Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Trinity Lutheran Church

[Common]

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Trinity Lutheran Church in Case with Religious Freedom Implications

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 Monday in favor of Trinity Lutheran Church in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, a case with national religious freedom implications that involved a denied grant application for playground resurfacing.
The case began in 2012 when Trinity Lutheran Church applied for a Missouri Department of Natural Resources state grant meant to help public and private schools, nonprofit daycare centers, and other nonprofit entities buy rubber playground surfaces made from recycled tires.
The grant application was denied because the Department had a provision in place that "no money shall ever be taken from the treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect, or denomination of religion." The Supreme Court ruled today that this state policy violates the rights of Trinity Lutheran under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Chief Justice Roberts explains in his opinion that “the Free Exercise Clause ‘protect[s] religious observers against unequal treatment’ and subjects to the strictest scrutiny laws that target the religious for ‘special disabilities” based on their ‘religious status.’”
“Applying that basic principle,” he writes, “this Court has repeatedly confirmed that denying a generally available benefit solely on account of religious identity imposes a penalty on the free exercise of religion that can be justified only by a state interest ‘of the highest order.’”
Roberts acknowledges that the consequence of the state’s decision is “in all likelihood, a few extra scraped knees,” but concludes “the exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot stand.”

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/lauret...itled-n2346788

[Common]

The left has had a bad day

[exotix]

You do realize this is a pro-immigrant win ?


Blaine Amendment


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaine_Amendment


The term Blaine Amendment refers to either a failed amendment to the U.S. Constitution or actual constitutional provisions in 38 of the 50 state constitutions in the United States that forbid direct government aid to educational institutions that have a religious affiliation.


They were designed to prohibit aid to parochial schools, especially those operated by the Catholic Church in locations with large immigrant populations


https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...theran/531399/

“In this case, there is no dispute that Trinity Lutheran is put to the choice between being a church and receiving a government benefit,” wrote Roberts.


“The rule is simple: No churches need apply.”


While this case concerns Missouri, many states have their own versions of the constitutional provision Missouri used to deny money to Trinity Lutheran—they’re often referred to as “Blaine amendments,” based on their historical grounding in suspicion toward Catholics.


This decision could open the way to widespread challenges to the application of these provisions.

[Adelaide]

Seems reasonable.

[texan]

You do realize this is a pro-immigrant win ?


Blaine Amendment


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaine_Amendment


The term Blaine Amendment refers to either a failed amendment to the U.S. Constitution or actual constitutional provisions in 38 of the 50 state constitutions in the United States that forbid direct government aid to educational institutions that have a religious affiliation.


They were designed to prohibit aid to parochial schools, especially those operated by the Catholic Church in locations with large immigrant populations


https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...theran/531399/

You do realize the party you support are a bunch of rotten hacks being ran by the hack far left? Many of the sane people are being left behind.

[Standing Wolf]

If the State is going to place certain legal restrictions on religious institutions when it comes to those institutions' non-religious activities and functions - with regard to hiring and employment rules, for example - a logical consistency would support the Court's decision in this case.

On the other hand, when an institution wants public money in order to spread a clear religious message - I'm thinking about the Creation Museum in Kentucky - I believe that there is more than sufficient Constitutional basis for denying such funding.

[DGUtley]

You do realize the party you support are a bunch of rotten hacks being ran by the hack far left? Many of the sane people are being left behind.

Notice

NOTICE -- @texan TB'd for off-topic and bad faith posting.

If you have questions or concerns about this moderation action, please use the Report button to let us know.

[donttread]

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Trinity Lutheran Church in Case with Religious Freedom Implications


The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 Monday in favor of Trinity Lutheran Church in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, a case with national religious freedom implications that involved a denied grant application for playground resurfacing.
The case began in 2012 when Trinity Lutheran Church applied for a Missouri Department of Natural Resources state grant meant to help public and private schools, nonprofit daycare centers, and other nonprofit entities buy rubber playground surfaces made from recycled tires.
The grant application was denied because the Department had a provision in place that "no money shall ever be taken from the treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect, or denomination of religion." The Supreme Court ruled today that this state policy violates the rights of Trinity Lutheran under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Chief Justice Roberts explains in his opinion that “the Free Exercise Clause ‘protect[s] religious observers against unequal treatment’ and subjects to the strictest scrutiny laws that target the religious for ‘special disabilities” based on their ‘religious status.’”
“Applying that basic principle,” he writes, “this Court has repeatedly confirmed that denying a generally available benefit solely on account of religious identity imposes a penalty on the free exercise of religion that can be justified only by a state interest ‘of the highest order.’”
Roberts acknowledges that the consequence of the state’s decision is “in all likelihood, a few extra scraped knees,” but concludes “the exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot stand.”

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/lauret...itled-n2346788

What about seperation of church and state. At the very least said playground should be open to the whole neighborhood.

[gamewell45]

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Trinity Lutheran Church in Case with Religious Freedom Implications


The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 Monday in favor of Trinity Lutheran Church in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, a case with national religious freedom implications that involved a denied grant application for playground resurfacing.
The case began in 2012 when Trinity Lutheran Church applied for a Missouri Department of Natural Resources state grant meant to help public and private schools, nonprofit daycare centers, and other nonprofit entities buy rubber playground surfaces made from recycled tires.
The grant application was denied because the Department had a provision in place that "no money shall ever be taken from the treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect, or denomination of religion." The Supreme Court ruled today that this state policy violates the rights of Trinity Lutheran under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Chief Justice Roberts explains in his opinion that “the Free Exercise Clause ‘protect[s] religious observers against unequal treatment’ and subjects to the strictest scrutiny laws that target the religious for ‘special disabilities” based on their ‘religious status.’”
“Applying that basic principle,” he writes, “this Court has repeatedly confirmed that denying a generally available benefit solely on account of religious identity imposes a penalty on the free exercise of religion that can be justified only by a state interest ‘of the highest order.’”
Roberts acknowledges that the consequence of the state’s decision is “in all likelihood, a few extra scraped knees,” but concludes “the exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot stand.”

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/lauret...itled-n2346788

The SCOTUS has ruled and that ends the story. Some may not agree with the ruling, but that's the mechanism we use in our country to settle disputes/issues that may arise and I think its a great system that works well. We all will now abide by the ruling.

[waltky]

The Supreme Court is nearing the end of its current term...

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Wedding Cake 'Discrimination' Case
June 26, 2017 | The Supreme Court on Monday finally agreed to hear a case involving a small Colorado bakery, Masterpiece Cakeshop, that refused in 2012 to provide a custom wedding cake for a homosexual couple.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that cake baker Jack Phillips engaged in sexual orientation discrimination under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act when he said his sincerely held religious beliefs prevented him from baking a cake for a homosexual couple. The question before the court is: "Whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel Phillips to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment." Phillips filed his petition for review almost a year ago, but the Justices put off making a decision on whether to hear the case until now. The case will be argued in the fall.

The American Civil Liberties Union represents the couple, Colorado residents David Mullins and Charlie Craig: “The law is squarely on David and Charlie’s side because when businesses are open to the public, they’re supposed to be open to everyone,” said James Esseks, director of the ACLU’s LGBT Project. “While the right to one’s religious beliefs is fundamental, a license to discriminate is not. Same-sex couples like David and Charlie deserve to be treated with the same dignity and respect as anyone else, and we’re ready to take that fight all the way to the Supreme Court.”

Also on Monday, the Justices once again put off a decision on whether to hear a Second Amendment case testing whether law-abiding people have the constitutional right to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...imination-case