I don't know the answer to that question.
I don't believe that allowing grants to go to religious schools would run afoul of the Establishment clause, provided that all religions are treated equally in the process.
The issue is complicated by the fact that daycare centers likely constitute a large minority, if not majority, of recipients of the grant, and the vast majority of them are for-profit private enterprises. So I'm not sure the public versus private distinction is useful in this matter, though I believe the religious discrimination concerns reinforce why state constitutional prohibitions on diverting tax dollars to religious institutions are reasonable--or, requirements that religious institutions that opt in play by the same rules as non-religious institutions.
Or, at least, as vitus would argue, perhaps useful, but not particularly reasonable.
Trinity takes the public grant, and refuses to enroll a transgender kid, or a kid from a same-sex marriage, claiming religious objections. Regardless of how one feels about those issues, I think most people would agree that's problematic. There may be another way to accommodate all parties and not bar religious schools from receiving public grants, but the states that do prohibit it certainly won't have that particular problem to deal with.
The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
I don't believe that allowing grants to go to religious schools would run afoul of the Establishment clause, provided that all religions are treated equally in the process.
The issue is complicated by the fact that daycare centers likely constitute a large minority, if not majority, of recipients of the grant, and the vast majority of them are for-profit private enterprises. So I'm not sure the public versus private distinction is useful in this matter, though I believe the religious discrimination concerns reinforce why state constitutional prohibitions on diverting tax dollars to religious institutions are reasonable--or, requirements that religious institutions that opt in play by the same rules as non-religious institutions.
Or, at least, as vitus would argue, perhaps useful, but not particularly reasonable.
Trinity takes the public grant, and refuses to enroll a transgender kid, or a kid from a same-sex marriage, claiming religious objections. Regardless of how one feels about those issues, I think most people would agree that's problematic. There may be another way to accommodate all parties and not bar religious schools from receiving public grants, but the states that do prohibit it certainly won't have that particular problem to deal with.
The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W