DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Supreme Court sides with church in landmark decision on state funding for religious organisations

This ruling makes no sense. Churches don't want to pay taxes, they are exempt from paying taxes, yet now they are allowed to get tax payer funding?


https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-sides-church-landmark-143034098.html

The US Supreme Court has ruled in favour of a Missouri church seeking state funding in a case that tests the boundaries of separation between church and state.

The case concerns Trinity Lutheran Church in Columbia, Missouri, which applied for a grant from the Department of Natural Resources to help renovate their preschool's playground. The state rejected the church's application, citing a strict policy against funding programmes controlled by a religious entity.

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 against the state, writing that it may not deny the church a public benefit because of its religious status. In its policies against religious favouritism, the Court found, the state came dangerously close to preventing the free exercise of religion.


"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," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority decision.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg dissented, arguing that the decision weakens the separation between church and state.

Justice Sotomayor claimed the ruling "dismantles a core protection for religious freedom" and ignores a history of separating state funding from religious causes.

"The Court today blinds itself to the outcome this history requires and leads us instead to a place where separation of church and state is a constitutional slogan, not a constitutional commitment," she wrote.

The Trinity Lutheran Church first sued the state of Missouri in 2012, after the Department of Natural Resources removed them from competition for 14 Scrap Tire Programme grants. The church had ranked fifth out of 44 applicants.

A district court dismissed the church's suit, claiming the Free Exercise clause does not prevent states from withholding benefits – such as playground restoration grants – on account of religion. The Supreme Court overturned that ruling on Monday.

The decision could have cascading effects on the approximately 35 other states that also bar public money from funding religious institutions. These so-called "Blaine Amendments," which prevent money from the public treasury from going to any religious group or teacher, seek to prevent the state from showing favouritism to any one religion.

The court also decided on Monday to rule on another religious liberty case, this time concerning the wedding cake of a same-sex couple in Colorado. The court will consider the right of private parties – in this case, a wedding cake baker – to deny services to same-sex couples on religious grounds.

Just because they pay no taxes doesn't mean you can discriminate
against them when it comes to community safety money.

Can't have them little Christian kids scraping their knees because they were denied Scrap Tire Program grants.

how is that discrimination if there is suppose to be a separation of church and state?

Churches have the same tax exempt status as organizations like Planned Parenthood.... You want to disqualify all of them from any and all government funding, grants, and programs because they take money in yet pay no taxes? You might want to be careful how far you are willing to chase that.

And simply saying that one has a religious affiliation and the other one doesn't ain't enough... as long as Jewish schools, Muslim schools, etc are equally considered for such grants and programs... I see no problem with this at all.

except i do.

i didn't know muslim or jewish schools were getting tax funding, and i'm against that, so i dunno why you assumed i was cool with it.

yes, separation of church and state. it's my opinion that if they want state or federal funding, they must start paying taxes. and yes, i DO consider that different from a non religious non profit like PP.

i'll chase it as far as i like.

You make too much of the separation of church and state issue.

The Constitution sets up the Protection of the Church from the Government and also sets up the Protection of the Government from the Church. However, the two work together for the good of the people. The actual words "Separation of Church and State do not appear in our Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

and thomas jefferson make it perfectly clear why that is, as he is the one who used the term separation of church and state

the government can work together with the church. that's cool. the church doesn't need direct funding for that to happen, though.

sorry, i will always be against it. if churches, or mosques, or whatever want state/federal money, pay taxes.

Let me know when you complain about somebody who paid 1,000 in taxes and gets a 8,000 refund.

thats screwed up too.

but it's a deflection which has nothing to do with THIS specific topic.

I never said you were cool with anything.. I said I would be cool with it as long as it is equal for all religions.. and they don't get funding, but they should be eligible for any grants that Christian churches are eligible for.


You didn't say that in your first post, the one I responded to... you were just ranting about not paying taxes.. a lot of non-profits don't pay taxes yet get state funding.


Yea, just wait until the Church of Cannabis gets an agricultural grant.. you won't mind.

Yes, there ends up being a separation because each is protected from the other. But it is not as simple as you state.

But you can not discriminate against the church.

well we are in disagreement.

i do not believe religion organizations should be getting any sort of state or federal money.

If a church is forced to follow state mandates, then they should get state money IMO

yea because history says if you discriminate against the church, bad things happen.

the church/religion goes from killing the masses and taxing the masses, to know recieving their own tax-paid funding.

then they should pay taxes.

How does the church tax the masses?

read my comment very slooooowly next time. geez dude.

I did. I still don't know how the church taxes the masses. Please explain that. Or admit you can't. Churches are unable to impose taxes on anyone.

so they didn't impose taxes in the medieval times?

read my comment reeeeaaally slowly next time. i'm giving you a chance here. cause next time i'm clowning you.

Ah, so, you're stuck in medieval times. Got it. That makes a whole lot of sense now.

Cool then if they make no money at all the government should give them a 8,000 refund.

i already said i'm against that, so i dunno what you're giving the thumbs up for.

I am agreeing with you and saying they should be treated just like everybody else. Do you have a problem with that?

no

But we are gonna get ground up tires for our children's playground and the town has made tax money available for new sidewalks so we want that and hopefully there is tax money left over so we can turn in our church Obama phone to get a Trump phone!

It makes sense, and a 7-2 decision isn't a split. That is a solid opinion by the court.

The only two against were a Socialist and a dead woman.

God Bless Ruth, but I wonder if she is even capable of writing her own opinions? For that matter, I wonder if she hasn't been pickled and is being propped up much like in the Weekend at Bernie's.

jc

Here's a good read about Neil Gorsuch, which has a quick note about this specific case near the bottom.

--

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-gorsuch-idUSKBN19H2PS

Trump high court pick Gorsuch shows conservative credentials

In less than three months, President Donald Trump's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch, is already staking out ground on the court's right, adding his voice to the biggest controversies including Trump's travel ban targeted at six Muslim-majority countries, gun control, religious rights and gay rights.

In a flurry of activity at the court on Monday, Gorsuch showed his inclination to rule from a spot occupied by fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas. At a minimum, he is so far living up to Trump's claim that he would be a conservative in the mold of the man he replaced, Justice Antonin Scalia, who died last year.

Thomas, appointed by President George H.W. Bush in 1991, is seen by legal experts as the most conservative of the nine justices and is known for his idiosyncratic views of some legal issues. The court has a 5-4 conservative majority. Two of the conservative majority, Anthony Kennedy, and to a lesser extent Chief Justice John Roberts, sometimes side with the liberals.

Liberal groups and Democratic senators had vociferously opposed Gorsuch's appointment, with the evidence so far suggesting their depiction of him as a dogged conservative was largely correct.

"Justice Gorsuch has shown himself to be the conservative ideologue many predicted he would be and not the moderating check on the executive branch as others suggested he would be," said Michele Jawando, a lawyer with the liberal Center for American Progress.

Conservatives, meanwhile, are delighted. Their hope that Gorsuch, 49, would be a solid vote on the right, would appear to be well founded.

"Gorsuch is rapidly becoming my favorite justice," said Ilya Shapiro, a lawyer with the libertarian Cato Institute.

The new justice, formerly an appeals court judge in Colorado, was sworn in on April 10 after Democrats made a concerted effort to block his confirmation by the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate.

Gorsuch has not been shy to make his voice heard since day one on the bench when, during three one-hour arguments, he sparred with attorneys no fewer than eight times. "I'm sorry for taking up so much time, I apologize," he said, smiling, after one such lengthy exchange.

Gorsuch has asserted himself on paper as well. His one opinion for the court, in a case about debt collection, was unanimous. But it's not unusual for new justices to be assigned a first opinion to write where the court is in broad agreement.

In the cases where the court has been divided, he has reliably stuck with the conservative wing while showing something of an independent streak similar to Thomas.

Gorusch nailed his colors to the mast in a series of written opinions and votes on Monday.

In the biggest dispute before the justices, the court handed a partial win to Trump by partly reviving his travel ban that he has said is needed for security reasons but opponents criticize as discriminatory. The ban was blocked by lower courts and the high court agreed to hear oral arguments in its next term starting in October.

Gorsuch, with two of the court's other conservatives, said they would have voted to allow the entire ban to go into effect.

When the court also declined to hear what would have been a major gun rights case on whether the constitutional right to keep firearms for self-defense extends outside the home, only two of the nine justices dissented. One was Thomas. The other was Gorsuch.

A gay rights case saw a similar pattern, with Thomas, Gorsuch and fellow conservative Samuel Alito the only dissenters as the court threw out an Arkansas court ruling that allowed the state to refuse to list both same-sex spouses on birth certificates.

Gorsuch has also showed a willingness to quibble with his colleagues on what might seem minor points. In the court's big ruling on Monday in a religious rights case, the justices were split 7-2 on allowing a church to apply for state funding to re-pave its school playground.

Gorsuch wrote a separate concurring opinion, joined by Thomas, in which he explained in part why he agreed with all of the majority opinion, except for one footnote that limited it.

"It could be that he is more similar to Thomas than Scalia. If he continues this pattern it might be significant," said Ilya Somin, a libertarian law professor at George Mason University.

I'm not sure why there is outrage over making a school playground safer. Children are children no matter their religion. I know that may be a simplistic response, but when you break through all of the political and religious jargon in this thread, that's the bottom line.

Ruth's daily exercise program would run you into the ground. If we're being real, the real weekend at Bernies judge is Clarence Thomas. I honestly wonder if he's ever had an original thought before or if he just gets his opinions written by whatever corporation is operating him. Probably why he doesn't talk during hearings.

Also, I understand the ruling and think it's in the grey area of the law. Obviously it's against the constitution to discriminate against a religion, but I'm not sure that not allowing churches and other religious organizations to receive tax payer money is discriminatory.

If funding for this stuff is available to non government organizations, then it should be made available to any and all. Religious or not. It should be based on how it benefits the community, not the organizations religous, political,or social standings.

How exactly would a corporate subsidy of a Supreme Court justice work?

Re-election campaign? Nope.
Lobbying? Nope.
Job leverage for a certain district? Nope.

I'm left scratching my head here.

Not sure about the nuances of law.. but if a high school or a public park (publicly funded) opens it's gym or space to the Boys and Girls Club or the Boy Scouts or the local dance company for a performance and it's either free or a nominal fee, then they have to make the same accommodations open to religious groups who may also want to use those public facilities. That precedent has been set.

When it comes to access to public facilities, a religious group is treated the same as any other group that wants to use it... so it's not too big of a leap to say that would apply to public grants that are offered or competed on.

Yeah that's a fair take. I hope it doesn't become abused, but yeah, you're totally right.

You know he's married to a lobbyist right? He also worked as the lawyer for Monsanto on his early career path. He's also heard two cases on Monsanto instead of recusing himself for having a conflict of interest. He voted in Monsanto's favor twice.

Republicans to Ginsburg: 'You Are Bound by Law to Recuse Yourself' From Travel Ban Case

Dozens of Republicans are now calling on Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to recuse herself from the case looking into the constitutionality of President Trump's travel ban.

The letter signed by 58 House Republicans demands Justice Ginsburg step away from the proceedings due to her past critical comments toward Trump.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/27/ru...ns-write-letter

I'm not especially a Trump fan. But this was disgraceful behavior by a supreme court justice.

Aren't they supposed to be super models of impartiality?

How would you like this person deciding on your fate?

Ruth Hater Ginsburg gots to go!

I'd feel fine.

She didn't say anything that was wrong. Let's be honest here. And if the president is getting a pass for his childish behavior, I don't see anything wrong with a SC judge speaking his/her mind on it.

And we can't talk about anything being impartial when people actively support/attack judges based on if their liberal or conservative, and vote for presidents based on if they will appoint a conservative or liberal judge.

Yes, I think the SC should stay away from making these kinds of general statements (positive or negative) about a presidential candidate or a president, knowing full well that if elected, they are going to be in a position to rule on some of their presidential actions..

With that said, just disliking Trump is not a reason to force her to recuse herself.. unless she had specifically made comments regarding the law/rule/executive order she is now being asked to rule on.. if that was the case, then yes, I think she would appear biased toward that specific topic and she should recuse herself.

What if one is Muslim? Jewish? Hindu? Buddhist? Maybe, instead of teaching from the bible they teach a Religious Education class that teaches students about the world's main religions. Now that WOULD be very valuable, powerful education at its best.

EDIT: This reply by the way was based on the recent Kentucky rule about teaching from the bible. Probably in the wrong place.