itself increasingly becomes secular post-Christian atheist.
I'd also be worried about the informal culture of White Christian Supremacism (as well as any secular and non-Christian enablers) that seems to be increasingly normalized because, if Democrats want to win the coming election, they must also pushback against the underlying movement, which is far more likely to become more radicalized and remain in the USA by already radicalized Christians. I think this is important to note that Prof Jiang did predict Trump would have a third term so, this should be taken into account on why and how Trump could still get third term by actions such as this if Democrats want to win back the cultural / socio-political war.
Otherwise, the USA will lose its civic contract which held its society together because people did not hold domestic extremism to same standards as foreign extremism.
I do not think that governments should fund religious schools or pre-schools because it will always come with strings. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Whether a program which has a disparate impact on which providers can participate is "neutral" will probably be answered in the negative by the current Supreme Court. It will just be another example of how the separation of church and state is being weakened in our times.
It is in the eyes of those who think they have a right to discriminate against others. They honestly see non-discrimination laws as an infringement on their "freedom". It's almost Orwellian.
Government money should damned well come with "strings," especially when private organizations desire to take said funds from ALL of the people and use it to single out and discriminate against SOME of them.
The Roman Catholic Church is likely the single biggest offender in that regard, and especially considering its considerable wealth (which it mostly likes to hide), it shouldn't get Dime One.
Whether one is "discriminating" often lies in the eye of the beholder. I am not making this up but I know people who honestly think that businesses should be free to refuse to sell to anyone for any reason. They see anti-discrimination laws as discrimination against their right to "free association". Sigh.
If ANY business gets funds from the public trough and they are found to be discriminating against any protected class, then yeah, those public funds should be YANKED. The real shame here is that they aren't, because there's a whole lot of favoritism running about in our government that hasn't been called out and quashed.
Catholics think their rights to be bigots are somehow being violated and demand protection to be bigots? Seriously?
No private school religious or otherwise, should ever get a cent of public money for any reason.
And yet they do, certainly here in Ohio and elsewhere, because some damned fool legislator wants the state to be "fair" and offer parents a "choice."
Merde, alors!
They operate under the delusion that somehow public education can be improved by cutting funding for it.
"public education can be improved by cutting funding for it"
This is called Homeopathic Funding
Oh, BER-ROTHER! Did YOU just nail it!
𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝐹𝑖𝑟𝑠𝑡 𝐴𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡’𝑠 𝐹𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝐸𝑥𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑒 𝐶𝑙𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑑𝑜𝑒𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑔𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑣𝑜𝑖𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑎 “𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑛𝑒𝑢𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑎𝑤 𝑜𝑓 𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦.”
But that's exactly what the Christian Nazionalists want. They demand that the Free Exercise Clause be interpreted as overriding any laws that force them to play by the same rules as everyone else. And the only time they will agree that Free Exercise doesn't override generally applicable laws is when those laws restrict other religions.
𝑇ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑏𝑎𝑛 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑠 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑝𝑎𝑦𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑜𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑡 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑡ℎ-𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑙 𝑜𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑙 𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑦 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑙 𝑖𝑛 𝐶𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑜.
No, it doesn't. Unless your definition of "faith-based" means "conservative Catholic only" and excludes the faith of every other faith based group that follows the anti bigotry rule.
Something tells me that the Becket legal group would argue exactly that.
The Catholic church has more money than the state of Colorado. They should be offering their pre-school bigotry program for free.
They should be paying Colorado.
How much expensive real estate do they have in Colorado that isn't paying property taxes?
All of it.
The Supreme Court majority will find a way to structure a ruling that satisfies their ideological position. They always seem to do so nowadays
They've been doing that a lot lately. That's likely why their polling numbers are down in the dump. From Google:
𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑓𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒/𝑇𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡: 𝐴𝑛 𝑁𝐵𝐶 𝑁𝑒𝑤𝑠 𝑃𝑜𝑙𝑙 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑦 22% 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑎 "𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑙" 𝑜𝑟 "𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑡𝑒 𝑎 𝑏𝑖𝑡" 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑓𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑡, 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑑 𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑠.
I blame Harry Reid and Mitch "missing in action" McConnell for this. By getting rid of the judicial filibuster for lower federal judicial nominees, Reid opened the door for McConnell to do the same for Supreme Court nominees. That's how we got several of the current whizbangs in robes in the current SC. I can only hope that the Dems and enough moderate GOP'ers somehow get the votes together to impeach several of the current justices.
Reid and McConnell are only the latest fools to be guilty of lack of action. This crap was going on, starting in the Reagan administration, and no one seemed to care about it back then. Too much money and its accompanying influence has the potential to wreck our government ... and I have to cite this again for the umpti-umpth time:
𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑖𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑎 𝑑𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑦 𝑖𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑠𝑎𝑓𝑒 𝑖𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑜𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑤𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑜 𝑎 𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑠 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑑𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑖𝑡𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑓. 𝑇ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑡𝑠 𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒, 𝑖𝑠 𝑓𝑎𝑠𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑚 – 𝑜𝑤𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑝 𝑜𝑓 𝑔𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑏𝑦 𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑢𝑎𝑙, 𝑏𝑦 𝑎 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑝.
-- Franklin Delano Roosevelt
"The Supreme Court COULD let Catholic preschools discriminate on the taxpayers’ dime" (emphasis added)
Who wants to bet that "The Supreme Court WILL let Catholic preschools discriminate on the taxpayers’ dime?"
The truth is we no longer have a "Supreme Court." Instead, we have a COMMITTEE FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF WHITE CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM.
They are inching closer to a ruling that states the Establishment Clause means Congress is only prohibited from declaring one specific sect of Christianity to be the official Church of the United States.
Which is doubtless the goal that the Heritage Society has been aiming at for the past half-century or longer. Their influence on politics should have been nipped in the bud the moment it became obvious.
It wasn't, and we are paying for that lack of action now.
Yes, they’ve been planting this seed for decades.
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑤𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑥𝑝𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟 𝑓𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑔𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑢𝑝 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑏𝑖𝑔𝑜𝑡𝑟𝑦.
𝗪𝗥𝗢𝗡𝗚!!! If ANY organization, religious or not, receives taxpayer dollars, they can either toe the line as it comes to their social behavior, or the bucks go bye-bye, faster than you can say, "Holy Mary, mother of god." If they are completely privately funded, they can do as they please (and be reprehensible at the same time).
Any other court, this one would be nine to zip against the RCC. These days? I'm not so sure.
I’m pretty sure being a bigot isn’t a belief, but rather a sickness. Until the corrupt SCOTUS justices are impeached/removed, nothing fair or sane will come out of it.
Also, very important why we must win back the senate.
Not one red cent of taxpayer $ should go to an institution that has its hands on the public's wallets as much as it does on the private parts of children.
Let them support themselves. Let them pray to their god to support them.
“Catholic school cannot treat a same-sex couple as a family equivalent to the natural family without compromising its mission and Catholic identity.”
No one is asking you to do so. They're asking you to treat the children of same sex couples like you would treat any other child. Even under your archaic rules, the child is not guilty of anything. You just have to accept an innocent child and treat them with kindness, respect, and love.
It's really telling that you refuse to do so.
Now-now-now! Let's be fair here. You're expecting the Catholic Church to be HUMANE. Sadly, they may know how to spell the word, but its meaning escapes them.
Further Thought:
𝐼𝑡 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑜 𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐴𝑟𝑐ℎ𝑑𝑖𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑒’𝑠 𝑙𝑎𝑤𝑠𝑢𝑖𝑡 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑟𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑟𝑒𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑑𝑖𝑣𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑛𝑦𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑤ℎ𝑜’𝑠 ℎ𝑎𝑑 𝑎𝑛 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛.
The Church can't even be consistent in WHO they want to discriminate against on their doctrinal grounds. The LGBTQ+ community is, to them, an easy mark and one they can single out without any serious legal consequence.
It is entirely possible that there are some gay couples that would have an immediate problem with that stance AND with the Church and would take legal action. Further, said action would be supported by the likes of the FFRF and Americans United, among other organizations.
The NFL season is about to start, but THIS little game may be worth the popcorn and beer.
And again, a church is complaining that government funding cuts into their profits, when the church is able to provide preschool at a discount or even free. They often do which is how they attract the lower income parents to their bigot factory. Then the government comes along and gives lower income parents a choice and the church claims foul.
Wait, so for American Christian churches, wouldn't that mean they would be officially controlled by the gov't if SCOTUS does use this case to override the beliefs of individual American churches across America, including the blue states?
Wouldn't that also mean there would be intra-Christian conflict over who is the 'True Christian' between the different Christian sects?
It sounds like 'Trad Catholics' will also claim they are persecuted by Bible Literalist Evangelists and say they are spreading the Gospel by ensuring there is enough kinds of Christianity (really 'Christianities') for people to get pipelined to gov't-mandated Christianity. I think this could happen even with intra-Christian conflict at same time because Christians want to spread the Gospel even though they themselves disagree on the meaning of the Gospel, ever since Christianity transitioned from being about Service and Right Action to the Church and Right Belief from ancient times.
Also, it would mean Gilead would happen in Red States, as recent social media trends like the 'trad wife' movement show that ongoing trajectory. But, there would be a war between Christians and non-Christians in politics, especially in blue states, if there is any concentration of MAGA loyalists / Conservative Christians (regardless of Christian sect) and the previously progressive churches act as enablers for this regime in individual churches, colleges, and other 'third spaces' people use.
So, I wonder how will blue states fare because red states are deadset on becoming Gilead from The Handmaid's Tale, especially as separation between church and state weakens in USA, with there being paradoxically increasingly authoritarian religious laws even as the West itself increasingly becomes secular post-Christian atheist.
I'd also be worried about the informal culture of White Christian Supremacism (as well as any secular and non-Christian enablers) that seems to be increasingly normalized because, if Democrats want to win the coming election, they must also pushback against the underlying movement, which is far more likely to become more radicalized and remain in the USA by already radicalized Christians. I think this is important to note that Prof Jiang did predict Trump would have a third term so, this should be taken into account on why and how Trump could still get third term by actions such as this if Democrats want to win back the cultural / socio-political war.
Otherwise, the USA will lose its civic contract which held its society together because people did not hold domestic extremism to same standards as foreign extremism.
I do not think that governments should fund religious schools or pre-schools because it will always come with strings. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Whether a program which has a disparate impact on which providers can participate is "neutral" will probably be answered in the negative by the current Supreme Court. It will just be another example of how the separation of church and state is being weakened in our times.
Being non-discriminating is a "string"?
Treating gay and trans people with respect is a "string"?
Not being bigots is a "string"?
It is in the eyes of those who think they have a right to discriminate against others. They honestly see non-discrimination laws as an infringement on their "freedom". It's almost Orwellian.
Government money should damned well come with "strings," especially when private organizations desire to take said funds from ALL of the people and use it to single out and discriminate against SOME of them.
The Roman Catholic Church is likely the single biggest offender in that regard, and especially considering its considerable wealth (which it mostly likes to hide), it shouldn't get Dime One.
Whether one is "discriminating" often lies in the eye of the beholder. I am not making this up but I know people who honestly think that businesses should be free to refuse to sell to anyone for any reason. They see anti-discrimination laws as discrimination against their right to "free association". Sigh.
If ANY business gets funds from the public trough and they are found to be discriminating against any protected class, then yeah, those public funds should be YANKED. The real shame here is that they aren't, because there's a whole lot of favoritism running about in our government that hasn't been called out and quashed.
Sauce for the goose. Sauce for the gander.