Love to know how the first amendment protects either of those things. Isn't the first explicitly AGAINST state support of religion

7/8/2020 11:23:27 AM

The SC literally provides a document supporting their reasoning. If you were genuinely interested, you could start there.

But, because I'm a nice guy, I'll give you a brief summary. Today's ruling upheld the principle that faith-based organizations have the constitutional right to hire those who share the organization's beliefs free from interference from the government and courts.

Quote :

"Isn't the first explicitly AGAINST state support of religion"

Uh no. You have it backwards. The 1st limits the power the government can impose on religious institutions.
[Edited on July 8, 2020 at 11:42 AM. Reason : 1]

[Edited on July 8, 2020 at 11:45 AM. Reason : 1]

7/8/2020 11:40:40 AM

This is a message board if you don't want to explain your views don't engage

But you're missing half of first

Quote :

"The Establishment clause prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion. The precise definition of "establishment" is unclear. Historically, it meant prohibiting state-sponsored churches, such as the Church of England. Today, what constitutes an "establishment of religion" is often governed under the three-part test set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Under the "Lemon" test, government can assist religion only if (1) the primary purpose of the assistance is secular, (2) the assistance must neither promote nor inhibit religion, and (3) there is no excessive entanglement between church and state."

Obviously you can argue whether voting for vouchers fit that bill but the First def covers that.

7/8/2020 12:17:18 PM

Few things really capture the underlying rot of institutional Christianity like the local Catholic school firing an employee because she got breast cancer, then holding hands with federalist society nihilist to push a constitutional loophole all the way to SCOTUS To get away with it.

7/8/2020 6:19:59 PM

Definitely an unbiased and rational take.

Quote :

"a constitutional loophole"

The 1st amendment is a pretty big loophole.

7/9/2020 9:05:51 AM

Poor Donnie

7/9/2020 10:25:00 AM

^could've been better. It’s obvious Congress has the ability to subpoena presidents too. I will have to do some more reading on that decision.

^^If the employee in question had been fired for teaching satanism in class the decision would make sense. Instead she was fired for having breast cancer and then the school claimed they didn’t like some religious aspect of her teaching to skirt labor law. That’s the loophole.

Its a real model of Christian charity, dumping an employee when they get sick. Talk about winning the battle but losing the war. The same dumb fuckers cheering this decision will turn around and wonder why church membership is collapsing.

7/9/2020 10:49:22 AM

^, ^^i haven't dug in but the blurb I read said they kicked it back to lower courts, so we won't see anything before election day

7/9/2020 11:06:24 AM

RBG in the hospital again.

7/14/2020 5:47:52 PM

Quote :

"??SCOTUS allows Florida's pay-to-vote scheme, which disenfranchises thousands of ex-felons, to take effect. This likely means thousands of Floridians will be unable to vote in the 2020 election due to lack of money. Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan dissent. I'll have a link soon. https://t.co/FyX1VzNS6U"

7/16/2020 6:31:59 PM

Garbage

7/16/2020 6:36:27 PM

“Ex-felons” stopped reading right there

7/16/2020 6:36:43 PM

^weirdest brag ever

7/16/2020 6:56:30 PM

Not bragging, just ex-felon is not an actual thing and I don’t support felons having the ability to vote. If the actual problem was having to pay to vote as a citizen without a felony record then I’d have a problem.

When someone says “ex-felon” they have an agenda


[Edited on July 16, 2020 at 8:49 PM. Reason : .]

7/16/2020 8:21:57 PM

So you think someone who has served their time doesn't deserve to get their rights back?

7/16/2020 9:01:50 PM

What's the ex-felon agenda?

7/16/2020 9:08:14 PM

Translation: He doesn't think people who committed crime in the past should have rights like you and me and the term "ex-felon" is an attempt to humanize people who committed a crime in the past. He'd rather just call them "criminals" because that makes it easier to justify their lack of rights.

7/16/2020 9:12:18 PM

I was woefully misunderstanding of this issue. I do agree that felons who have served their time should be able to vote, I don’t have a problem with the state making court fees and fines associated with felony being part of the deal to reinstate voting rights.

[Edited on July 16, 2020 at 9:15 PM. Reason : I apologize to TWW]

7/16/2020 9:14:40 PM

Ha no worries.

The problems are
1) we (FL residents) voted by a pretty large margin (65%) to give the rights to people who had included their sentence, there was zero language about court fees. However republican govt realized a large % of those would be black and black people largely vote democrat, so they decided to try to reduce the damage
2) the state frequently doesn't know and/or won't communicate who owes what fees to what organizations, see quote below

Quote :

"A key fact of this case which is too often ignored: Florida *does not know how much court debt ex-felons owe.* And it has no intention of figuring it out. The state has forced ex-felons to pay up—then refused to tell them how much they must pay. https://t.co/1ImLIKOOMX https://t.co/yAyXouRaoh "

It's a poll tax, and one that even those that can afford to pay may not be be allowed the opportunity. The citizens of the state voted to give voting rights, the state govt said "not so fast" and the SCOTUS favored the state govt.



Here is text of the amendment

Quote :

"A "yes" vote supported this amendment to automatically restore the right to vote for people with prior felony convictions, except those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense, upon completion of their sentences, including prison, parole, and probation. "

[Edited on July 16, 2020 at 10:18 PM. Reason : E]

7/16/2020 10:16:15 PM

Went here to cheer myself up a little
https://wegotthevote.org/finesandfees/

7/16/2020 11:28:19 PM

Quote :

"I don’t support felons having the ability to vote. July 16, 2020 at 8:49 PM"

Quote :

"I do agree that felons who have served their time should be able to vote July 16, 2020 at 9:15 PM"

That was fast! Appreciate the course correction tho

Quote :

"I don’t have a problem with the state making court fees and fines associated with felony being part of the deal to reinstate voting rights."

Thing is either they have the constitutional right or they don't. I was going to add some words but ^^ sums it up perfectly. It's clearly a poll tax. But I will add a link.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/recalling-era-when-color-your-skin-meant-you-paid-vote-180958469/

Quote :

"Southern legislators began to find ways of limiting African-American rights, and one of the major ways was to enact barriers to prevent them from voting. A series of laws were passed state by state in the south, ranging from literacy tests to poll taxes. This was an effort to keep blacks as far out of politics as possible without violating the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibited governments in the nation from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen’s “race, color or previous condition of servitude.”"

This is clearly that. 150 years later.

7/17/2020 12:22:54 AM

Ok a lot of blah blah later...let felons vote. Florida is a seriously fucked up community anyways.

7/17/2020 1:20:35 AM

Let citizens vote

7/17/2020 12:04:14 PM

I'm all for felons being able to vote after they've served their time, however, why are you trying to make it seem like felon isn't the proper nomenclature to use here?

7/17/2020 4:33:32 PM

I may have misinterpreted sttexan but his post implies there is a diff bw felons that have completed their sentence and normal citizens when it comes to voting rights. The Florida constitution says there is no difference. It may be technically correct but the voters said its irrelevant.

7/17/2020 4:46:34 PM

Some movement I guess. NYT used it too.

7/17/2020 7:00:32 PM

I think felons that have served their time should be allowed to vote

7/17/2020 10:25:10 PM

Then I misinterpreted your post, my bad

7/17/2020 11:49:29 PM

i wonder who trumps top pick is... if something happens to RGB right now? is it still that amy woman?

7/18/2020 8:26:31 AM

Doesn't matter, McConnell would never go back on his statement of saying a president shouldn't get a pick in an election year. Surely not.

7/18/2020 8:29:33 AM

I think she can hang on for 7 more months.

[Edited on July 18, 2020 at 8:48 AM. Reason : This is the 5th time she's had cancer ]

7/18/2020 8:47:41 AM

but wasnt she in for an infection? i figured at this point she was just immune to cancer.

7/18/2020 1:43:55 PM

She was. Not sure the connection as to why they released the cancer info now. Guess as a result of some imaging they did.

7/18/2020 9:47:35 PM

This is 0% shocking to anyone with active brain waves, but Republicans already laying the track to justify replacing RBG instead of waiting for election, or even after the election

Quote :

"Lol they are literally just making shit up. Unbelievable. https://t.co/LPrmG3hTDm"

7/22/2020 8:00:11 PM

From Neil Gorsuch's concurring opinion in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor of New York:



Perhaps it's due to my own bias, but all of these examples seem more essential than attending a church service that could easily be attended remotely.

[Edited on November 26, 2020 at 10:24 AM. Reason : ]

11/26/2020 10:23:34 AM

Party at the bicycle repair shop! Who's with me?!

11/26/2020 12:17:49 PM

"It is always fine" seems to be doing a lot of strawmanning in that quote.

11/26/2020 12:35:03 PM

^^^seems perfectly apples to apples to me. I often spend an hour in the bike repair shop side by side with 50 to 100 other people

11/26/2020 12:57:06 PM

The COVID restrictions are full of hypocrisy. The big superstores had enough lobbying power to get full exemptions throughout the entire pandemic. Government officials are bought and paid for and churches didn't open up the checkbook.

11/26/2020 2:15:59 PM

That’s such a weak opinion. How did they manage to write that and not realize how dumb it sounds?

11/26/2020 5:42:30 PM

Or maybe churches are gatherings of large crowds of people, in very close quarters, singing and mingling for hours, unlike all the other examples that Gorsuch cited in his illogical opinion. I remember when I thought that judges, especially supreme court justices were supposed to be "brilliant minds"

[Edited on November 26, 2020 at 5:49 PM. Reason : ^ exactly]

11/26/2020 5:48:02 PM

^^rofl

11/26/2020 6:14:25 PM

I'm sympathetic to the general argument, given that occupancy limits generally seem to have been taken into account for businesses, but not for religious organizations. At the same time, I get that the activities taking place within a church are different than what's taking place inside a bicycle shop, so the risk profiles are different. Such laws would probably survive scrutiny better if they focused on the activity profiles of gatherings instead of the business/gathering type.

In a better world, the government wouldn't have to mandate common fucking sense. Charlotte practically had to shut down a church where, IIRC, 10+ people died as a result of a single service, and the church refused to make any changes.

11/26/2020 10:12:58 PM

You can't tell me what to do. I've got religion!

11/28/2020 9:27:05 AM

Reinstated juvenile life without parole today

4/22/2021 11:39:38 AM

18 and life to go. . .

4/22/2021 1:09:16 PM

4/22/2021 9:12:21 PM

4/23/2021 7:09:43 AM

I don't know if this is a SCOTUS or liberal media post but it's interesting how much coverage the relatively narrow school speech and ncaa sports decisions received compared to the union busting decision.

6/24/2021 12:27:13 PM

Just hanging out destroying the voting rights act, how bout you

7/1/2021 10:56:05 AM