[Scenic Sounds]

Well, actually, I linked you to the Everson case not so much because I thought that you would be persuaded by Supreme Court opinions, but just to let you know that your argument had been made and rejected before and to give you an opportunity to become familiar with a Supreme Court decision with which Judge Moore was undoubtedly familiar when he was litigating his case.

BTW, the notion that, because of the Fourteenth Amendment, states are bound by the provisions of the First Amendment has also served as the foundation for some conservative legal arguments. For example, in 2000, the Supreme Court used the same principle when it told the State of New Jersey that the state could not require the Boy Scouts to hire gay scoutmasters because that would interfere with the scouts' First Amendment "rights of association." See Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000).

[TigersEye]

For example, in 2000, the Supreme Court used the same principle when it told the State of New Jersey that the state could not require the Boy Scouts to hire gay scoutmasters because that would interfere with the scouts' First Amendment "rights of association."

I would agree that the Boy Scouts or anyone else has a right to associate with whom they please but I would argue it under the 10th as an unenumerated right. Finding it in the 1st sounds every bit as twisted as Judge Thomas' decision about Roy's rock.