Reply With Quote
As long as there was no captive audience and no students were coerced into praying along, fine.
It's walking a fine line but still the correct ruling
Coach's on field prayer ruled 1st Amendment right.
As long as there was no captive audience and no students were coerced into praying along, fine.
It's walking a fine line but still the correct ruling
Trump did that!!!
Just like he murdered Roe & armed New Yorkers.
Trump President.
Not Clinton.
Did not force kids to comeCoach's on field prayer ruled 1st Amendment right.
They started it on their own
School district asked him to pray at events
Kalgan was against it thought it was bad for him to do because he determines kids playing time
But school did not mention that when they fired his ass
What about teams asking players to wear pride shirts when playing
You guys must not have played compe ive sports. When the coach encourages the team to do something, it's not optional. The contientious person who abstains marks himself for elimination as a stranger to team spirit.
(punches left, fluffs the right, honest broker stuff)
President Trump disagrees with you, Winester. & President Trump is running this court, sonny-boy.
While you were race baiting & hustling the country 24/7 that old man was packing that court one after another. Hit all 3 like ringin' a bell.
You ed up, kid.
You found out.
Let us proceed...
Looks like evangelizing, tbh
Doesn't really register on the concern meter for me. When it gets into tangible coercion with repercussions for non-participants, that's the action that should be punished.
Expecting a "history and tradition" test for religious liberty here
How about when SCOTUS tells Jews and Muslims to zip it because Christians are offended? Would that move the needle for you?
Construing this ruling as a broad grant of religious liberty would be naive. I'd love to he wrong about this.
SCOTUS just ruled that NY can't have show cause concealed carry restrictions because it doesn't comport with 18th century at udes, and that women have no right to privacy and bodily autonomy because no such right putatively existed in 1868. Not hard to imagine the same sort of historical backflips being performed to prefer Christianity and suppress the expression of other creeds.
predictable actions of a self proclaimed obama/biden voter
Of course it would, since it's a direct contradiction of this decision.
I see it more as a natural, hence predictable outgrowth.
SCOTUS is playing Calvinball, it's a mistake to take the reasoning in good faith.
We can only hope
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
