quash said:

---

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.

---

Which airline is owned by the US government? You realize that Constitutional limitations apply to the government not private citizens……or maybe you missed that class.

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.

---

Did I not specifically say that I was fine with public prayer after a school function as long as it was led by someone who was not a working state actor?

I am not suppressing the expression of religious thought other than to say the government should not be the vehicle for that expression. It is not that complicated and you are too smart to have misunderstood it. You are intentionally mischaracterizing.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash 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, 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.

---

Only the political left gets triggered. We adult.

---

Lol, that's funny. But you're not the only poster who reserves the right to cordon off language.

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

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.

---

Did I not specifically say that I was fine with public prayer after a school function as long as it was led by someone who was not a state actor?

I am not suppressing the expression of religious thought other than to say the government should not be the vehicle for that expression. It is not that complicated and you are too smart to have misunderstood it. You are intentionally mischaracterizing.

---

And you finally reach the rub. Your assumption that any government employee is necessarily a state actor when on public property. SCOTUS has definitively ruled that such is not the case.

A teacher reading a Bible, the Koran, or any other manuscript during lunch at school is not a state actor. A teacher having a discussion about religion with a student after school is not necessarily a state actor.

SCOTUS has gone so far as to rule that publicly funded charter schools are not state actors as to items such as dress codes, behavior codes & discipline, etc.

Your assumption that a coach is necessarily a state actor is the first pitfall. If he was on the team bus, likely. In the locker room, certainly. By himself after the game, most likely not. The fact that people decided to join him is likely irrelevant. Besides the bog of US constitution associational issues it would implicate, the applicational nightmare of determining the bright line of "how many people joining him causes him to revert to a state actor" would kill any judicial journey down that pathway.

Simpler question: what public function was he fulfilling by his act? When does a coach or teacher stop being a state actor? When class ends? When they step off school property? [trick answer: we know that answer is wrong]. The likely answer based upon every other case is that a state actor is anyone furthering a governmental function.

As previously stated, facts matter. Not the locker room. Not the bus. Not during the game. Not mixed with coaching. On school property but alone until others joined. How it is perceived by students/other teachers/admin is not relevant.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

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.

---

Did I not specifically say that I was fine with public prayer after a school function as long as it was led by someone who was not a state actor?

I am not suppressing the expression of religious thought other than to say the government should not be the vehicle for that expression. It is not that complicated and you are too smart to have misunderstood it. You are intentionally mischaracterizing.

---

And you finally reach the rub. Your assumption that any government employee is necessarily a state actor when on public property. SCOTUS has definitively ruled that such is not the case.

A teacher reading a Bible, the Koran, or any other manuscript during lunch at school is not a state actor. A teacher having a discussion about religion with a student after school is not necessarily a state actor.

SCOTUS has gone so far as to rule that publicly funded charter schools are not state actors as to items such as dress codes, behavior codes & discipline, etc.

Your assumption that a coach is necessarily a state actor is the first pitfall. If he was on the team bus, likely. In the locker room, certainly. By himself after the game, most likely not. The fact that people decided to join him is likely irrelevant. Besides the bog of US constitution associational issues it would implicate, the applicational nightmare of determining the bright line of "how many people joining him causes him to revert to a state actor" would kill any judicial journey down that pathway.

Simpler question: what public function was he fulfilling by his act? When does a coach or teacher stop being a state actor? When class ends? When they step off school property? [trick answer: we know that answer is wrong]. The likely answer based upon every other case is that a state actor is anyone furthering a governmental function.

As previously stated, facts matter. Not the locker room. Not the bus. Not during the game. Not mixed with coaching. On school property but alone until others joined. How it is perceived by students/other teachers/admin is not relevant.

---

I take it back. You are not that smart.

I started this discussion by saying that the critical thing was whether the coach was on duty, Most coaches do not finish their job just because the game is over.

So your whole pompous " gotcha" you just don't understand schtick misses the mark.

Wide right.

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.

---

congratulations! You are now on the SCOTUS. Before you is a similar case But it's not a coach but a devout Muslim teacher that observes the second pillar by praying 5 times a day. On occasions, those times are while he is still on official school duty at official functions such as UIL competitions (choir, science fair, band, drama such as 1 act play, track and field). Will students feel compelled to have their own prayer times, their own moments of silence, their own prayer rug or cross necklace.

Can one student feel compelled to join in while another student feels compelled to display their cross necklace while a third student wishes to shout science over any god - all from a single action? If so, what do those different actions and reactions say about prayer being seen as compulsory?

How do you rule? Does the ruling change if the case started in Dallas or Dearborn?

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

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.

---

Did I not specifically say that I was fine with public prayer after a school function as long as it was led by someone who was not a state actor?

I am not suppressing the expression of religious thought other than to say the government should not be the vehicle for that expression. It is not that complicated and you are too smart to have misunderstood it. You are intentionally mischaracterizing.

---

And you finally reach the rub. Your assumption that any government employee is necessarily a state actor when on public property. SCOTUS has definitively ruled that such is not the case.

A teacher reading a Bible, the Koran, or any other manuscript during lunch at school is not a state actor. A teacher having a discussion about religion with a student after school is not necessarily a state actor.

SCOTUS has gone so far as to rule that publicly funded charter schools are not state actors as to items such as dress codes, behavior codes & discipline, etc.

Your assumption that a coach is necessarily a state actor is the first pitfall. If he was on the team bus, likely. In the locker room, certainly. By himself after the game, most likely not. The fact that people decided to join him is likely irrelevant. Besides the bog of US constitution associational issues it would implicate, the applicational nightmare of determining the bright line of "how many people joining him causes him to revert to a state actor" would kill any judicial journey down that pathway.

Simpler question: what public function was he fulfilling by his act? When does a coach or teacher stop being a state actor? When class ends? When they step off school property? [trick answer: we know that answer is wrong]. The likely answer based upon every other case is that a state actor is anyone furthering a governmental function.

As previously stated, facts matter. Not the locker room. Not the bus. Not during the game. Not mixed with coaching. On school property but alone until others joined. How it is perceived by students/other teachers/admin is not relevant.

---

I take it back. You are not that smart.

I started this discussion by saying that the critical thing was whether the coach was on duty, Most coaches do not finish their job just because the game is over.

So your whole pompous " gotcha" you just don't understand schtick misses the mark.

Wide right.

---

"On duty"……..coaches are salary not a per hour employee.

As a salaried employee, folks that do work from home are constantly starting, stopping, restarting, stopping, etc. work tasks. Salaried Jobs are never "finished"…….they start, stop, restart. You missed the "on public property isn't the answer" comment. If a coach kisses a spouse after a game, they aren't a "state actor" kisser. Hugs their kids after a game, not a "state actor" hugger. The "on duty" comment ignores every nuance distilled in court opinions divining whether actors are state actors. It isn't where or even when, it is what [and possibly why].

---

On duty means he was supposed to be performing the duties for which he is paid. Most coaches I know are expected to continue the supervision of their athletes until they are released at the school. Most coaches I know are expected to address the team after the game and discuss what lessons can be learned from it. Most coaches I know are responsible for the collection of equipment and supplies. If he was still on duty, he should not interrupt his duties to lead a public prayer.

He can interrupt his duties to hug his wife and kids, because doing so does not invade anyone's constitutional rights. And as the Ninth Circuit made clear and as the coach's practice had been for years before he decided to weaponize his religion, he could say a private prayer on the field at the end of the game. The dividing line the school drew was at the coach's obvious attempts to involve others in his religious life. That is fine outside of school. not so great at school.

You might want to read what actually happened and the Ninth Circuit's rationale for denying the relief the coach sought. Not surprisingly, to me at least, the performance art nature of the prayers was the biggest problem because it interfered with the performance of the coach's job duties.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/07/19/20-35222.pdf

sombear said:

---

Some good discussion on here, and I admit I reflexively sympathize with those arguing that a coach's prayer makes some students feel uncomfortable, even pressured, etc. And the hypo of a Muslim coach is fair. However, this is a pure Constitutional issue, and the Constitution does not protect folks from discomfort. The Establishment Clause was not intended to restrict individual expression. If the school was mandating a prayer, then that would be different. But coaches have the right to express themselves through prayer. It is absurd to argue from purely a legal perspective that such prayer establishes a state religion. Same with schools prohibiting student speakers from praying during graduation ceremonies - should never be done.

---

Actually the Constitution often protects people from discomfort if the state is the one that brings the discomfort.

There are limits on the state's ability to enter your home or detain your person for search and seizure; the state cannot quarter militia in your home; the state is limited in how it regulates your firearms; and the state cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishment on you.

It is also clear that the state cannot compel anyone to worship or worship in a particular manner. The relevant argument here is whether the coach was compelling anyone to worship. I note that the factual record in the case includes either an affidavit or testimony from a kid who said he only joined the prayers because he wanted to protect his playing time.

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

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.

---

Did I not specifically say that I was fine with public prayer after a school function as long as it was led by someone who was not a state actor?

I am not suppressing the expression of religious thought other than to say the government should not be the vehicle for that expression. It is not that complicated and you are too smart to have misunderstood it. You are intentionally mischaracterizing.

---

And you finally reach the rub. Your assumption that any government employee is necessarily a state actor when on public property. SCOTUS has definitively ruled that such is not the case.

A teacher reading a Bible, the Koran, or any other manuscript during lunch at school is not a state actor. A teacher having a discussion about religion with a student after school is not necessarily a state actor.

SCOTUS has gone so far as to rule that publicly funded charter schools are not state actors as to items such as dress codes, behavior codes & discipline, etc.

Your assumption that a coach is necessarily a state actor is the first pitfall. If he was on the team bus, likely. In the locker room, certainly. By himself after the game, most likely not. The fact that people decided to join him is likely irrelevant. Besides the bog of US constitution associational issues it would implicate, the applicational nightmare of determining the bright line of "how many people joining him causes him to revert to a state actor" would kill any judicial journey down that pathway.

Simpler question: what public function was he fulfilling by his act? When does a coach or teacher stop being a state actor? When class ends? When they step off school property? [trick answer: we know that answer is wrong]. The likely answer based upon every other case is that a state actor is anyone furthering a governmental function.

As previously stated, facts matter. Not the locker room. Not the bus. Not during the game. Not mixed with coaching. On school property but alone until others joined. How it is perceived by students/other teachers/admin is not relevant.

---

I take it back. You are not that smart.

I started this discussion by saying that the critical thing was whether the coach was on duty, Most coaches do not finish their job just because the game is over.

So your whole pompous " gotcha" you just don't understand schtick misses the mark.

Wide right.

---

"On duty"……..coaches are salary not a per hour employee.

As a salaried employee, folks that do work from home are constantly starting, stopping, restarting, stopping, etc. work tasks. Salaried Jobs are never "finished"…….they start, stop, restart. You missed the "on public property isn't the answer" comment. If a coach kisses a spouse after a game, they aren't a "state actor" kisser. Hugs their kids after a game, not a "state actor" hugger. The "on duty" comment ignores every nuance distilled in court opinions divining whether actors are state actors. It isn't where or even when, it is what [and possibly why].

---

On duty means he was supposed to be performing the duties for which he is paid. Most coaches I know are expected to continue the supervision of their athletes until they are released at the school. Most coaches I know are expected to address the team after the game and discuss what lessons can be learned from it. Most coaches I know are responsible for the collection of equipment and supplies. If he was still on duty, he should not interrupt his duties to lead a public prayer.

He can interrupt his duties to hug his wife and kids, because doing so does not invade anyone's constitutional rights. And as the Ninth Circuit made clear and as the coach's practice had been for years before he decided to weaponize his religion, he could say a private prayer on the field at the end of the game. The dividing line the school drew was at the coach's obvious attempts to involve others in his religious life. That is fine outside of school. not so great at school.

You might want to read what actually happened and the Ninth Circuit's rationale for denying the relief the coach sought. Not surprisingly, to me at least, the performance art nature of the prayers was the biggest problem because it interfered with the performance of the coach's job duties.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/07/19/20-35222.pdf

---

You might want to reread the opinion.

One sentence in the opinion reads louder than any other:



the fact that any judge would incorporate that level of personal animosity in an opinion is breathtaking. It screams bias.

But the bigger legal issue is the faux differentiation between employee's 1st Amendment rights based upon their jobs. Per the opinion, a cafeteria worker gets more protection than a coach based upon how students perceive them. That analysis has zero support in case law and flies in the face of SCOTUS' Tinker opinion. The opinion defines the coercion of a prominent employee as the "touchstone" of the decision.



But the reality is that the "problem" is that he fought back. In statement after statement the opinion denigrates the Litigant for having the audacity to use public forums to fight against the school for its actions.



SCOTUS clearly read both the text of the opinion & the intent behind the opinion. Courts using opinions to attack litigants for constitutionally protected activities outside the judicial process is appalling. Putting bias in writing is appalling.

I wouldn't do what the coach did. But I firmly believe that the sole purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect citizens from their government and that this case represents why the Bill of Rights is so important. The school district and the appellate court both exhibited behavior that the Bill of Rights was required as a condition of Constitution adoption to prevent. Less speech is almost never the answer [paraphrasing OWH].

Booray said:

---

sombear said:

---

Some good discussion on here, and I admit I reflexively sympathize with those arguing that a coach's prayer makes some students feel uncomfortable, even pressured, etc. And the hypo of a Muslim coach is fair. However, this is a pure Constitutional issue, and the Constitution does not protect folks from discomfort. The Establishment Clause was not intended to restrict individual expression. If the school was mandating a prayer, then that would be different. But coaches have the right to express themselves through prayer. It is absurd to argue from purely a legal perspective that such prayer establishes a state religion. Same with schools prohibiting student speakers from praying during graduation ceremonies - should never be done.

---

Actually the Constitution often protects people from discomfort if the state is the one that brings the discomfort.

There are limits on the state's ability to enter your home or detain your person for search and seizure; the state cannot quarter militia in your home; the state is limited in how it regulates your firearms; and the state cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishment on you.

It is also clear that the state cannot compel anyone to worship or worship in a particular manner. The relevant argument here is whether the coach was compelling anyone to worship. I note that the factual record in the case includes either an affidavit or testimony from a kid who said he only joined the prayers because he wanted to protect his playing time.

---

.

I obviously was referring to personal/emotional discomfort, nothing to do with property rights, outright discrimination, etc. And a player's subjective feelings should not be part of the analysis.

LIB,MR BEARS 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.

---

congratulations! You are now on the SCOTUS. Before you is a similar case But it's not a coach but a devout Muslim teacher that observes the second pillar by praying 5 times a day. On occasions, those times are while he is still on official school duty at official functions such as UIL competitions (choir, science fair, band, drama such as 1 act play, track and field). Will students feel compelled to have their own prayer times, their own moments of silence, their own prayer rug or cross necklace.

Can one student feel compelled to join in while another student feels compelled to display their cross necklace while a third student wishes to shout science over any god - all from a single action? If so, what do those different actions and reactions say about prayer being seen as compulsory?

How do you rule? Does the ruling change if the case started in Dallas or Dearborn?

---

There is no issue with sincere practitioners of faith engaging in their religious tenets while on duty. You cannot and will not strip God from the faithful. Are these people proselytizing or are they leading through their faith? Muslim, Jew. Christian, if you are performing your duties and tasks and doing right by your students and their parents, then everyone else needs to butt out.

A coach saying a prayer at midfield after a game is perfectly fine, and if players want to join they can. They can head to the locker room if they want, or just stand silently by if they wish solidarity with the team but don't share their faith. This isn't hard. America's left loves to preach tolerance and acceptance for all kinds of deviant behaviors, but the second it is Christian's engaging in Christianity all the dog whistles start coming out.

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.

---

freedom of not freedom from.. coaches and teachers should be allowed to pray and the children should be allowed to abstain without punishment just like if they dont want to say the pledge..

That is our first amendment rights. This doesnt take into account any other rules that apply but the supremacy clause may overrule other laws in effect. (Not a lawyer but I watch alot of fake lawyering on TV.. so I dont know nothin)

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash 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, 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.

---

Only the political left gets triggered. We adult.

---

Lol, that's funny. But you're not the only poster who reserves the right to cordon off language.

---

Not cordoning. Not distressed. Not traumatized. Not requesting a safe space. Not needing therapy.
Not triggered.

Simply pointing out intellectual deficiency where it exists.

That is the problem with the made-up nonsense expressions of the left. No objective meaning and even y'all can't remember what they mean. Of course, that is the purpose.
No real meaning = no responsibility, no need to defend, no cognizable reality.
Phrases like Green, Climate Change, Micro-Aggression, Triggers, etc. are designed to be amorphous blobs that have no objective standards. Bombs to be thrown not words to have meaning.

---

You skipped "ball tanning".

GrowlTowel 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.

---

Ahh, the Don't Say Gay bill. Imagine if he was telling kids about his pronouns.

---

No kidding. You guys would have a conniption.

S Ct hears arguments today. This is a fair summary from WaPo. My money is on the coach

Supreme Court takes up case of a coach and his prayers on 50-yard line
Joseph Kennedy's case brings questions about the ability of public employees to live out their faith while on duty and the government's responsibility to protect schoolchildren from coercion


BREMERTON, Wash. Almost everyone agrees it should not require two trips to the U.S. Supreme Court to settle the case of a high school football coach who wants to pray at the 50-yard line.
Maybe former Bremerton High School assistant coach Joseph Kennedy could have conceded that his postgame prayer of gratitude could take place somewhere other than midfield, or discouraged what one judge called a "spectacle" of stampeding supporters and politicians who rushed after one game to kneel beside him on the gridiron.
Maybe the school district could have offered an accommodation that didn't require Kennedy to climb to the stadium press box, or retreat to a janitor's office in the school, to offer his prayer. Instead, it prohibited him from any "demonstrative religious activity" that is "readily observable to (if not intended to be observed by) students and the attending public."
Nonetheless, Kennedy v. Bremerton School District arrives before the justices Monday. It brings vexing questions about the ability of public employees to live out their faith while on duty and the government's competing responsibility to protect schoolchildren from coercion and to remain neutral on the subject of religion.
The case offers a court that has recently been overwhelmingly protective of religious rights the chance to transform decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence that started 60 years ago with the admonition that government cannot organize and promote prayer in public schools.
Four justices sympathized with Kennedy a couple of years ago when the case first reached the Supreme Court, but it was deemed premature for consideration. Now, it pits red states against blue ones, some professional football players against others, divides constitutional experts and has drawn more attention 57 friend-of-the-court briefs than any case at the Supreme Court this term, except for the controversies over abortion and gun control.
It also split the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, where a slim majority of judges ruled for the school district. They cited Supreme Court precedent that limits the speech rights of on-duty public employees, and said the district was warranted in worrying that allowing Kennedy's public prayer would violate the constitution's prohibition on government endorsement of religion.
That ruling was denounced in a filing by 24 Republican U.S. senators and 32 representatives.
"The Ninth Circuit's reasoning weaponizes the Establishment Clause, concluding that it requires a school to root out any religious expression by its employees even to fire teachers, coaches, and staff who will not leave their faith at home," the brief states. "If left uncorrected, this ruling threatens religious liberty … for all public employees."
Those supporting the school district say that Kennedy has radically recast the events that led to his dismissal and that his actions during the 2015 football season were hardly private acts of faith. His Facebook post "I think I just might have been fired for praying" drew national attention and elicited support from prominent advocates, including former president Donald Trump and Fox News pundits.
But the district's supporters say Kennedy's rights are no more important than those of students and parents who do not want to mix religion and school instruction.
Kennedy seeks to characterize the school district's "concern for the religious freedom and equality of its students as nothing more than hostility to his own religious practice a move that turns on its head decades of well-reasoned school prayer jurisprudence," said a brief filed by 11 law professors who identify themselves as "church-state scholars."
"It does not reflect religious hostility, but instead vindicates religious equality, for a school to require that its employees avoid coercing or compelling students (even subtly) to adopt favored religious beliefs or practices."
Kennedy and his wife in a town where everyone seems connected, she is the former human relations supervisor for the school district he sued have moved to Florida to care for her ailing father.
He returned to Bremerton last month to show reporters around his blue-collar hometown of about 40,000. Seattle is a ferry ride away across the Puget Sound, and the outline of the Olympic mountain range is visible from the home-team side of the stadium where the BHS Knights play.
"It never should have been a big thing," Kennedy said as he greeted former students on the stadium track. "It was supposed to be me and God, that's it." Asked if God cares where he prays, Kennedy said: "I don't think he cares either way. But that was my covenant. So I do."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/21/supreme-court-praying-football-coach/

Barrett appears to be the controlling vote. Four justices would have ruled for the coach the first time the case made it to the S. Ct.
Supreme Court Leans Toward Coach in Case on School Prayer
Members of the court's conservative majority indicated that the coach, Joseph A. Kennedy, had a constitutional right to kneel and pray at the 50-yard line after games.
WASHINGTON The Supreme Court's conservative majority seemed to be searching on Monday for a narrow way to rule in favor of a former high school football coach who lost his job for praying at the 50-yard line after his team's games.

The task was complicated by factual disputes over the conduct of the coach, Joseph A. Kennedy, and the shifting rationales offered by the school district in Bremerton, Wash., for disciplining him.
According to Paul D. Clement, one of Mr. Kennedy's lawyers, his client had sought to offer only a brief, silent and solitary prayer of thanks after his team's games. Earlier episodes, including prayers in the locker room, were not relevant, Mr. Clement said.
Richard B. Katskee, a lawyer for the Bremerton School District, said the school was entitled to require that its employees refrain from public prayer if students were likely to feel coerced into participating.

He was challenged by some of the more conservative justices, who said the district had initially argued that it could stop Mr. Kennedy from praying on a different ground: that the school would be perceived to be endorsing religion by allowing it. They suggested that the fear of coercion was a rationalization after the fact.

Justices across the ideological spectrum peppered the lawyers with hypothetical questions. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked whether Mr. Kennedy could have prayed aloud while standing with his arms outstretched. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked whether Mr. Kennedy would have been disciplined for protesting the invasion of Ukraine, climate change or racial injustice.
The tenor of the questioning from the court's conservative members was unsurprising, as four of them had issued a statement questioning a preliminary ruling in favor of the officials from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco.
"The Ninth Circuit's understanding of the free speech rights of public-school teachers is troubling and may justify review in the future," Justice Alito wrote at the time. He was joined by Justices Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas.
"What is perhaps most troubling about the Ninth Circuit's opinion," Justice Alito added, "is language that can be understood to mean that a coach's duty to serve as a good role model requires the coach to refrain from any manifestation of religious faith even when the coach is plainly not on duty."
After further proceedings, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit again ruled against Mr. Kennedy, saying that school officials were entitled to forbid his public prayers to avoid a potential violation of the First Amendment's prohibition of government establishment of religion.
The full Ninth Circuit declined to rehear the case over the objections of 11 judges. The two sides sharply disagreed about how to characterize Mr. Kennedy's actions.
Judge Milan D. Smith Jr., the author of the panel opinion, wrote that "Kennedy made it his mission to intertwine religion with football."
"He led the team in prayer in the locker room before each game, and some players began to join him for his postgame prayer, too, where his practice ultimately evolved to include full-blown religious speeches to, and prayers with, players from both teams after the game, conducted while the players were still on the field and while fans remained in the stands," Judge Smith wrote.
In response, Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain said the panel opinion had things backward. "It is axiomatic that teachers do not 'shed' their First Amendment protections 'at the schoolhouse gate,'" he wrote, quoting a 1969 Supreme Court decision. "Yet the opinion in this case obliterates such constitutional protections by announcing a new rule that any speech by a public-school teacher or coach, while on the clock and in earshot of others, is subject to plenary control by the government."
On Monday, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, said the case, Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, No. 21-418, presented unusual challenges. "This may be a case about the facts and not really much about the law," he said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/25/us/politics/supreme-court-prayer-football-coach.html

I liked Justice Kavanaugh's thoughts about whether participating or not would affect playing time, and how one would even know:

"I guess the problem at the heart of it is you're not going to know. The coach is probably not going to say anything like "The reason I'm starting you is that you knelt at the 50-yard line." You're never going to know. And that leads to the suspicions by parentsI think, I'm just playing out what the other side is saying herethe suspicion by parents that the reason Johnny's starting and you're not is [because] he was part of the prayer circle. I don't think you can get around that. That's a real thing out there. That's going to be a real thing in situations like this. I don't know how to deal with that, frankly."

The playing time based on prayer seems like a dumb one to me. Coaches are competitive and want to win. They are not going to start (or play) the 5'8 kid that weighs 150 that wants to play QB with a noodle of an arm over a guy that actually can play QB. (Or any other position).

And since in many states the HC can and often is let go because of not winning enough I just don't see a coach risking his job to play a kid that prayed with him over a kid who did not but is a good athlete.

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.

---

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it ultimately leads to depriving any government employee of free speech at any time, including worship, to include in one's own home when others might be present.

whiterock 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.

---

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it ultimately leads to depriving any government employee of free speech at any time, including worship, to include in one's own home when others might be present.

---

When carried to an extreme, which cases haven't allowed. Booray limited his answer to "at work". You added "at home".

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

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.

---

Did I not specifically say that I was fine with public prayer after a school function as long as it was led by someone who was not a working state actor?

I am not suppressing the expression of religious thought other than to say the government should not be the vehicle for that expression. It is not that complicated and you are too smart to have misunderstood it. You are intentionally mischaracterizing.

---

So, where do you come in on state actors teaching 2nd graders that gender identity is fluid, boys can grow up to be fine young women and it's normal to be gay?

---

Not sure about Booray, but quash, Sam and LIQR are on board with sexually grooming children.

Canon said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

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.

---

Did I not specifically say that I was fine with public prayer after a school function as long as it was led by someone who was not a working state actor?

I am not suppressing the expression of religious thought other than to say the government should not be the vehicle for that expression. It is not that complicated and you are too smart to have misunderstood it. You are intentionally mischaracterizing.

---

So, where do you come in on state actors teaching 2nd graders that gender identity is fluid, boys can grow up to be fine young women and it's normal to be gay?

---

Not sure about Booray, but quash, Sam and LIQR are on board with sexually grooming children.

---

You're a good cultist. Your leader enjoys lying too.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Canon said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

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.

---

Did I not specifically say that I was fine with public prayer after a school function as long as it was led by someone who was not a working state actor?

I am not suppressing the expression of religious thought other than to say the government should not be the vehicle for that expression. It is not that complicated and you are too smart to have misunderstood it. You are intentionally mischaracterizing.

---

So, where do you come in on state actors teaching 2nd graders that gender identity is fluid, boys can grow up to be fine young women and it's normal to be gay?

---

Not sure about Booray, but quash, Sam and LIQR are on board with sexually grooming children.

---

You're a good cultist. Your leader enjoys lying too.

---

it is a quality this country loves.. we keep electing them - Bush, Clinton, W Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden.. all liars.

The thing that has changed is the people who have been lied to long enough and often enough that they dont know or care they are being lied to..

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Canon said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

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.

---

Did I not specifically say that I was fine with public prayer after a school function as long as it was led by someone who was not a working state actor?

I am not suppressing the expression of religious thought other than to say the government should not be the vehicle for that expression. It is not that complicated and you are too smart to have misunderstood it. You are intentionally mischaracterizing.

---

So, where do you come in on state actors teaching 2nd graders that gender identity is fluid, boys can grow up to be fine young women and it's normal to be gay?

---

Not sure about Booray, but quash, Sam and LIQR are on board with sexually grooming children.

---

You're a good cultist. Your leader enjoys lying too.

---

it is a quality this country loves.. we keep electing them - Bush, Clinton, W Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden.. all liars.

The thing that has changed is the people who have been lied to long enough and often enough that they dont know or care they are being lied to..

---

Canon knows it, but you're right that he doesn't care. Like most fanatics of the left and the right, he's a post-modern man. His truth is that which serves to increase power, nothing more or less.