A compelling interest is any excuse however flimsy (I don't give bad judges on this stuff much slack after Roe vs. Wade and its evil progeny (you should pardon the expression) that judges concoct to amend, in effect, the constitution to align with their unconstitutional agendas.
You are suggesting in your posts that you have some expertise, unmentioned as to trial law and/or constitutional law and/or the law of evidence. If you claim such knowledge:
1. Do you concede that this case is about a 12-year-old girl (Let's call her Jane) who went to a local Catholic parish Church in the Diocese of Baton Rouge to receive the sacrament of Penance (for traditionalists) or of "reconciliation" for more modern folk but in terms so plain that even the Church's secularist or other enemies can understand (whether they are willing or not): Janie went to Church to confess her sins to a priest and to receive a penance and absolution and forgiveness of her sins?
2. Are you willing to concede that the appropriate authority of each religion protected by the First Amendment (and not some bunch of politicians/judges) makes or interprets or applies, as you may prefer, its own internal rules which, in this case, involve the absolute obligation of Fr. Bayhi to REFUSE to testify in any way as to ANY confession to him as a priest? If Fr. Bayhi violates that obligation and that seal, he is automatically excommunicated and, IIRC, only the pope himself has the authority to lift that excommunication, which seems unlikely in this or any similar case.
3. If Mr. Child Molester himself were to confess each and every such sin that he has ever committed to Father Bayhi, do you concede that, "Mandatory Reporter" law or none, the priest CANNOT be required by any judge sworn to uphold the Constitution to testify as to even the fact that Mr. Molester has confessed his sins, much less as to the detailed list of sins? If not, constitutional language modifying the First Amendment to that effect, please.
4. Assuming that you have some familiarity with actual law, what do you think the rule against the admission of HEARSAY evidence is and how it would apply to testifying as to Mr. Molester's confession, if any? Leaving aside altogether the vital and protected First Amendment protections that protect the priest, the Church and the penitent, the only way to get such testimony would be the "statement against interest" exception to the HEARSAY rule, yes? 5. Next, take the HEARSAY rule analysis to the next level. It is NOT Mr. Molestor who confessed, it was 12-year-old Jane and she is NOT the victim of the crimes, if any. Her words, claims, imaginings, nightmares or whatever must, at best, be HEARSAY gathered from, at best, the actual victims, if any, as the Germans might say: nicht wahr (is it not true?)? What exception(s) to the HEARSAY rule would you apply to sanitize the HEARSAY stink all over such testimony by the priest as to what 12-year-old Jane MAY have confessed as to the bad behavior of Mr. Molester which was not perpetrated on Jane or in her presence?
6. But it gets worse for you. Unless someone claims that Jane WITNESSED the bad behavior alleged against Mr. Molestor, then Jane is not a proper witness herself, much less through a similarly ignorant third party (the priest) being dragged in perhaps because of residual credibility of a Roman collar in a Baton Rouge courtroom. So now, the priest is being asked to testify SAY what he HEARD Jane SAY she HEARD another SAY (who may well have heard from still others, but never mind). Have you an exception to the HEARSAY rule to cover this ridiculous but quite possible scenario? I did not think so. Neither does the Louisiana Supreme Court unless it claims an unlikely clairvoyance which is not an exception.
7. Judges or no judges, do you have a specific constitutional provision (give me the words and the reference) that somehow, hundreds of years in advance allows the Supreme Court of Louisiana to apply a "compelling interest" to ignore the First Amendment. Yeah, me neither!
8. Every state has a shield law: The First Amendment of the US Bill of Rights and most have their own redundant state constitutional provisions. If the Fourteenth Amendment can be used to force states to allow the mass murder of babies or to allow Barry to marry Larry, it will probably also protect Fr. Bayhi and the Diocese of Baton Rouge in any court not poisoned by the evil agenda of secular humanists. Nicht wahr?
9. The Constitution of the United States says what it means and means what it says. Do you agree? If not, why not?
10. Scalia's decision in the peyote case was unfortunate in its failure to vindicate the First Amendment. We ought not to let such decisions abrogate the basic freedoms of this nation regardless of the roots of current low-info hysteria.
11. Our rights are easy to defend when their exercise is nice and non-controversial and socially approved. A case arising in WWII-era New Haven, CT, in which or its vicinity, I lived most of my life, involved a Jehovah Witness who was wandering door-to-door in a Catholic working class ethnic neighborhood ostensibly to convert folks to his faith. While I find the Jehovah Witness faith a strange one, I always treat their door-to-door missionaries politely and even represented some as an attorney. This guy, though, had a portable record player which derided the Blessed Virgin Mary's virginity and made many curious and offensive claims contrary to Catholic doctrine. He was arrested for inciting a riot but freed by the SCOTUS, IIRC. I always counseled Catholic clients that their own freedom of speech is only as strong as that of the Witnesses or of pro-aborts or of "gay" rights groups. To aggravate, we need to willingly accept aggravation.
12. Wanna concede?
Thanks for your expertise and well thought out and written positions.
Nope. Those aren't the facts. The case is about an adult who heard of a crime, had an obligation to report, and did not do so.
Are you willing to concede that the appropriate authority of each religion protected by the First Amendment (and not some bunch of politicians/judges) makes or interprets or applies, as you may prefer, its own internal rules
Nope. The founders didn't believe that and neither does any sensible person. Your religion does not trump the law, and the Constitution does not say it does.
[Do you concede] the priest CANNOT be required by any judge sworn to uphold the Constitution to testify as to even the fact that Mr. Molester has confessed his sins
Does the word DUH mean anything to you? Clearly I do NOT concede such a point, or we are not having this conversation.
[So-called "point" #4 is a hash of nonsense about hearsay. So is so-called "point" #5. This case is not about hearsay. It is about the failure of a priest to report a crime of which he was informed.]
You need to familiarize yourself with the case. The female was one of the molester's victims. Please don't enter into an argument when you aren't even conversant with the basic facts.
[Point #6: it gets worse for me? No, it gets worse for you. It's amazing a person who writes so much meaningless, sanctimonious, piffle isn't able to even read the article he's commenting on]
The petition alleged that on three separate dates in July 2008, the child told Bayhi a church member had inappropriately touched her, kissed her and told her "he wanted to make love to her."
That's not something the child overheard. Read the article, or have mommy read it to you, and quit wasting my time.
The rest of the post is repeating what you think the Constitution says with no reference to actual case law. Please come back when you have serious arguments. Your editorializing about what you think the Constitution means is of no interest to me, and your "arguments" would be laughed right out of court. The First Amendment doesn't shield criminals, even if the criminals believe in Buddha, Jesus, The Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny.
Wanna actually do some reading?
Outstanding!