Posted on 06/26/2017 7:54:09 AM PDT by GonzoII
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Missouri's decision to prevent a church-operated daycare and preschool from receiving funding from a state program was unconstitutional
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the Supreme Court's 7-2 opinion, which reversed the federal appeals court's ruling and sent the case back to the lower court for additional proceedings.
The dispute in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer involved a state program that provided funding to nonprofits to resurface playgrounds, which ran into conflict with a provision of the Missouri Constitution that blocks public funds from directly or indirectly assisting any church, sect or religion.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
WINNING!!!!!
Accepting gov’t monies for any reason is a prescription for disaster somewhere down the line. It always comes with strings attached.
Churches should free themselves from (perceived) dependence on taxpayer dollars.
Who were the two?
Probably Obama’s two appointed dummies.
If a religious organization can't pay for their own playground, then they shouldn't have a playground.
The only exception I might make to this is if the public money is aimed at addressing areas where the state has a legitimate public safety interest. If there was a state program to retrofit old buildings to meet current fire safety standards, for example, then I would have no objection if a church wants to avail themselves of these resources.
Muzzies are going to be demanding the same
Please read the case. Public safety is exactly the issue here, same as your example...
RBG and SS
The Lower Courts Decided that the Children of Christians aren’t entitled to the same Safety Measures as the Children of Liberals. The SCOTUS told them they were wrong.
It’s Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion.
Can anyone find the term “separation of Church and State” in the text of the United States Constitution? Me neither.
Impossible since they are the biggest welfare recipients with zero tax collections. They pay nothing towards the country which gives them a ton of welfare just a different name. Now they will get more.
I don't see how a private playground can have a similar "public safety" angle to it.
Perhaps I'm overlooking something here. Does this case involve a church that built and maintained a playground that is open to the public?
BOOM!
Love it!
I am fine with that....They should also start paying taxes rather than being tax exempt
This is NOT about funding a church. It is about denying funds to a facility BECAUSE it is a church.
Yes.
“If a religious organization can’t pay for their own playground, then they shouldn’t have a playground. “
This was a state-wide program to upgrade playgrounds at non-profits.
Then you’re going to start seeing federal funds going to Muslims outfits.
True, but they already grabbed the tar ball when the took a 501.C3 status when they were already separate and not liable for taxes in the first place.
I am a Christian fundamentalist, and I agree. I do not agree with this ruling. Expect to see some purported satan-worshipping group make use of it, just to show that they can (and to get the money-in their pockets).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.