Kennedy v. Bremerton

Football coach requested by district to tone down his motivational prayers, but mainly to quit praying at the fifty after games (where he often prayed for both teams, raising each team's helmet up). He does for a bit, then publicly announces he will defy the district. His next midfield prayer he is joined by a stampeding crowd.

There are a **** ton of amicus briefs in this one.

I don't think this court will find coercion. Concern about praying time equals playing time seems easy to rebut.

The district apparently is basing their case on people getting jostled in the rush to the field. Seems weak.

But a **** ton of amicus briefs.

quash said:

---

Kennedy v. Bremerton

Football coach requested by district to tone down his motivational prayers, but mainly to quit praying at the fifty after games (where he often prayed for both teams, raising each team's helmet up). He does for a bit, then publicly announces he will defy the district. His next midfield prayer he is joined by a stampeding crowd.

There are a **** ton of amicus briefs in this one.

I don't think this court will find coercion. Concern about praying time equals playing time seems easy to rebut.

The district apparently is basing their case on people getting jostled in the rush to the field. Seems weak.

But a **** ton of amicus briefs.

---

Thanks for posting. I missed it. It is from Ninth Circuit out of Washington State
Free exercise v Establishment Clause
The questions presented:
"1. Whether a public-school employee who says a brief, quiet prayer by himself while at school and visible to students is engaged in government speech that lacks any First Amendment protection.
"2. Whether, assuming that such religious expression is private and protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, the Establishment Clause nevertheless compels public schools to prohibit it."[url=https://ballotpedia.org/Kennedy_v._Bremerton_School_District#cite_note-qp-1][1][/url]

Here is a good summary:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/20-35222/20-35222-2021-03-18.html
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the school district in an action brought by plaintiff, a former high school football coach, alleging violation of his rights under the First Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when the school district prohibited him from praying at the end of football games while kneeling on the fifty-yard line, surrounded by players and occasionally community members.

The panel held that the school district's allowance of plaintiff's conduct would violate the Establishment Clause and thus the school district's efforts to prevent the conduct did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights nor his rights under Title VII. The panel rejected plaintiff's free speech and free exercise claims, concluding that the record before it and binding Supreme Court precedent compel the conclusion that the school district would have violated the Establishment Clause by allowing plaintiff to pray at the conclusion of football games, in the center of the field, with students who felt pressured to join him. Furthermore, plaintiff's attempts to draw nationwide attention to his challenge to the school district compels the conclusion that he was not engaging in private prayer, but was instead engaging in public speech of an overtly religious nature while performing his job duties. In this case, the school district tried to reach an accommodation for plaintiff, but that was spurned by his insisting that he be allowed to pray immediately after the conclusion of each game, likely surrounded by students who felt pressured to join him.

The panel also concluded that plaintiff's Title VII claims alleging failure to rehire, disparate treatment, failure to accommodate and retaliation failed. The panel explained that plaintiff did not show that he was adequately performing his job; plaintiff's conduct is clearly dissimilar to the other personal activities of assistant coaches he cites and thus he cannot make out a prima facie case of disparate treatment; the school district could not reasonably accommodate plaintiff's practice without undue hardship; and the school district had a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its adverse employment actions.

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Kennedy v. Bremerton

Football coach requested by district to tone down his motivational prayers, but mainly to quit praying at the fifty after games (where he often prayed for both teams, raising each team's helmet up). He does for a bit, then publicly announces he will defy the district. His next midfield prayer he is joined by a stampeding crowd.

There are a **** ton of amicus briefs in this one.

I don't think this court will find coercion. Concern about praying time equals playing time seems easy to rebut.

The district apparently is basing their case on people getting jostled in the rush to the field. Seems weak.

But a **** ton of amicus briefs.

---

Thanks for posting. I missed it. It is from Ninth Circuit out of Washington State
Free exercise v Establishment Clause
The questions presented:
"1. Whether a public-school employee who says a brief, quiet prayer by himself while at school and visible to students is engaged in government speech that lacks any First Amendment protection.
"2. Whether, assuming that such religious expression is private and protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, the Establishment Clause nevertheless compels public schools to prohibit it."[url=https://ballotpedia.org/Kennedy_v._Bremerton_School_District#cite_note-qp-1][1][/url]

Here is a good summary:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/20-35222/20-35222-2021-03-18.html
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the school district in an action brought by plaintiff, a former high school football coach, alleging violation of his rights under the First Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when the school district prohibited him from praying at the end of football games while kneeling on the fifty-yard line, surrounded by players and occasionally community members.

The panel held that the school district's allowance of plaintiff's conduct would violate the Establishment Clause and thus the school district's efforts to prevent the conduct did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights nor his rights under Title VII. The panel rejected plaintiff's free speech and free exercise claims, concluding that the record before it and binding Supreme Court precedent compel the conclusion that the school district would have violated the Establishment Clause by allowing plaintiff to pray at the conclusion of football games, in the center of the field, with students who felt pressured to join him. Furthermore, plaintiff's attempts to draw nationwide attention to his challenge to the school district compels the conclusion that he was not engaging in private prayer, but was instead engaging in public speech of an overtly religious nature while performing his job duties. In this case, the school district tried to reach an accommodation for plaintiff, but that was spurned by his insisting that he be allowed to pray immediately after the conclusion of each game, likely surrounded by students who felt pressured to join him.

The panel also concluded that plaintiff's Title VII claims alleging failure to rehire, disparate treatment, failure to accommodate and retaliation failed. The panel explained that plaintiff did not show that he was adequately performing his job; plaintiff's conduct is clearly dissimilar to the other personal activities of assistant coaches he cites and thus he cannot make out a prima facie case of disparate treatment; the school district could not reasonably accommodate plaintiff's practice without undue hardship; and the school district had a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its adverse employment actions.

---

Yeah, he won't win on his disparate treatment claims, but that "legitimate nondiscrimination reason" is people rushing the field. After a football game. Waaay after the clock had actually expired...

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Kennedy v. Bremerton

Football coach requested by district to tone down his motivational prayers, but mainly to quit praying at the fifty after games (where he often prayed for both teams, raising each team's helmet up). He does for a bit, then publicly announces he will defy the district. His next midfield prayer he is joined by a stampeding crowd.

There are a **** ton of amicus briefs in this one.

I don't think this court will find coercion. Concern about praying time equals playing time seems easy to rebut.

The district apparently is basing their case on people getting jostled in the rush to the field. Seems weak.

But a **** ton of amicus briefs.

---

Thanks for posting. I missed it. It is from Ninth Circuit out of Washington State
Free exercise v Establishment Clause
The questions presented:
"1. Whether a public-school employee who says a brief, quiet prayer by himself while at school and visible to students is engaged in government speech that lacks any First Amendment protection.
"2. Whether, assuming that such religious expression is private and protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, the Establishment Clause nevertheless compels public schools to prohibit it."[url=https://ballotpedia.org/Kennedy_v._Bremerton_School_District#cite_note-qp-1][1][/url]

Here is a good summary:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/20-35222/20-35222-2021-03-18.html
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the school district in an action brought by plaintiff, a former high school football coach, alleging violation of his rights under the First Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when the school district prohibited him from praying at the end of football games while kneeling on the fifty-yard line, surrounded by players and occasionally community members.

The panel held that the school district's allowance of plaintiff's conduct would violate the Establishment Clause and thus the school district's efforts to prevent the conduct did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights nor his rights under Title VII. The panel rejected plaintiff's free speech and free exercise claims, concluding that the record before it and binding Supreme Court precedent compel the conclusion that the school district would have violated the Establishment Clause by allowing plaintiff to pray at the conclusion of football games, in the center of the field, with students who felt pressured to join him. Furthermore, plaintiff's attempts to draw nationwide attention to his challenge to the school district compels the conclusion that he was not engaging in private prayer, but was instead engaging in public speech of an overtly religious nature while performing his job duties. In this case, the school district tried to reach an accommodation for plaintiff, but that was spurned by his insisting that he be allowed to pray immediately after the conclusion of each game, likely surrounded by students who felt pressured to join him.

The panel also concluded that plaintiff's Title VII claims alleging failure to rehire, disparate treatment, failure to accommodate and retaliation failed. The panel explained that plaintiff did not show that he was adequately performing his job; plaintiff's conduct is clearly dissimilar to the other personal activities of assistant coaches he cites and thus he cannot make out a prima facie case of disparate treatment; the school district could not reasonably accommodate plaintiff's practice without undue hardship; and the school district had a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its adverse employment actions.

---

Yeah, he won't win on his disparate treatment claims, but that "legitimate nondiscrimination reason" is people rushing the field. After a football game. Waaay after the clock had actually expired...

---

The whole notion that private speech can be restricted after an official event (not during) by a government employee is dubious, regardless of however long the idea has been used as a legal cudgel with which to beat down Christianity.

I would be curious why people rushed the field. Does anyone have clarity on that? Was it in opposition to the prayer, in support of it or something completely disconnected? If it was in support, this seems like simply a culture war issue where the left is afraid that there may be some grass roots movement that could take hold and popularize morality they hate.

---

Supporters, and yes, culture warriors.

Kennedy sought publicity for his stunt, plainly a poke at his employer. I think he'll prevail here but he still needs to get back in his closet. Matt 6:6

quash said:

---

Kennedy v. Bremerton

Football coach requested by district to tone down his motivational prayers, but mainly to quit praying at the fifty after games (where he often prayed for both teams, raising each team's helmet up). He does for a bit, then publicly announces he will defy the district. His next midfield prayer he is joined by a stampeding crowd.

There are a **** ton of amicus briefs in this one.

I don't think this court will find coercion. Concern about praying time equals playing time seems easy to rebut.

The district apparently is basing their case on people getting jostled in the rush to the field. Seems weak.

But a **** ton of amicus briefs.

---

The problem is that he's imposing his faith on his team in an activity that's basically compulsory.

Public school teachers can't and shouldn't lead prayers in their classes and coaches can't and shouldn't either.

But in today's SCOTUS atmosphere where free exercise is being exalted over no establishment, he just might prevail.

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Kennedy v. Bremerton

Football coach requested by district to tone down his motivational prayers, but mainly to quit praying at the fifty after games (where he often prayed for both teams, raising each team's helmet up). He does for a bit, then publicly announces he will defy the district. His next midfield prayer he is joined by a stampeding crowd.

There are a **** ton of amicus briefs in this one.

I don't think this court will find coercion. Concern about praying time equals playing time seems easy to rebut.

The district apparently is basing their case on people getting jostled in the rush to the field. Seems weak.

But a **** ton of amicus briefs.

---

Thanks for posting. I missed it. It is from Ninth Circuit out of Washington State
Free exercise v Establishment Clause
The questions presented:
"1. Whether a public-school employee who says a brief, quiet prayer by himself while at school and visible to students is engaged in government speech that lacks any First Amendment protection.
"2. Whether, assuming that such religious expression is private and protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, the Establishment Clause nevertheless compels public schools to prohibit it."[url=https://ballotpedia.org/Kennedy_v._Bremerton_School_District#cite_note-qp-1][1][/url]

Here is a good summary:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/20-35222/20-35222-2021-03-18.html
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the school district in an action brought by plaintiff, a former high school football coach, alleging violation of his rights under the First Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when the school district prohibited him from praying at the end of football games while kneeling on the fifty-yard line, surrounded by players and occasionally community members.

The panel held that the school district's allowance of plaintiff's conduct would violate the Establishment Clause and thus the school district's efforts to prevent the conduct did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights nor his rights under Title VII. The panel rejected plaintiff's free speech and free exercise claims, concluding that the record before it and binding Supreme Court precedent compel the conclusion that the school district would have violated the Establishment Clause by allowing plaintiff to pray at the conclusion of football games, in the center of the field, with students who felt pressured to join him. Furthermore, plaintiff's attempts to draw nationwide attention to his challenge to the school district compels the conclusion that he was not engaging in private prayer, but was instead engaging in public speech of an overtly religious nature while performing his job duties. In this case, the school district tried to reach an accommodation for plaintiff, but that was spurned by his insisting that he be allowed to pray immediately after the conclusion of each game, likely surrounded by students who felt pressured to join him.

The panel also concluded that plaintiff's Title VII claims alleging failure to rehire, disparate treatment, failure to accommodate and retaliation failed. The panel explained that plaintiff did not show that he was adequately performing his job; plaintiff's conduct is clearly dissimilar to the other personal activities of assistant coaches he cites and thus he cannot make out a prima facie case of disparate treatment; the school district could not reasonably accommodate plaintiff's practice without undue hardship; and the school district had a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its adverse employment actions.

---

Exactly right decision.

C. Jordan said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Kennedy v. Bremerton

Football coach requested by district to tone down his motivational prayers, but mainly to quit praying at the fifty after games (where he often prayed for both teams, raising each team's helmet up). He does for a bit, then publicly announces he will defy the district. His next midfield prayer he is joined by a stampeding crowd.

There are a **** ton of amicus briefs in this one.

I don't think this court will find coercion. Concern about praying time equals playing time seems easy to rebut.

The district apparently is basing their case on people getting jostled in the rush to the field. Seems weak.

But a **** ton of amicus briefs.

---

Thanks for posting. I missed it. It is from Ninth Circuit out of Washington State
Free exercise v Establishment Clause
The questions presented:
"1. Whether a public-school employee who says a brief, quiet prayer by himself while at school and visible to students is engaged in government speech that lacks any First Amendment protection.
"2. Whether, assuming that such religious expression is private and protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, the Establishment Clause nevertheless compels public schools to prohibit it."[url=https://ballotpedia.org/Kennedy_v._Bremerton_School_District#cite_note-qp-1][1][/url]

Here is a good summary:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/20-35222/20-35222-2021-03-18.html
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the school district in an action brought by plaintiff, a former high school football coach, alleging violation of his rights under the First Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when the school district prohibited him from praying at the end of football games while kneeling on the fifty-yard line, surrounded by players and occasionally community members.

The panel held that the school district's allowance of plaintiff's conduct would violate the Establishment Clause and thus the school district's efforts to prevent the conduct did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights nor his rights under Title VII. The panel rejected plaintiff's free speech and free exercise claims, concluding that the record before it and binding Supreme Court precedent compel the conclusion that the school district would have violated the Establishment Clause by allowing plaintiff to pray at the conclusion of football games, in the center of the field, with students who felt pressured to join him. Furthermore, plaintiff's attempts to draw nationwide attention to his challenge to the school district compels the conclusion that he was not engaging in private prayer, but was instead engaging in public speech of an overtly religious nature while performing his job duties. In this case, the school district tried to reach an accommodation for plaintiff, but that was spurned by his insisting that he be allowed to pray immediately after the conclusion of each game, likely surrounded by students who felt pressured to join him.

The panel also concluded that plaintiff's Title VII claims alleging failure to rehire, disparate treatment, failure to accommodate and retaliation failed. The panel explained that plaintiff did not show that he was adequately performing his job; plaintiff's conduct is clearly dissimilar to the other personal activities of assistant coaches he cites and thus he cannot make out a prima facie case of disparate treatment; the school district could not reasonably accommodate plaintiff's practice without undue hardship; and the school district had a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its adverse employment actions.

---

Yeah, he won't win on his disparate treatment claims, but that "legitimate nondiscrimination reason" is people rushing the field. After a football game. Waaay after the clock had actually expired...

---

The whole notion that private speech can be restricted after an official event (not during) by a government employee is dubious, regardless of however long the idea has been used as a legal cudgel with which to beat down Christianity.

I would be curious why people rushed the field. Does anyone have clarity on that? Was it in opposition to the prayer, in support of it or something completely disconnected? If it was in support, this seems like simply a culture war issue where the left is afraid that there may be some grass roots movement that could take hold and popularize morality they hate.

---

Supporters, and yes, culture warriors.

Kennedy sought publicity for his stunt, plainly a poke at his employer. I think he'll prevail here but he still needs to get back in his closet. Matt 6:6

---

Community prayer is not unheard of in the Bible, is it? Where two or more are gathered, and all that. Surely a private moment joined by hundreds of other private moments of prayer are acceptable to Christ.

The culture war aspect of this is the real issue. I think what he did is valid and necessary to help bolster the Christian culture in America. Christians have given up on culture and that needs to stop. His private gesture was both a prayer to his God and a quiet signal that he isn't willing to give up on Christ in the public square....a quiet signal that became amplified. Good on him.

---

Community prayer is great but not when students are involuntarily subjected to it by an arm of the state.

That's not prayer anyway.

If he had prayed to Allah and told the students to give him the glory, would you feel the same.

Christianity is not established in the Constitution.

We would go far in promoting Christian culture in our country if we started to act like Christ.

That would be refreshing.

---

Would you feel the same if the prayer was to Allah? Would you have been supporting a case to stop the prayer because a public employee was praying on his own?

As to Christianity in the Constitution... it basically is. The founders just didn't want a Church of England situation but probably would have specified Christianity or at least worded the 1st amendment differently if they knew the fights going on now.

Canon said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Kennedy v. Bremerton

Football coach requested by district to tone down his motivational prayers, but mainly to quit praying at the fifty after games (where he often prayed for both teams, raising each team's helmet up). He does for a bit, then publicly announces he will defy the district. His next midfield prayer he is joined by a stampeding crowd.

There are a **** ton of amicus briefs in this one.

I don't think this court will find coercion. Concern about praying time equals playing time seems easy to rebut.

The district apparently is basing their case on people getting jostled in the rush to the field. Seems weak.

But a **** ton of amicus briefs.

---

Thanks for posting. I missed it. It is from Ninth Circuit out of Washington State
Free exercise v Establishment Clause
The questions presented:
"1. Whether a public-school employee who says a brief, quiet prayer by himself while at school and visible to students is engaged in government speech that lacks any First Amendment protection.
"2. Whether, assuming that such religious expression is private and protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, the Establishment Clause nevertheless compels public schools to prohibit it."[url=https://ballotpedia.org/Kennedy_v._Bremerton_School_District#cite_note-qp-1][1][/url]

Here is a good summary:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/20-35222/20-35222-2021-03-18.html
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the school district in an action brought by plaintiff, a former high school football coach, alleging violation of his rights under the First Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when the school district prohibited him from praying at the end of football games while kneeling on the fifty-yard line, surrounded by players and occasionally community members.

The panel held that the school district's allowance of plaintiff's conduct would violate the Establishment Clause and thus the school district's efforts to prevent the conduct did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights nor his rights under Title VII. The panel rejected plaintiff's free speech and free exercise claims, concluding that the record before it and binding Supreme Court precedent compel the conclusion that the school district would have violated the Establishment Clause by allowing plaintiff to pray at the conclusion of football games, in the center of the field, with students who felt pressured to join him. Furthermore, plaintiff's attempts to draw nationwide attention to his challenge to the school district compels the conclusion that he was not engaging in private prayer, but was instead engaging in public speech of an overtly religious nature while performing his job duties. In this case, the school district tried to reach an accommodation for plaintiff, but that was spurned by his insisting that he be allowed to pray immediately after the conclusion of each game, likely surrounded by students who felt pressured to join him.

The panel also concluded that plaintiff's Title VII claims alleging failure to rehire, disparate treatment, failure to accommodate and retaliation failed. The panel explained that plaintiff did not show that he was adequately performing his job; plaintiff's conduct is clearly dissimilar to the other personal activities of assistant coaches he cites and thus he cannot make out a prima facie case of disparate treatment; the school district could not reasonably accommodate plaintiff's practice without undue hardship; and the school district had a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its adverse employment actions.

---

Yeah, he won't win on his disparate treatment claims, but that "legitimate nondiscrimination reason" is people rushing the field. After a football game. Waaay after the clock had actually expired...

---

The whole notion that private speech can be restricted after an official event (not during) by a government employee is dubious, regardless of however long the idea has been used as a legal cudgel with which to beat down Christianity.

I would be curious why people rushed the field. Does anyone have clarity on that? Was it in opposition to the prayer, in support of it or something completely disconnected? If it was in support, this seems like simply a culture war issue where the left is afraid that there may be some grass roots movement that could take hold and popularize morality they hate.

---

Supporters, and yes, culture warriors.

Kennedy sought publicity for his stunt, plainly a poke at his employer. I think he'll prevail here but he still needs to get back in his closet. Matt 6:6

---

Community prayer is not unheard of in the Bible, is it? Where two or more are gathered, and all that. Surely a private moment joined by hundreds of other private moments of prayer are acceptable to Christ.

The culture war aspect of this is the real issue. I think what he did is valid and necessary to help bolster the Christian culture in America. Christians have given up on culture and that needs to stop. His private gesture was both a prayer to his God and a quiet signal that he isn't willing to give up on Christ in the public square....a quiet signal that became amplified. Good on him.

---

Community prayer is great but not when students are involuntarily subjected to it by an arm of the state.

That's not prayer anyway.

If he had prayed to Allah and told the students to give him the glory, would you feel the same.

Christianity is not established in the Constitution.

We would go far in promoting Christian culture in our country if we started to act like Christ.

That would be refreshing.

---

Then it's good it was after the game and all voluntary.

---

I think so

C. Jordan said:

---

quash said:

---

Kennedy v. Bremerton

Football coach requested by district to tone down his motivational prayers, but mainly to quit praying at the fifty after games (where he often prayed for both teams, raising each team's helmet up). He does for a bit, then publicly announces he will defy the district. His next midfield prayer he is joined by a stampeding crowd.

There are a **** ton of amicus briefs in this one.

I don't think this court will find coercion. Concern about praying time equals playing time seems easy to rebut.

The district apparently is basing their case on people getting jostled in the rush to the field. Seems weak.

But a **** ton of amicus briefs.

---

The problem is that he's imposing his faith on his team in an activity that's basically compulsory.

Public school teachers can't and shouldn't lead prayers in their classes and coaches can't and shouldn't either.

But in today's SCOTUS atmosphere where free exercise is being exalted over no establishment, he just might prevail.

---

Football is not compulsory. They don't check student attendance at football games. I would feel excluded from the group under those circumstances but I don't have a constitutional right to deny others a voluntary activity that excludes me.

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Kennedy v. Bremerton

Football coach requested by district to tone down his motivational prayers, but mainly to quit praying at the fifty after games (where he often prayed for both teams, raising each team's helmet up). He does for a bit, then publicly announces he will defy the district. His next midfield prayer he is joined by a stampeding crowd.

There are a **** ton of amicus briefs in this one.

I don't think this court will find coercion. Concern about praying time equals playing time seems easy to rebut.

The district apparently is basing their case on people getting jostled in the rush to the field. Seems weak.

But a **** ton of amicus briefs.

---

Thanks for posting. I missed it. It is from Ninth Circuit out of Washington State
Free exercise v Establishment Clause
The questions presented:
"1. Whether a public-school employee who says a brief, quiet prayer by himself while at school and visible to students is engaged in government speech that lacks any First Amendment protection.
"2. Whether, assuming that such religious expression is private and protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, the Establishment Clause nevertheless compels public schools to prohibit it."[url=https://ballotpedia.org/Kennedy_v._Bremerton_School_District#cite_note-qp-1][1][/url]

Here is a good summary:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/20-35222/20-35222-2021-03-18.html
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the school district in an action brought by plaintiff, a former high school football coach, alleging violation of his rights under the First Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when the school district prohibited him from praying at the end of football games while kneeling on the fifty-yard line, surrounded by players and occasionally community members.

The panel held that the school district's allowance of plaintiff's conduct would violate the Establishment Clause and thus the school district's efforts to prevent the conduct did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights nor his rights under Title VII. The panel rejected plaintiff's free speech and free exercise claims, concluding that the record before it and binding Supreme Court precedent compel the conclusion that the school district would have violated the Establishment Clause by allowing plaintiff to pray at the conclusion of football games, in the center of the field, with students who felt pressured to join him. Furthermore, plaintiff's attempts to draw nationwide attention to his challenge to the school district compels the conclusion that he was not engaging in private prayer, but was instead engaging in public speech of an overtly religious nature while performing his job duties. In this case, the school district tried to reach an accommodation for plaintiff, but that was spurned by his insisting that he be allowed to pray immediately after the conclusion of each game, likely surrounded by students who felt pressured to join him.

The panel also concluded that plaintiff's Title VII claims alleging failure to rehire, disparate treatment, failure to accommodate and retaliation failed. The panel explained that plaintiff did not show that he was adequately performing his job; plaintiff's conduct is clearly dissimilar to the other personal activities of assistant coaches he cites and thus he cannot make out a prima facie case of disparate treatment; the school district could not reasonably accommodate plaintiff's practice without undue hardship; and the school district had a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its adverse employment actions.

---

Yeah, he won't win on his disparate treatment claims, but that "legitimate nondiscrimination reason" is people rushing the field. After a football game. Waaay after the clock had actually expired...

---

The whole notion that private speech can be restricted after an official event (not during) by a government employee is dubious, regardless of however long the idea has been used as a legal cudgel with which to beat down Christianity.

I would be curious why people rushed the field. Does anyone have clarity on that? Was it in opposition to the prayer, in support of it or something completely disconnected? If it was in support, this seems like simply a culture war issue where the left is afraid that there may be some grass roots movement that could take hold and popularize morality they hate.

---

My guess is that even if the game was over, he was still on duty. An at-work teacher leading students in Christian prayer implicates establishment clause concerns.

Booray said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Kennedy v. Bremerton

Football coach requested by district to tone down his motivational prayers, but mainly to quit praying at the fifty after games (where he often prayed for both teams, raising each team's helmet up). He does for a bit, then publicly announces he will defy the district. His next midfield prayer he is joined by a stampeding crowd.

There are a **** ton of amicus briefs in this one.

I don't think this court will find coercion. Concern about praying time equals playing time seems easy to rebut.

The district apparently is basing their case on people getting jostled in the rush to the field. Seems weak.

But a **** ton of amicus briefs.

---

Thanks for posting. I missed it. It is from Ninth Circuit out of Washington State
Free exercise v Establishment Clause
The questions presented:
"1. Whether a public-school employee who says a brief, quiet prayer by himself while at school and visible to students is engaged in government speech that lacks any First Amendment protection.
"2. Whether, assuming that such religious expression is private and protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, the Establishment Clause nevertheless compels public schools to prohibit it."[url=https://ballotpedia.org/Kennedy_v._Bremerton_School_District#cite_note-qp-1][1][/url]

Here is a good summary:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/20-35222/20-35222-2021-03-18.html
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the school district in an action brought by plaintiff, a former high school football coach, alleging violation of his rights under the First Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when the school district prohibited him from praying at the end of football games while kneeling on the fifty-yard line, surrounded by players and occasionally community members.

The panel held that the school district's allowance of plaintiff's conduct would violate the Establishment Clause and thus the school district's efforts to prevent the conduct did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights nor his rights under Title VII. The panel rejected plaintiff's free speech and free exercise claims, concluding that the record before it and binding Supreme Court precedent compel the conclusion that the school district would have violated the Establishment Clause by allowing plaintiff to pray at the conclusion of football games, in the center of the field, with students who felt pressured to join him. Furthermore, plaintiff's attempts to draw nationwide attention to his challenge to the school district compels the conclusion that he was not engaging in private prayer, but was instead engaging in public speech of an overtly religious nature while performing his job duties. In this case, the school district tried to reach an accommodation for plaintiff, but that was spurned by his insisting that he be allowed to pray immediately after the conclusion of each game, likely surrounded by students who felt pressured to join him.

The panel also concluded that plaintiff's Title VII claims alleging failure to rehire, disparate treatment, failure to accommodate and retaliation failed. The panel explained that plaintiff did not show that he was adequately performing his job; plaintiff's conduct is clearly dissimilar to the other personal activities of assistant coaches he cites and thus he cannot make out a prima facie case of disparate treatment; the school district could not reasonably accommodate plaintiff's practice without undue hardship; and the school district had a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its adverse employment actions.

---

Yeah, he won't win on his disparate treatment claims, but that "legitimate nondiscrimination reason" is people rushing the field. After a football game. Waaay after the clock had actually expired...

---

The whole notion that private speech can be restricted after an official event (not during) by a government employee is dubious, regardless of however long the idea has been used as a legal cudgel with which to beat down Christianity.

I would be curious why people rushed the field. Does anyone have clarity on that? Was it in opposition to the prayer, in support of it or something completely disconnected? If it was in support, this seems like simply a culture war issue where the left is afraid that there may be some grass roots movement that could take hold and popularize morality they hate.

---

My guess is that even if the game was over, he was still on duty. An at-work teacher leading students in Christian prayer implicates establishment clause concerns.

---

What about this?

leading students in voluntary Christian prayer

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Kennedy v. Bremerton

Football coach requested by district to tone down his motivational prayers, but mainly to quit praying at the fifty after games (where he often prayed for both teams, raising each team's helmet up). He does for a bit, then publicly announces he will defy the district. His next midfield prayer he is joined by a stampeding crowd.

There are a **** ton of amicus briefs in this one.

I don't think this court will find coercion. Concern about praying time equals playing time seems easy to rebut.

The district apparently is basing their case on people getting jostled in the rush to the field. Seems weak.

But a **** ton of amicus briefs.

---

Thanks for posting. I missed it. It is from Ninth Circuit out of Washington State
Free exercise v Establishment Clause
The questions presented:
"1. Whether a public-school employee who says a brief, quiet prayer by himself while at school and visible to students is engaged in government speech that lacks any First Amendment protection.
"2. Whether, assuming that such religious expression is private and protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, the Establishment Clause nevertheless compels public schools to prohibit it."[url=https://ballotpedia.org/Kennedy_v._Bremerton_School_District#cite_note-qp-1][1][/url]

Here is a good summary:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/20-35222/20-35222-2021-03-18.html
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the school district in an action brought by plaintiff, a former high school football coach, alleging violation of his rights under the First Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when the school district prohibited him from praying at the end of football games while kneeling on the fifty-yard line, surrounded by players and occasionally community members.

The panel held that the school district's allowance of plaintiff's conduct would violate the Establishment Clause and thus the school district's efforts to prevent the conduct did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights nor his rights under Title VII. The panel rejected plaintiff's free speech and free exercise claims, concluding that the record before it and binding Supreme Court precedent compel the conclusion that the school district would have violated the Establishment Clause by allowing plaintiff to pray at the conclusion of football games, in the center of the field, with students who felt pressured to join him. Furthermore, plaintiff's attempts to draw nationwide attention to his challenge to the school district compels the conclusion that he was not engaging in private prayer, but was instead engaging in public speech of an overtly religious nature while performing his job duties. In this case, the school district tried to reach an accommodation for plaintiff, but that was spurned by his insisting that he be allowed to pray immediately after the conclusion of each game, likely surrounded by students who felt pressured to join him.

The panel also concluded that plaintiff's Title VII claims alleging failure to rehire, disparate treatment, failure to accommodate and retaliation failed. The panel explained that plaintiff did not show that he was adequately performing his job; plaintiff's conduct is clearly dissimilar to the other personal activities of assistant coaches he cites and thus he cannot make out a prima facie case of disparate treatment; the school district could not reasonably accommodate plaintiff's practice without undue hardship; and the school district had a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its adverse employment actions.

---

Yeah, he won't win on his disparate treatment claims, but that "legitimate nondiscrimination reason" is people rushing the field. After a football game. Waaay after the clock had actually expired...

---

The whole notion that private speech can be restricted after an official event (not during) by a government employee is dubious, regardless of however long the idea has been used as a legal cudgel with which to beat down Christianity.

I would be curious why people rushed the field. Does anyone have clarity on that? Was it in opposition to the prayer, in support of it or something completely disconnected? If it was in support, this seems like simply a culture war issue where the left is afraid that there may be some grass roots movement that could take hold and popularize morality they hate.

---

My guess is that even if the game was over, he was still on duty. An at-work teacher leading students in Christian prayer implicates establishment clause concerns.

---

What about this?

leading students in voluntary Christian prayer

---

Educators are in power positions vis-a-vis their students. Whether it is giving grades or deciding playing time, there are reasons for students to please a teacher or coach beyond sharing the educator's views. In addition, when public displays encourage large groups of students to participate, there is peer pressure that results. So while the coach and his followers were likely sincere in their beliefs and had no intent to ostracize or punish anyone who chose not to participate, these type of activities can never be said to be truly voluntary for everyone.

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Kennedy v. Bremerton

Football coach requested by district to tone down his motivational prayers, but mainly to quit praying at the fifty after games (where he often prayed for both teams, raising each team's helmet up). He does for a bit, then publicly announces he will defy the district. His next midfield prayer he is joined by a stampeding crowd.

There are a **** ton of amicus briefs in this one.

I don't think this court will find coercion. Concern about praying time equals playing time seems easy to rebut.

The district apparently is basing their case on people getting jostled in the rush to the field. Seems weak.

But a **** ton of amicus briefs.

---

Thanks for posting. I missed it. It is from Ninth Circuit out of Washington State
Free exercise v Establishment Clause
The questions presented:
"1. Whether a public-school employee who says a brief, quiet prayer by himself while at school and visible to students is engaged in government speech that lacks any First Amendment protection.
"2. Whether, assuming that such religious expression is private and protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, the Establishment Clause nevertheless compels public schools to prohibit it."[url=https://ballotpedia.org/Kennedy_v._Bremerton_School_District#cite_note-qp-1][1][/url]

Here is a good summary:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/20-35222/20-35222-2021-03-18.html
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the school district in an action brought by plaintiff, a former high school football coach, alleging violation of his rights under the First Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when the school district prohibited him from praying at the end of football games while kneeling on the fifty-yard line, surrounded by players and occasionally community members.

The panel held that the school district's allowance of plaintiff's conduct would violate the Establishment Clause and thus the school district's efforts to prevent the conduct did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights nor his rights under Title VII. The panel rejected plaintiff's free speech and free exercise claims, concluding that the record before it and binding Supreme Court precedent compel the conclusion that the school district would have violated the Establishment Clause by allowing plaintiff to pray at the conclusion of football games, in the center of the field, with students who felt pressured to join him. Furthermore, plaintiff's attempts to draw nationwide attention to his challenge to the school district compels the conclusion that he was not engaging in private prayer, but was instead engaging in public speech of an overtly religious nature while performing his job duties. In this case, the school district tried to reach an accommodation for plaintiff, but that was spurned by his insisting that he be allowed to pray immediately after the conclusion of each game, likely surrounded by students who felt pressured to join him.

The panel also concluded that plaintiff's Title VII claims alleging failure to rehire, disparate treatment, failure to accommodate and retaliation failed. The panel explained that plaintiff did not show that he was adequately performing his job; plaintiff's conduct is clearly dissimilar to the other personal activities of assistant coaches he cites and thus he cannot make out a prima facie case of disparate treatment; the school district could not reasonably accommodate plaintiff's practice without undue hardship; and the school district had a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its adverse employment actions.

---

Yeah, he won't win on his disparate treatment claims, but that "legitimate nondiscrimination reason" is people rushing the field. After a football game. Waaay after the clock had actually expired...

---

The whole notion that private speech can be restricted after an official event (not during) by a government employee is dubious, regardless of however long the idea has been used as a legal cudgel with which to beat down Christianity.

I would be curious why people rushed the field. Does anyone have clarity on that? Was it in opposition to the prayer, in support of it or something completely disconnected? If it was in support, this seems like simply a culture war issue where the left is afraid that there may be some grass roots movement that could take hold and popularize morality they hate.

---

My guess is that even if the game was over, he was still on duty. An at-work teacher leading students in Christian prayer implicates establishment clause concerns.

---

What about this?

leading students in voluntary Christian prayer

---

Educators are in power positions vis-a-vis their students. Whether it is giving grades or deciding playing time, there are reasons for students to please a teacher or coach beyond sharing the educator's views. In addition, when public displays encourage large groups of students to participate, there is peer pressure that results. So while the coach and his followers were likely sincere in their beliefs and had no intent to ostracize or punish anyone who chose not to participate, these type of activities can never be said to be truly voluntary for everyone.

---

Fair response, but I'll take the other side of it.
Parents and spectators apparently ran out to join in the prayer. You would deny every player and non-student the opportunity to participate in a voluntary community activity?
The reason: a student MIGHT be coerced.

---

No, because students and parents are not state actors, they are not the government. So a student-led prayer or a parent-led prayer would be fine in my eyes .And it doesn't matter how many students and parents rushed to join the state actor. In fact the more that joined him, the greater the reason to prohibit it.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Kennedy v. Bremerton

Football coach requested by district to tone down his motivational prayers, but mainly to quit praying at the fifty after games (where he often prayed for both teams, raising each team's helmet up). He does for a bit, then publicly announces he will defy the district. His next midfield prayer he is joined by a stampeding crowd.

There are a **** ton of amicus briefs in this one.

I don't think this court will find coercion. Concern about praying time equals playing time seems easy to rebut.

The district apparently is basing their case on people getting jostled in the rush to the field. Seems weak.

But a **** ton of amicus briefs.

---

Thanks for posting. I missed it. It is from Ninth Circuit out of Washington State
Free exercise v Establishment Clause
The questions presented:
"1. Whether a public-school employee who says a brief, quiet prayer by himself while at school and visible to students is engaged in government speech that lacks any First Amendment protection.
"2. Whether, assuming that such religious expression is private and protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, the Establishment Clause nevertheless compels public schools to prohibit it."[url=https://ballotpedia.org/Kennedy_v._Bremerton_School_District#cite_note-qp-1][1][/url]

Here is a good summary:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/20-35222/20-35222-2021-03-18.html
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the school district in an action brought by plaintiff, a former high school football coach, alleging violation of his rights under the First Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when the school district prohibited him from praying at the end of football games while kneeling on the fifty-yard line, surrounded by players and occasionally community members.

The panel held that the school district's allowance of plaintiff's conduct would violate the Establishment Clause and thus the school district's efforts to prevent the conduct did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights nor his rights under Title VII. The panel rejected plaintiff's free speech and free exercise claims, concluding that the record before it and binding Supreme Court precedent compel the conclusion that the school district would have violated the Establishment Clause by allowing plaintiff to pray at the conclusion of football games, in the center of the field, with students who felt pressured to join him. Furthermore, plaintiff's attempts to draw nationwide attention to his challenge to the school district compels the conclusion that he was not engaging in private prayer, but was instead engaging in public speech of an overtly religious nature while performing his job duties. In this case, the school district tried to reach an accommodation for plaintiff, but that was spurned by his insisting that he be allowed to pray immediately after the conclusion of each game, likely surrounded by students who felt pressured to join him.

The panel also concluded that plaintiff's Title VII claims alleging failure to rehire, disparate treatment, failure to accommodate and retaliation failed. The panel explained that plaintiff did not show that he was adequately performing his job; plaintiff's conduct is clearly dissimilar to the other personal activities of assistant coaches he cites and thus he cannot make out a prima facie case of disparate treatment; the school district could not reasonably accommodate plaintiff's practice without undue hardship; and the school district had a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its adverse employment actions.

---

Yeah, he won't win on his disparate treatment claims, but that "legitimate nondiscrimination reason" is people rushing the field. After a football game. Waaay after the clock had actually expired...

---

The whole notion that private speech can be restricted after an official event (not during) by a government employee is dubious, regardless of however long the idea has been used as a legal cudgel with which to beat down Christianity.

I would be curious why people rushed the field. Does anyone have clarity on that? Was it in opposition to the prayer, in support of it or something completely disconnected? If it was in support, this seems like simply a culture war issue where the left is afraid that there may be some grass roots movement that could take hold and popularize morality they hate.

---

My guess is that even if the game was over, he was still on duty. An at-work teacher leading students in Christian prayer implicates establishment clause concerns.

---

What about this?

leading students in voluntary Christian prayer

---

Educators are in power positions vis-a-vis their students. Whether it is giving grades or deciding playing time, there are reasons for students to please a teacher or coach beyond sharing the educator's views. In addition, when public displays encourage large groups of students to participate, there is peer pressure that results. So while the coach and his followers were likely sincere in their beliefs and had no intent to ostracize or punish anyone who chose not to participate, these type of activities can never be said to be truly voluntary for everyone.

---

Except that SCOTUS has previously ruled [on multiple occasions] that wearing religious based attire, pins/crosses, lent ash, etc. do not violate the establishment clause and are first amendment protected. If the mere exercise of first amendment activity constitutes government coercion, these cases would all be overturned.

You are tilting at a windmill that is already slain.

---

There is a difference in those cases. Students are unlikely to feel compelled to respond to religious adornment. If they do not respond, they would not be singled out as "non-believers." Here by not participating they would be identified as not practicing the right religion.

And I am not tilting at anything. First, I said the cases raises establishment issues, I did not say that the conduct violated the Establishment Clause. Second, i have little doubt how this case will end-it will be a 5-4 reversal of the 9th Circuit with Thomas, Kavanaugh, Coney, Gorsuch and Alito in the majority. That doesn't mean I think it is a correct result, but I am not under any illusions. The dominant culture will become more dominant and probably ratchet their whining about being oppressed another notch, from 11 to 12. Maybe Gorsuch will surprise me.

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Educators are in power positions vis-a-vis their students. Whether it is giving grades or deciding playing time, there are reasons for students to please a teacher or coach beyond sharing the educator's views. In addition, when public displays encourage large groups of students to participate, there is peer pressure that results. So while the coach and his followers were likely sincere in their beliefs and had no intent to ostracize or punish anyone who chose not to participate, these type of activities can never be said to be truly voluntary for everyone.

---

Except that SCOTUS has previously ruled [on multiple occasions] that wearing religious based attire, pins/crosses, lent ash, etc. do not violate the establishment clause and are first amendment protected. If the mere exercise of first amendment activity constitutes government coercion, these cases would all be overturned.

You are tilting at a windmill that is already slain.

---

There is a difference in those cases. Students are unlikely to feel compelled to respond to religious adornment. If they do not respond, they would not be singled out as "non-believers." Here by not participating they would be identified as not practicing the right religion.

And I am not tilting at anything. First, I said the cases raises establishment issues, I did not say that the conduct violated the Establishment Clause. Second, i have little doubt how this case will end-it will be a 5-4 reversal of the 9th Circuit with Thomas, Kavanaugh, Coney, Gorsuch and Alito in the majority. That doesn't mean I think it is a correct result, but I am not under any illusions. The dominant culture will become more dominant and probably ratchet their whining about being oppressed another notch, from 11 to 12. Maybe Gorsuch will surprise me.

---

1. Purposefully misspelling SCOTUS Justices' names isn't clever. It is childish.

2. Cases aren't decided based upon feelings. Cases are determined by law and possibly fact. Feelings are irrelevant. Feeling violated isn't the same as rights being violated.

3. Name calling [labeling those with who you obviously disagree as "whiners"] isn't clever. It is intellectual weakness.

---

And I am sorry, but the plaintiff in this case is emblematic of the incessant whining that comes from the dominant culture.

---

You mean the dominant culture that murders the unborn and sanctions conduct that would make the inhabitants of Sodom blush?

---

Reject your premise on abortion and this case has nothing to do with abortion. If you don't think Christians have been doing things that would make Sodom blush from the time of Sodom, you do not know much about humans.

Jesus taught one thing-think of others before yourself. The current religious liberty movement turns that on its head by saying the important thing is my right to express my view regardless of its impact on others.

Booray said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Educators are in power positions vis-a-vis their students. Whether it is giving grades or deciding playing time, there are reasons for students to please a teacher or coach beyond sharing the educator's views. In addition, when public displays encourage large groups of students to participate, there is peer pressure that results. So while the coach and his followers were likely sincere in their beliefs and had no intent to ostracize or punish anyone who chose not to participate, these type of activities can never be said to be truly voluntary for everyone.

---

Except that SCOTUS has previously ruled [on multiple occasions] that wearing religious based attire, pins/crosses, lent ash, etc. do not violate the establishment clause and are first amendment protected. If the mere exercise of first amendment activity constitutes government coercion, these cases would all be overturned.

You are tilting at a windmill that is already slain.

---

There is a difference in those cases. Students are unlikely to feel compelled to respond to religious adornment. If they do not respond, they would not be singled out as "non-believers." Here by not participating they would be identified as not practicing the right religion.

And I am not tilting at anything. First, I said the cases raises establishment issues, I did not say that the conduct violated the Establishment Clause. Second, i have little doubt how this case will end-it will be a 5-4 reversal of the 9th Circuit with Thomas, Kavanaugh, Coney, Gorsuch and Alito in the majority. That doesn't mean I think it is a correct result, but I am not under any illusions. The dominant culture will become more dominant and probably ratchet their whining about being oppressed another notch, from 11 to 12. Maybe Gorsuch will surprise me.

---

1. Purposefully misspelling SCOTUS Justices' names isn't clever. It is childish.

2. Cases aren't decided based upon feelings. Cases are determined by law and possibly fact. Feelings are irrelevant. Feeling violated isn't the same as rights being violated.

3. Name calling [labeling those with who you obviously disagree as "whiners"] isn't clever. It is intellectual weakness.

---

And I am sorry, but the plaintiff in this case is emblematic of the incessant whining that comes from the dominant culture.

---

You mean the dominant culture that murders the unborn and sanctions conduct that would make the inhabitants of Sodom blush?

---

Reject your premise on abortion and this case has nothing to do with abortion. If you don't think Christians have been doing things that would make Sodom blush from the time of Sodom, you do not know much about humans.

Jesus taught one thing-think of others before yourself. The current religious liberty movement turns that on its head by saying the important thing is my right to express my view regardless of its impact on others.

---

You reject the premise that abortion is murder. With all due respect, your political party is not at all certain what a woman is. I think you all should conquer that issue before you wade into the deep waters about constitutes human life.

The only thing your post demonstrates is that it is possible to get both theology and biology completely wrong in less than five sentences.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Educators are in power positions vis-a-vis their students. Whether it is giving grades or deciding playing time, there are reasons for students to please a teacher or coach beyond sharing the educator's views. In addition, when public displays encourage large groups of students to participate, there is peer pressure that results. So while the coach and his followers were likely sincere in their beliefs and had no intent to ostracize or punish anyone who chose not to participate, these type of activities can never be said to be truly voluntary for everyone.

---

Except that SCOTUS has previously ruled [on multiple occasions] that wearing religious based attire, pins/crosses, lent ash, etc. do not violate the establishment clause and are first amendment protected. If the mere exercise of first amendment activity constitutes government coercion, these cases would all be overturned.

You are tilting at a windmill that is already slain.

---

There is a difference in those cases. Students are unlikely to feel compelled to respond to religious adornment. If they do not respond, they would not be singled out as "non-believers." Here by not participating they would be identified as not practicing the right religion.

And I am not tilting at anything. First, I said the cases raises establishment issues, I did not say that the conduct violated the Establishment Clause. Second, i have little doubt how this case will end-it will be a 5-4 reversal of the 9th Circuit with Thomas, Kavanaugh, Coney, Korsuch and Alito in the majority. That doesn't mean I think it is a correct result, but I am not under any illusions. The dominant culture will become more dominant and probably ratchet their whining about being oppressed another notch, from 11 to 12. Maybe Korsuch will surprise me.

---

1. Purposefully misspelling SCOTUS Justices' names isn't clever. It is childish.

2. Cases aren't decided based upon feelings. Cases are determined by law and possibly fact. Feelings are irrelevant. Feeling violated isn't the same as rights being violated.

3. Name calling [labeling those with who you obviously disagree as "whiners"] isn't clever. It is intellectual weakness.

---

Man, you trigger easily.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Educators are in power positions vis-a-vis their students. Whether it is giving grades or deciding playing time, there are reasons for students to please a teacher or coach beyond sharing the educator's views. In addition, when public displays encourage large groups of students to participate, there is peer pressure that results. So while the coach and his followers were likely sincere in their beliefs and had no intent to ostracize or punish anyone who chose not to participate, these type of activities can never be said to be truly voluntary for everyone.

---

Except that SCOTUS has previously ruled [on multiple occasions] that wearing religious based attire, pins/crosses, lent ash, etc. do not violate the establishment clause and are first amendment protected. If the mere exercise of first amendment activity constitutes government coercion, these cases would all be overturned.

You are tilting at a windmill that is already slain.

---

There is a difference in those cases. Students are unlikely to feel compelled to respond to religious adornment. If they do not respond, they would not be singled out as "non-believers." Here by not participating they would be identified as not practicing the right religion.

And I am not tilting at anything. First, I said the cases raises establishment issues, I did not say that the conduct violated the Establishment Clause. Second, i have little doubt how this case will end-it will be a 5-4 reversal of the 9th Circuit with Thomas, Kavanaugh, Coney, Gorsuch and Alito in the majority. That doesn't mean I think it is a correct result, but I am not under any illusions. The dominant culture will become more dominant and probably ratchet their whining about being oppressed another notch, from 11 to 12. Maybe Gorsuch will surprise me.

---

1. Purposefully misspelling SCOTUS Justices' names isn't clever. It is childish.

2. Cases aren't decided based upon feelings. Cases are determined by law and possibly fact. Feelings are irrelevant. Feeling violated isn't the same as rights being violated.

3. Name calling [labeling those with who you obviously disagree as "whiners"] isn't clever. It is intellectual weakness.

---

As to the justice, I didn't do it on purpose-some weird auto correct based on a previous misspelling I guess. Its corrected. Obviously I was saying he was the conservative justice most likely to see it my way, so he would be an odd person for me to insult.

I am well aware of how cases are decided. Saying that the Establishment Clause should work to prevent citizens from "feeling" coerced into a religious exercise is well within the rubric.

And I am sorry, but the plaintiff in this case is emblematic of the incessant whining that comes from the dominant culture. He is a showboat that would not consider other ways to address his need for religious expression; he also falsely claimed he had been terminated when he chose not to renew his contract. Most of all this case is an example of the need to press his religious beliefs on everyone around him, regardless of how that might impact someone who does not want to participate. Pure entitlement thinking.

It may be ruled Constitutional but I am sick of the the hypocrisy and perversion of the Gospel that this sort of thinking represents. If you are an employee of the state you can pray on your own time or pray privately while engaged in your work. That doesn't seem an oppressive concept.

---

So the answer [as you express it] for people expressing their religious freedom in a manner with which you disagree is to prohibit that expression through government force?

Maybe we should simply follow a constitutionally permissible method and simply ignore religious expressions with which we disagree? Or is minding our own business on how other people live their own lives also too perverse for you?

Oliver Wendell Holmes describes it as a the public marketplace of competing ideas. You don't get to silence other vendors. You do get to sell competing products.

---

Like flying on a different airline than one that permits gospel jams before a captive audience. I'm in.