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 ...
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.
Correct. Victory on the law.
Divest from ALL gubment money if you’re a church.
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.
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.
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.
What about the city/town providing school buses for kids that attend parochial schools?
.
I could not agree more with you on this issue. But I also agree with the court’s decision.
Really? The ability to tax is the ability to control and regulate. This exactly why religious organizations should remain exempt for taxation.
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.
I agree with you on the law, but my point is presented from the perspective of the church, not the taxpayer.
I’m aware of that——I was addressing the question to another FReeper who had an opinion on the subject of public funds.
.
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.
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.
Sotomayor and Ginsburg.
And what's to prevent them from getting it now?
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.
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.
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.
No difference.
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.