The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Forget Carson! Remember the Maine Human Rights Act.
Maine finds a way to undercut Carson v. Maikin.
On its face, Carson v. Maikin seems to be a resounding victory for religious liberty and school choice in Maine. The Supreme Court held that the state cannot exclude two Christian schools from a tuition payment program. Open up the coffers for Bangor Christian and Temple Academy? Not so fast.
Justice Breyer observed in his dissent that there may be another conflict between the state and the Christian schools.
Legislators also recognized that these private schools make religiously based enrollment and hiring decisions. Bangor Christian and Temple Academy, for example, have admissions policies that allow them to deny enrollment to students based on gender, gender-identity, sexual orientation, and religion, and both schools require their teachers to be Born Again Christians. Legislators did not want Maine taxpayers to pay for these religiously based practices—practices not universally endorsed by all citizens of the State—for fear that doing so would cause a significant number of Maine citizens discomfort or displeasure. The nonsectarian requirement helped avoid this conflict—the precise kind of social conflict that the Religion Clauses themselves sought to avoid.
Unsurprisingly, Maine found another way to avoid that "social conflict." Last year, the legislature revised the Maine Human Rights Act. Now, all private schools that choose to accept public funds must comply with the non-discrimination law. Specifically, the schools will be barred from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The legislature knew quite well that this change would force the two Christian schools to opt-out of any public financing.
Justice Breyer alluded to this fact in his dissent:
Nor do the schools want Maine in this role. Bangor Christian asserted that it would only consider accepting public funds if it "did not have to make any changes in how it operates." Temple Academy similarly stated that it would only accept state money if it had "in writing that the school would not have to alter its admissions standards, hiring standards, or curriculum." The nonsectarian requirement ensures that Maine is not pitted against private religious schools in these battles over curriculum or operations, thereby avoiding the social strife resulting from this state-versus-religion confrontation. By invalidating the nonsectarian requirement, the majority today subjects the State, the schools, and the people of Maine to social conflict of a kind that they, and the Religion Clauses, sought to prevent
Shortly after Carson was decided, the Maine Attorney General put out a press release citing this new legislation.
"I am terribly disappointed and disheartened by today's decision," said AG Frey. "Public education should expose children to a variety of viewpoints, promote tolerance and understanding, and prepare children for life in a diverse society. The education provided by the schools at issue here is inimical to a public education. They promote a single religion to the exclusion of all others, refuse to admit gay and transgender children, and openly discriminate in hiring teachers and staff. One school teaches children that the husband is to be the leader of the household. While parents have the right to send their children to such schools, it is disturbing that the Supreme Court found that parents also have the right to force the public to pay for an education that is fundamentally at odds with values we hold dear. I intend to explore with Governor Mills' administration and members of the Legislature statutory amendments to address the Court's decision and ensure that public money is not used to promote discrimination, intolerance, and bigotry."
While the Court's decision paves the way for religious schools to apply to receive public funds, it is not clear whether any religious schools will do so. Educational facilities that accept public funds must comply with anti-discrimination provisions of the Maine Human Rights Act, and this would require some religious schools to eliminate their current discriminatory practices.
In the New York Times, Aaron Tang observed that this statute provides a workaround to Carson.
"The legislative fix made by Maine lawmakers offers a model for lawmakers elsewhere who are alarmed by the court's aggressive swing to the right. Maine's example shows that those on the losing end of a case can often outmaneuver the court and avoid the consequences of a ruling."
And other states may follow suit.
Other states should follow Maine's lead. A handful of blue states — including Illinois, Maryland, Nevada and Vermont — provide vouchers or similar tax-credit scholarships to low-income students to enroll in private schools. None of them, however, enacted a statute prohibiting funds-receiving private schools from discriminating against L.G.B.T.Q. students. Legislation that would do so is pending in Maryland's legislature, the General Assembly. Lawmakers there should quickly enact it. Other states should also prohibit such discrimination.
There still may be more litigation:
Michael Bindas, senior attorney for the Institute for Justice, said the attorney general isn't paying close attention to the Supreme Court's commitment to religious liberty in recent years.
"It was an erroneous opinion of the Maine attorney general that embroiled the state in five lawsuits spanning three decades and that culminated in the Supreme Court's ruling against the state," Bindas said Thursday in a statement. "The current attorney general seems to not have learned any lessons from that experience."
If the state truly intends to use the state law to create another obstacle, then more litigation will be inevitable, said Carroll Conley, executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine.
The effect of this ruling may be limited in the context of school tuition programs for Maine. But the elimination of the status/use distinction (which I will discuss in another post) was huge.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Must be drunk, what was Breyer's view on Europe's opinion(s) of the case? Where is the link to the https://www.icj-cij.org/en opinion on the case, Jeezus, I get RBG, but Breyer had to be a post-orgasmal appointment (20 minutes later you're like WTF?) He talks like a pompous A-hole, RBG didn't like him (you'll see in her Posthumerous Bio) and I'll take a token who has to pretend she doesn't know a 12 inch (redacted) from a (redacted) Hey (man!) lets re-vote Dobbs, it'll still be 6-3
Frank
Religion is 10 times more effective at persuading people to be nice than the worthless lawyer profession. Thus, religion must defunded and crushed.
Although I am an atheist, I am with Weber. Religious societies are more prosperous. Therefore religions are utilitarian. Compare secular Europe to religious America. They get paid half and spend double. They live like animals. Compare the Godless Commies. They live in abject poverty not seen here for decades.
OK, scribes, if you know what I mean, persuaded Pharaoh to use his excess wealth to build pyramids. These would aim his soul precisely toward the sky, to insure him eternal life. OK, it was a scam. However, they employed 100000 men idled 6 months of the year by the flooding of the Nile, and kept them out of trouble and earning. These wonders still bring in $5 billion in tourism to Egypt. That was government spending created by what are called lawyers today, but it was a profit, not a rent.
Ay-yuh. Eating lawb-stuh makes you clev-uh.
Makes sense to me. If the religious bigots want to practice discrimination against LGBTQ folks, let them do so on their own nickel.
Once the government issues a voucher to the parents, it IS their nickel.
So, people should give their nickels to the government, to see them disbursed to schools meeting the government’s criteria for funding, and spend more of their nickels if they want to send their kids to schools meeting their criteria? Taxes are not “optional” and funding of schools should not be discretionary based on administrative decisions or majority rule. But then again, maybe there’s no right to an education in the mystic US Constitution after all?
" So, people should give their nickels to the government, to see them disbursed to schools meeting the government’s criteria for funding, and spend more of their nickels if they want to send their kids to schools meeting their criteria? "
That's how America works (as with roads), clinger. Autistic incels and superstitious bigots struggle with the concept and reality of modern America, but the liberal-libertarian mainstream properly rejects un-American, antisocial, right-wing thinking.
Once the government issues a voucher to the parents, it IS their nickel.
Vouchers aren't cash. There is no reason for it to be how you wish it, if the lawmakers think otherwise.
The government has been adding conditions to it's payments for ages. This is not special, except as you disagree with it.
There is, of course, the usual remedy if you don't like what the legislature is doing.
Yes, the legislature just lost that battle, so they are throwing a fit and trying to violate the Constitution again.
Conditions on government money has never been unconstitutional before.
You don't get to yell unconstitutional because *this* time you don't like the condition.
Well, you can do that but no one will take your tantrum very seriously. Except maybe Alito.
Wrong. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/unconstitutional-conditions
True. But, directly outlawing discrimination on the basis of sexuality or gender identity (among other classifications) is constitutionally permissible. So, conditioning funding on the same is permissible too.
Only when such outlawing doesn't interfere with the Constitution.
Freedom of Religion would take precedence.
Not under Smith, and not even under Tandon.
Nice off-topic pedantry.
In general conditional funding is constitutional. There are exceptions, but this is not one of them.
Pedantic doesn't mean wrong. Your post was wrong. Your post is also implying the government can freely discriminate on social behaviors.
How far does your implication go with that?
The exceptions being when that conditional funding would interefere with Constitutional Rights. For example, Freedom of Religion.
Taken to an extreme, your concept of conditional funding could effectively outlaw certain religions. You could mandate tax refunds and social security based on nominally non-religious concepts that nonetheless are targeted against religions.
For example, you only get social security if you eat a pork sandwich. This is designed to "stimulate" pork demand in the US. A good example of a conditional funding mechanism. But one that would effectively discriminate against certain religions.
Firstly, Congress cannot mandate the eating a sandwich under either Raich (eating isn't economic activity) or NFIB (even assuming eating is economic activity, Congress can't force someone to enter commerce).
Secondly assuming it is a state that conditions a state benefit on eating a pork sandwich, if the state honestly did so to stimulate the pork industry, and can do so directly without offending the substantive component of due process, then there is only a disparate impact on religious conduct. Under Smith, that is constitutionally permissible.
1. Eating is absolutely an economic activity, especially if the goal is to stimulate pork demand.
2. No one is being "forced" to enter commerce. Simple conditions are being put into place, regarding tax policy and taxing. Not unlike NFIB.
3. A little worrying that you so brazenly disregard religious freedom after that.
Eating is economic activity? Wow!
Receiving social security benefits isn't a tax policy. However, Congress could institute a pork-eating tax credit.
You are arguing that Smith brazenly disregards religious freedom. Scalia's ghost would like a word with you.
As we look ahead next legislative session, it’s important for us to continue advancing policies that empower parents and students over bureaucrats and special interests. io games foodle
Non discrimination is not bureaucracy or special interests, it is a fundamental part of modern society. The bigot schools are special interests.
>Non discrimination is not bureaucracy or special interests, it is a fundamental part of modern society
Unless it's Whites, Christians, Trump supporters, Conservatives, Patriots, or Purebloods.
Right?
" I intend to explore with Governor Mills' administration and members of the Legislature statutory amendments to address the Court's decision and ensure that public money is not used to promote discrimination, intolerance, and bigotry."
(Except when done by minorities who deny biology, against Christians)
A good point. But this was in the context of one sect gaining ascendancy through legislation, at the expense of others. When it is open for all, is that problem there?
Isn't the issue that the vouchers are intended to be used where there are no public schools?
So where is a gay student who lives in one of those areas supposed to go to school?
And before anyone says "open another school," what if a big chunk of the parents in the area approve of the bigotry of the religious schools?
Tough shit.
Where is a gay student supposed to go?
I don't know. It seems he has no school now. What does he do now?
This solution lessens the problems, but clearly doesn't solve them all.
Where did the gay student who lived in one of those areas go before the Supreme Court's decision last week? He couldn't go to the public school (since it didn't exist) and he couldn’t go to this school (since it was ineligible for vouchers).
I don't know. I guess there was a problem. Presumably the gay student either lied or more likely, traveled to a less conveniently located school further away.
But funding the religious schools reduces the chances that the gay student's problem will be solved by the creation of a tolerant school in the area. Indeed, one of the families who are plaintiffs said that they were unable to afford to send both children to the religious school.
Even if that were not an issue, which I think it is, consider this. Blackman calls the decision a "resounding victory for religious liberty."
It's not. Not close. It is a resounding victory for majority religions seeking government subsidies for their schools. How many religions are going to have enough adherents in rural areas for it to be practical to start a school? Virtually always, the answer is going to be zero or one.
So the majority gets their school, excludes who they like, teaches its doctrines at the public's expense, and nonbelievers can go hang.
Sure looks like a violation of the Establishment Clause to me.
But it is not open for all.
Look at the web site of Bangor Christian.
Here is part of their statement of faith:
We believe the Bible to be without error as recorded in the original manuscript. The Bible reveals God, the spiritual separation of man from God, the way of salvation, and how to have a personal relationship with God. (II Tim. 3:15-16; II Peter 1:20-21)
We believe the one, true God reveals Himself in three distinct persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. All three are co-eternal, co-powerful, and co-equal. (I John 5:7)We believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, born of the virgin Mary. He lived a life without sin and is our example. (I Peter 2:21-25)
We believe salvation (a personal relationship with God) is by "grace," plus nothing and minus nothing. This salvation is found only by receiving Jesus Christ into your life. Salvation is by repentance and faith (truly being sorrowful for your sins, confessing that Jesus Christ died for your sins, and inviting Him into your life). (Eph.2:8-9; Titus 3:5-7)
We believe in the visible and personal return of Jesus Christ. (I Thess. 4:16-17)We believe that those who receive Jesus Christ will go to Heaven and those who reject Him will be separated from the Lord forever. (Rev. 20:10-15)
....
We believe that any other type of sexual activity, identity or expression that lies outside of this definition of marriage, including those that are becoming more accepted in the culture and the courts, are sinful perversions of and contradictory to God’s natural design and purpose for sexual activity.
The wife is to submit herself to the Scriptural leadership of her husband as the church submits to the headship of Christ.
And then, under Admissions:
The parents express an agreement with the philosophy of the school and are willing to have their children trained in accordance with this philosophy.
No student is admitted or allowed to remain in Bangor Christian Schools who does not agree and cooperate with the overall purpose and program of the school.
IOW, a pretty much fundamentalist Christian POV, and outright discrimination against those who do not share that worldview.
Fine, if it's privately funded, but remember, these schools are supposed to substitute for public schools in areas where there are no public schools.
Residents of those areas have no other choices. I don't think the state of Maine should be funding those schools. Give the vouchers to families who want to attend schools that don't discriminate based on religious grounds, or even on personal views of sexual morality. Maybe someone will open real schools in those areas.
Again: what did those residents do before this?
I answered above.
Fundamentally, so to speak, this ruling makes the problem of a gay, or non-Evangelical, student worse, at least in the long run.
Statistically speaking, it already is.
This is really such a wasted exercise. After being soundly defeated at the US Supreme Court, the state AG's response is to craft yet another obstacle that repeats the exact same legal mistakes?
I don't know how much time and talent it costs to take a case all the way to the US Supreme Court, but I bet it would go a long way towards getting Maine out of the -1.3 percent GDP slump they are in.
Kinda reminds me of my attorney general here in Texas: Ken Paxton
There will be a line somewhere that the Supreme Court upholds but religious schools generally won't accept. The Maine opinion pretty much endorsed curricular requirements, for example. How many religious schools will be ok to teach evolution as truth? Modern cosmology? Roman history? Sexual health? Philosophy and related literature?
This whole thing is a culture-war battle that the purported beneficiaries (religious schools) didn't even want to win. They don't want to dance with the state any more than the state wants to dance with them.
The view that teachers and school philosophy in general may have views liberals disagree with like teaching vs indoctrination is a big reason people want choice.
And because it’s your choice if you don’t like it don’t go there.
Ok, so leave alone the LGBT discrimination issue. But the state funds education for a reason; it wants an educated citizenry. So.. is the state allowed to condition the vouchers on biology curriculum not being creationist? What about any other curricular restrictions? There has to be some line somewhere where the state declares: "these funds are for education, and we don't think this is education."
I thought the *Fulton* case established that government can't discriminate against religions based on their views on gender or sexuality, so long as they don't impose such views on anyone outside their (voluntary) organization.
And in any case, the comments made by state officials here would seem to cause problems regarding the *Masterpiece* case, which held that governments must at least be "respectful" of such views (even if/when they may restrict them).
Fulton established that a law which gives exemptions on an individualized basis is subject to strict scrutiny when it does not exempt religious objectors. It did not establish that rule when the law has only categorical, or no objections.
I too bristled when I read
thinking it might afoul of Masterpiece. But on second thought, given it only decries elevating one religion over other religions, it is not at all clear it conflicts with Masterpiece.
Also, there is a big difference between legislators discussing possible legislation (long held doctrine is that comments of a single lawmaker or even several lawmakers cannot be read to be the "real" intent of any law) and the Masterpiece case where the issue was what members of abjudicatory panel said.
SCOTUS should simply state that governments must maintain *neutrality* between traditional vs. progressive views on modern controversies involving gender and sexuality. There are multiple possible constitutional paths to get there, but the most straightforward would be based on religious neutrality...
And if may be smart for them to do so via a case involving *non-Christian* plaintiffs (e.g., traditionalists who are Jewish, Muslim, or perhaps even secular...although the latter would require a different constitutional rationale).
So remove gender issues as something the government can legislate on, and open the doors to religious orgs removing anywhere else from government regulation by declaring it a religious issue?
That doesn't seem workable at all.
I don't see multiple paths. As to religious neutrality, that only works if the government is motivated by favoring or disfavoring religion. It seems pretty clear, the government promotes gender and sexuality beliefs without regard to religion, opposing both religious and secular viewpoints to the contrary.
When gay rights were fairly new, opponents would accuse them of wanting "special rights," and they responded that they just wanted equal rights...
And now, the same thing seems to be happening to traditionalists...
Pluralism or bust!
On the one hand, Democrats don't want to fund religious schools because those schools offend them. On the other hand, Democrats want to force everyone to pay for abortions. If Democrats didn't have double standards, they would have no standards at all.
Well the public schools offend many. They suck
Public schools offend the lesser, doomed, minority elements of our society.
Nothing better Americans and replacement can't handle, though.
Religious schools don't offend Democrats.
If you mean "don't offend all Democrats", then you are probably correct. I cannot imagine 100% of Democrats agreeing on anything.
If you mean "There are no Democrats that are offended by religious schools", you are mistaken. Unless you seriously want to argue that 100% of Democrats, including openly hostile groups like the Freedom from Religion Foundation, all are perfectly fine with religious schools, or that all the people arguing that they should not be allowed to exist are not Democrats.
By that logic, the statement "Republicans are pedophile racists" is true in some sense, because, America being a big place half of which is Republican, logic dictates that there is probalby more than one racist pedophile who is a pedophile.
Now that we got rid of the semantics. Are there some Democrats who think that religious school shouldn't at all exist because religion is child abuse etc etc? I suppose, but I doubt there a single Democrat with any power who holds it.
Now, the position that "if people want to send kids to religious schohols, but tax payer money should not be spent on them" clearly has a very strong support among Democrats. But, even if you think it's wrong it's not equivalent to thinking religious schools shouldn't exist.
Why is the Institute for Justice trying to stop gay or non-Christian students from taking advantage of the voucher program?
Berbard,
How are they doing that (serious request for information not in the OP).
I don't see a problem with non-discrimination rules applying to voucher receiving organizations.
Students should be able to opt out of religion classes and likewise classes that could be seen as promoting values contra-religious values of the parochial school. This can be done and has been done for decades. I know of many Jewish parents who send their kids to a local Catholic high School with a tuition 1/3 the cost of local private high schools.
I went to Catholic school in high school. We had some Budhist, Muslim and Jewish students. They were allowed to opt out of mass. I'm not sure if they were allowed to opt out of the 4 semesters of required religion. We all had flexibility in choice of religion classes and quite a few weren't very Catholic or Christian. I took a class on death and dying.
Don,
Of course. And this is even more common at the university level.
But these specific schools will not admit students who don't share their beliefs about sexuality, or their specific religious beliefs.
In other words, they are unwilling to comply with non-discrimination rules, but want the vouchers anyway.
I'm no expert, but I suspect that even some Catholics and members of other Christian denominations would not be welcome.
Thanks, bernard.
Funny that the alleged most pro “choice” folks aren’t really,
Progressivism is an outcomes-based ideology. They really don't have any foundational principles that act as guardrails on their beliefs or guide their decision-making process. They demand a particular outcome and don't mind how they get there.
This is the only thing I can think of that explains their current hypocrisy and how historically the belief system has been so horrific and led to such human death and misery. In the end, they will mass murder, genocide, rape children, create another Holodomor or do whatever to get to their end goal of complete control.
The Commies are just the Mafia with lying. They have seized governments and pkunged the cointries into abjrmect poverty. They are just billionaire Mafia with bullshit masking ideology. That fully justifies public self help to stop them.
For example rich BLM running dogs drop the police. A hideous explosion in black lives murdered results.
Yea “choice” is just for abortion. Abortion which is not stated at all in the constitution
Vax and mandates that tread all over explicitly stated rights no choice
Laws that limit your choice of speech and the right to bear arms no problem.
Hypocrisy no longer seems to matter
So in my lifetime I've went from being called a liberal, to a socialist, to a marxist, to being a liar, then a child groomer and now I'm a child rapist and mass murderer. Anything else BCD?
Pro choice means the government has to subsidize your choice?
So no taxes in Maine to pay for school? It’s free and the workers volunteer?
Here in PA iI’m still paying taxes for schools my grown kids never used
I make enough money to pay private school tuition and taxes. Many don’t. Arguably the most needy of kids parents don’t
Do you live in civilized Pennsylvania, or the uneducated, economically inadequate, bigoted part of Pennsylvania that might as well be in Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, or West Virginia?
Hint: About six counties (of more than sixty) in Pennsylvania qualify as civilized. I figure you're from one of the worthless counties.
Public school being a thing that exists is not pro choice either.
In general, taxes go to all sorts of stuff the taxpayer individually may not want - that's living in a republic for you!
Putting on the 'think of the poor families' is amazing coming from someone with your usual takes
Well, not that amazing when you realize your stand on choice is actually just a stand against public schools dressed up a bit because hating public schools doesn't get very far outside of right-wing circles.
It should mean that the government pays for public schools in all districts and does away with vouchers
I agree with that policy, but calling it pro choice doesn't seem quite correct.
I agree, I would not call it pro-choice; I'd call it the government fulfilling its obligation to its taxpayers
Makes sense to me.
I believe at least part of the decision to apply the Maine Human Rights act to these schools likely violates the ministerial exception by infringing on the organization's rights to freely hire those that perform a religious function.
Teaching math is a religious function?
And what about the admission policies?
Teaching math is racist I hear though
Be serious
The supreme court explicitly said so just two years ago.
Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru
"The religious education and formation of students is the very reason for the existence of most private religious schools, and therefore the selection and supervision of the teachers upon whom the schools rely to do this work lie at the core of their mission. Judicial review of the way in which religious schools discharge those responsibilities would undermine the independence of religious institutions in a way that the First Amendment does not tolerate." - Alito writing for the Majority.
Alito says a lot of things that aren't so.
But they're not applying the HRA to these schools. The schools are free to discriminate.
Not quite. According to Hossanah-Tabor the school has to show that the teacher is actually incorporating religion into the curriculum (e.g. using the Bible as reading naterial in an English class) or giving some explicit religious instruction in addition to secular duties. Being a minister doesn’t occur just on the school’s say so.
But it wouldn’t seem to be especially difficult to set things up so that every teacher in the school does this and meets the criteria.
Hey, Rhoid. Cool comment, Bro. Quality of life survey is by UN and academic people. They are Commies and measure kife by how Commie it is. Dismissed.
They arr real stupid and out of touch
Who feels better all day?. A Nyc billionaire or someone making $100000 in Quakertown, PA? Who has a better quality of everything every day?
So far, this is a tedious bunch of comments. I hate to say it, but the difference between VC comment quality and REASON comment quality is getting harder and harder to discern.
I assume that some of the better commenters whose remarks used to appear here went on to some forum they like better. Anyone know where to go to read Mark Field?
This used to have some scholarly debate worthy of a law blog, now it's just a combination of trolls and slightly below average Joe's throwing out accusations of some sort of ism.
It's a victim of its popularity combined with lack of forum moderators.
And also the times. We've entered the era of Total Culture War. There's no more policy to debate.
The culture war cannot be won by either side. I'm not sure how it ends. Either some truly cataclysmic crisis (needs to be way worse than a pandemic killing millions), or... people just get bored?
There may be a chance for the left to just stop fighting. (There's no way the right will ever stop voluntarily, it's become too ingrained.) Since neither side can win, neither side really needs to fight, either. At the moment, both the Dems and the Pubs find fighting the culture war to be in their best political interest, but the Dems could decide to de-escalate, stop taking the bait, and shift to a more accomodating, centrist tone (without sacrificing anything substantive). Think Clinton in the early 90s, the last time the culture war was raging (though still nowhere near this hot).
Will they? Unfortunately, probably not. Everyone loves to troll!!1!1
We have people losing their jobs because they used the wrong pronouns and the right is the side that will never stop fighting?
Yes. If you're willing to sacrifice your job rather than be nice to someone, you are on the side that will never stop fighting.
Smiley face fascism.
You guys keep making my point for me, it's great.
Post secondary aid does go to private and religious schools of the students choice, FAFSA.
So it’s only a K-12 issue seemingly. Which means it’s about the school employees and maintains their monopoly on tax dollars not the students well being
Every business would live the government force folks to use and pay for their products
See Vax companies
See Vax companies
I don't recall the government forcing anyone to buy computers from DEC.
What if the school on religious grounds accepts only white kids?
Or just boys?
The Supreme Court in Bob Jones made a special exception for racial discrimination and racial discrimination only, emphasizing its uniqueness.
Many religious provate schools are single sex. It’s very common.
Many religious provate schools are single sex. It’s very common.
Yes. It is. But, like the majority, you delete context.
Here, the school is likely to be the only school in the area, or possibly there would be separate boys' and girls' schools. That is going to create problems for parents who want their kids to attend a coeducational school.
In fact, absence of context is the big flaw in the whole majority case. All the arguments ignore the fact that the schools in question are likely to be the only convenient choices for many families in the area. We are not talking about religious schools in populous areas.
That makes them quasi-public schools.
Now, one possible agreement is to let them continue t operate, and get the vouchers, so long as they don't discriminate, and let students opt out of religious instruction and the like.
Even that's pretty shaky, IMO. Maine should just go ahead and build public schools in the area, but I suppose it's livable in the interim.
BYU just had a requirement where all teachers need to teach at least one religion class. Likely to take advantage of this very thing.
Could this be the vehicle for overturning Oregon v. Smith?
Does it really matter what Maine does even if it's lawful?
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Supreme Court Division) will throw out any law that infringes on the most egregious exercise of Christian religious liberty regardless of any past holdings, or principles. So yes, there may indeed be a loophole identified by Maine from a logical legal standpoint, but the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Supreme Court Division) answers to a higher authority.
Why isn’t the Maine Human Tights Act nothing more than an establishment of religion?
Religious schools organized under religious principles that meet with state approval get subsidized. Religious schools that don’t don’t.
The Supreme Court made a special exception in Bob Jones for racial discrimination, and racial discrimination only, stressing its uniqueness. But none of the religious schools involved discriminate on the basis of race. So Bob Jones wouldn’t appear to apply.
Suppose a school is open only to people who are members of a church. Since churches are as free to choose their members as their ministers, the State of Maine couldn’t purport to tell churches who can and can’t be their members, can’t it?
I have been sympathetic to the state not wanting to entangle itself in religious beliefs it might not agree with. But I don’t think it has the option of subsidizing only schools associated with churches whose church membership or moral conduct criteria it likes.
It's not a question whether the state likes the membership.
It's a question of what the school/church does.
The whole reason these schools get a subsidy - under the new rules - is that they provide a public service. If they want the subsidy then they can damn well provide it on a non-discriminatory basis.
Do you support or oppose online discrimination against Non-GMO humans, Christians, and Russians?
Is accidentally or on purpose ingesting human feces for sexual gratification really a value we, as a society, should elevate?
Maine is the state that decided they can't bother to run their own school system everywhere. But great post except for missing both the trees and the forest!
Maybe their GDPs are higher because of their State churches, reasonable abortion restrictions, racial/cultural homogeneity, and voter ID laws?
Ah, you were reading that backwards. Or, technically, what you did was fail to look at the PPP numbers. (Adjusted for local prices, "Purchasing Power Parity".)
We're wealthier than both countries in terms of what the money will actually BUY. Which is kind of what matters.
You might also want to look at disposable income, what the average person has left after taxes. We actually rank #1 in the world on that, because in the few countries that have higher GDPs, their governments seize most of it for their own use, leaving the actual people poorer than Americans.
Hi, Rhoid. Super comment, Bro. You need to compare salaries to those of whites, Asians, African immigrants. You did not exclude under performing crybaby groups.
Then look for an ad in your occupation over there. The salary is half. Then find any item on Amazon. Look for the same in Europe. The price is double. Add taxes. They live like animals. They come here. Their eyes bug out at our lifestyle and at our prices.
Biden wants us to be more Commie like them. He will be rejected by the American people.
But great comment, bro. Please keep them coning.
Does Weber discuss ancient Egypt, Honey? The Jews got their ideas there.
I admit I don't know Behar. But I was convinced he was being sarcastic ...
Well, I saw your posts and immediately knew there was a degenerate around so in order to engage you I knew of two topics that would rope you in. Sex with human shit, or sex with human children.
I chose the former.
So you disagree with his "non-discrimination is a fundamental part of modern society" statement and believe that free association is a fundamental part of modern society?
Do they both have state churches?
Do they have severe restrictions on abortions after 18 weeks?
Well, I saw your posts and immediately knew there was a filthy degenerate around so in order to engage you I knew of two topics that would rope you in. Sex with human shit, or sex with human children.
Confirmed: You have no ability to make actual points, only name-calling and reciting irrelevant talking points.
(Technically, re-confirmed. But I am not one to hold a grudge, unlike Maine's AG.)
So you think non-discrimination is more important than free association were just lying in your earlier comment.
Got it.
Gays want the right to groom Christian children on the government's dime.
So the answer was "Yes" to both of my questions.
Thank you.
Because there's a homosexual stalking my comments and that's the first thing that comes to mind when normal people see homosexuals.
Further, we just had a whole month of homosexuals in the spotlight, so ingesting human filth and child molestation was top of mind.
You’re mistaken, I’m a Normal, Queen.
If the first thing that ever comes to your mind is eating shit and fucking kids, you have serious problems! Please find a new Church that isn't secretly trying to pervert your thoughts.
It's like Frank and his 12" dicks. I see now why conservatives want to censor any talk about race or gender, somehow it triggers their brains into thinking about all their deepest desires!
I'm able to go weeks, months, years without eating shit or fucking kids crossing my mind. And that's with a lot of gender / race conversations thrown in.
12" dicks on the other hand... who can argue against that, really.
We just spent a whole month where child grooming and fecal matter ingestion was all something to be proud about.
They even held parades.
We just spent a whole month celebrating child rape and shiteating.
You did? You need to quit that club, Charlie. I guess you can eat shit in the privacy of your own home, but think of the children!
You’re the one trying to make an argument with them, so you tell me how that supposedly undermines my original claim?
So you were replying to me but arguing against Frank?
I don’t think that’s what smart people do.
You believe this statement:
Hi, Rhoid. Great comment, Bro. Iagree.
So you hate them and were asking why I hate them?
Pretty weird.
Why do you hate common carrier laws?
Because when applied to non-common carriers they violate the free speech rights of those companies.
Try reading the Supreme Court's decision. Maybe you'll understand the principles here. On the other hand, understanding anything would probably be a first for you.
The mistake here is not making the least restrictive accommodation for matters of conscience. The Constitution has several broad prohibitions against making laws restricting speech, establishing religion, forbidding association, as so on. What all those have in common is the principle that on matters of conscience and opinion, the state needs to be strictly impartial, and when it has to impose a burden on the exercise of conscience, it must do so in the least restrictive manner possible.
Passing a law that discriminates against Christian parents in the distribution of public funds because of their beliefs is neither impartial nor the broadest accommodation.
Therefore it invites another suit, and given that the Supreme Court has already said they will demand accommodation, it is yet another expensive, fruitless, wasted effort.
If you can read, read them from the Supreme Court. I'm not here to spoon-feed you.
Yeah, I guess you can't read.
Maybe the state should stop illegal discriminating, then.
It's more coherent and sensible than yours.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
QA, proudly backing arbitrary government use of force to back up discriminatory mandates.
What facts were incorrectly assumed?
That the schools discriminate against LGBT children.
If they don't, then they have nothing to worry about if Maine revises their regulations.
More to the point, Dave M seemed to assume some for heightened scrutiny applies to Maine's proposed revisions. But, since Christians would only by disparately impacted (assuming they discriminate), I don't see why.
They certainly do discriminate against LGBT children, and against anyone who doesn't share their religious views.
See my comment above, with quotes taken directly form the Bangor Christian website.
The parents express an agreement with the philosophy of the school and are willing to have their children trained in accordance with this philosophy.
No student is admitted or allowed to remain in Bangor Christian Schools who does not agree and cooperate with the overall purpose and program of the school.
Since when do you take an unsourced Josh Blackman pronouncement as gospel?
Ah. You've never seen discriminatory enforcement of vague laws.
Whereas you only manage the first of those three.
No, they are trying to unconstitutionally discriminate against these schools.
Super comment, Bro. The sick lawyers in Maine government want to force a quota for groomers for schools.
If the law targets Christians in practice, it can be challenged on an as-applied basis based on the facts. In contrast, Dave M argued the law is facially invalid which strikes me as wrong.
No discriminatory mandate here.
Just saying, if you want to discriminate the government won't fund you.
Given that the idea is to provide for education for all students, that seems right to me.
Sure, it will invite a suit because someone will want to sue. But I'm not convinced the parents or schools wanting to use a voucher at a school that discriminated in employent could win.
Isn't the standard "least restrictive accomodation" to "achieve a compelling state interest"? The compelling state interest at issue above is not permitting employment discrimination on the basis of "race, color, ancestry, national origin, sex, sexual orientation (which includes gender identity and expression), physical or mental disability, religion, age, and other categories in certain contexts". Main has based an act that would strongly suggest Maine considers not permitting employment discrimination to be a compelling state interest.
I realize that Maine need to allow the religious entities discriminate in employment to continue to exist. But they might not be required to provide funding through vouchers. (Though we likely will not know until this one gets to SCOTUS.)
Passing a law that discriminates against Christian parents in the distribution of public funds because of their beliefs is neither impartial nor the broadest accommodation.
It doesn't discriminate against Christian parents. What it does is prevent them from using state funds to discriminate against others. Let the Christian parents have their school. But don't pay for it.
Would you allow a public school to discriminate this way in hiring or admissions, even if the parents wanted it to?
Of course not. And this is, in substance, the same thing.
There will be if the Supreme Court says schools can discriminate! That would be a dream school for lots of kids and parents. Sad that everyone's top priority at this point is self-segregation, but if that's what we're doing, keep your hyper-religious freakazoids away from my kids!
Charlie the shiteating childfucker they call him.
Not if rational-basis review applies, and I think it would, even under Tandon.
You are, as usual, missing the obvious: The state will unconstitutionally try to impose its speech preferences on the schools under the guise of this antidiscrimination law. Leftist extremists have been trying this for over a decade, and they never seem to learn from all their court losses.
You were reading your chart backwards Queenie.
The US has a per capita GDP 22% higher than sweden's
Where does that say they will not enroll LGBT children?
Imposing a "speech preference" such as you have to teach math as a condition for funding almost certainly does not violate the unconstitutional conditions doctrine even if the state cannot directly require teaching math. From United States v. American Library Assn., Inc.:
Their taxes are much higher there, so it's a silly accounting game.
And? Cost of living is cheaper in Kenya and Mexico too....
Read my comment.
We believe that any other type of sexual activity, identity or expression that lies outside of this definition of marriage, including those that are becoming more accepted in the culture and the courts, are sinful perversions of and contradictory to God’s natural design and purpose for sexual activity.
And then, under Admissions:
The parents express an agreement with the philosophy of the school and are willing to have their children trained in accordance with this philosophy.
Note that this also discriminates against anyone who does not share the school's religious views.
Too bad. I'd get government out of education completely. I think that government should be limited to certain essential functions; providing (or subsidizing) education isn't one of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state
Coincidences. The difference that makes a difference is that both Sweden and Norway are monarchies.
Disposable income is a very poor measure.
Think of it this way. Suppose you have two job offers. One pays more than the other, but provides much less in terms of benefits like insurance, pension, whatever else.
You really can't tell which is the better deal financially without taking all that into account.