Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court: Blocking church daycare from state funding unconstitutional [7-2]
Washington Examiner ^ | Jun 26, 2017, 10:21 AM | Ryan Lovelace

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 1stamendment; firstamendment; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last
To: napscoordinator

And, some so-called “Christian” groups are a big factor in bringing over “refugees”, using public money, and then dumping these “refugees” on the tax payer.


21 posted on 06/26/2017 9:08:23 AM PDT by mrsmel (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Correct. Victory on the law.

Divest from ALL gubment money if you’re a church.


22 posted on 06/26/2017 9:09:39 AM PDT by LS ("Castles Made of Sand, Fall in the Sea . . . Eventually" (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
If a religious organization can't pay for their own playground, then they shouldn't have a playground.

That wasn't the issue. The issue is whether the government can treat religious non-profits differently than other non-profits. Doing so was blatantly discriminatory.

If taxpayers don't want money on playground safety, then they and their elected representatives can choose not to spend it on any non=profit and only public schools or public playgrounds.

23 posted on 06/26/2017 9:11:33 AM PDT by Kazan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Bodleian_Girl

You think they aren’t already? Do you think that a different ruling here would prevent them somehow? Christian churches should not RELY on government funding but that isn’t the issue. The issue is whether Christians may be discriminated against simply because they are Christians. There is no need to conflate two different issues to make the legal marginalization of Christianity any easier or a precedent.


24 posted on 06/26/2017 9:16:54 AM PDT by 1malumprohibitum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Trump20162020

The two dissenters were Ginsburg and Sotomayor. They have become the Court’s most Liberal Justices. Even Kagan, another far Left Justice, ruled that Missouri’s Blaine Amendment violated Trinity Lutheran’s religious freedom.


25 posted on 06/26/2017 9:45:50 AM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

What about the city/town providing school buses for kids that attend parochial schools?

.


26 posted on 06/26/2017 9:57:25 AM PDT by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mears
School buses for parochial school students is addressed in the Everson case, cited in the ruling. SCOTUS ruled it acceptable back in the 1940s.
27 posted on 06/26/2017 10:14:39 AM PDT by GCC Catholic (Trump doesn't suffer fools, but fools will suffer Trump. Make America Great Again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: MichaelCorleone

I could not agree more with you on this issue. But I also agree with the court’s decision.


28 posted on 06/26/2017 10:16:41 AM PDT by CityCenter (Words have specific meanings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

Really? The ability to tax is the ability to control and regulate. This exactly why religious organizations should remain exempt for taxation.


29 posted on 06/26/2017 10:18:56 AM PDT by CityCenter (Words have specific meanings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TexasGator

I understand that. The USSC ruling was the correct one, but I believe it is never a good idea for churches to accept taxpayer funds unless there is a serious compelling need for it.


30 posted on 06/26/2017 10:19:12 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris." -- President Trump, 6/1/2017)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Kazan

I agree with you on the law, but my point is presented from the perspective of the church, not the taxpayer.


31 posted on 06/26/2017 10:21:14 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris." -- President Trump, 6/1/2017)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GCC Catholic

I’m aware of that——I was addressing the question to another FReeper who had an opinion on the subject of public funds.

.


32 posted on 06/26/2017 10:22:14 AM PDT by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Mears

I would have the same position on that. That is absolutely permitted under the law, but I don’t necessarily think it’s a good idea.


33 posted on 06/26/2017 10:22:29 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris." -- President Trump, 6/1/2017)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

You are right and it’s exactly why I objected the GWB’s program to have the gubmint partner with church. This is mixing oil with water and if they are wise, churches ought to run from these programs. That said, if they do decide to take advantage, they should be treated like any other nonprofit.


34 posted on 06/26/2017 10:24:05 AM PDT by CityCenter (Words have specific meanings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Trump20162020
Who were the two?

Sotomayor and Ginsburg.

35 posted on 06/26/2017 10:26:22 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
Muzzies are going to be demanding the same

And what's to prevent them from getting it now?

36 posted on 06/26/2017 10:28:06 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

I guess nothing. If they do get any money for schools, it should come with strings: flag salute in the morning, swear allegiance to the United States, condemn terrorist violence, turn in those advocating terror, and no sharia law.


37 posted on 06/26/2017 10:33:13 AM PDT by doug from upland (Mayflower Hotel --- hotel of choice for Dem officials and their hookers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: CityCenter

Exactly. This issue reared its head in the New York City area with a private bus company that serves commuters from some areas with a heavy Orthodox Jewish population. The bus company is eligible for public funds just like any other non-profit organization, and gets subsidized to some degree. There was a big legal battle a few years ago because the company was seating the male and female passengers separately under Jewish law, and one of the female passengers objected and filed a lawsuit over it. The bus company put its own religious freedom at risk when it began accepting the public funds.


38 posted on 06/26/2017 10:36:48 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris." -- President Trump, 6/1/2017)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Whether or not it is right , legal, or Constitutional for the state to give money to churches for anything, no church should accept government money. At all. For anything.


39 posted on 06/26/2017 10:38:11 AM PDT by arthurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasGator

No difference.


40 posted on 06/26/2017 10:40:13 AM PDT by arthurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson