Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Re: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer [windywave]
Kagen in particular, or just that an Obama appointee would side with them? I'm not all that surprised either way.

Quote:
“The result of the State’s policy is nothing so dramatic as the denial of political office,” (Roberts) wrote. “But the exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot stand.”


I take the point, but Church has historically held itself out as other, as exemplified by their tax-exempt status. I wonder if that same status applies to their function as a school, and if so, I think Sotomayor makes an obviously concerning point. Should an entity that defines itself as other at the same time pay no taxes while receiving tax dollars for improvement to their infrastructure, regardless of its use?

Quote:
The Court today profoundly changes that relationship by holding, for the first time, that the Constitution requires the government to provide public funds directly to a church. Its decision slights both our precedents and our history, and its reasoning weakens this country’s longstanding commitment to a separation of church and state beneficial to both.


It should go without saying that I would have that same concern regarding any entity that would enjoy that same zero-pay-in, benefit-recipient status, religious or secular. But, of course, nothing around here can go without saying.

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
Last edited by: sphere: Jun 26, 17 10:43

Edit Log:

  • Post edited by sphere (Dawson Saddle) on Jun 26, 17 10:42
  • Post edited by sphere (Dawson Saddle) on Jun 26, 17 10:43