this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2024
406 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19126 readers
2299 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Yearly1845@reddthat.com 70 points 5 months ago (5 children)

Two things:

  1. Separation of Church and State is not codified into law

And

  1. 1A specifically says "Congress shall pass no law respecting any religion". They'll say this law was passed by a state, not congress. Ipso facto, they rule in his favor.
[–] snooggums@midwest.social 57 points 5 months ago

Also

  1. The current conservative SCOTUS doesn't care about precedent or the constitution and will rule however they want.
[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 24 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That whole "it only applies to Congress" angle is malarkey.

303 Creative v. Elenis: The 1st Amendment bars Colorado from forcing businesses to provide service that goes against their religious beliefs.

Shurtleff v. City of Boston: The City of Boston could not reject flying a Christian flag when it had open many other groups to fly different flags for various occasions.

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District: A school board wrongfully terminated a coach for praying on the field.

These are all recent cases too. Of course, that doesn't mean they won't find some different bullshit reason to say this is fine.

[–] Rolder@reddthat.com 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Man if they rule that states can discriminate based on religion, I look forward to all the left leaning states going in the total opposite direction.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

They'll just agree with the lie that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values and anything Christian is simply embracing our history.

[–] eltrain123@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The actual text concerning religion says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”. It’s arguable that requiring publicly funding schools to display a specific religions moral code is establishing their religious views as a standard others must follow.

The second part of that (prohibiting the free exercise thereof) is not affected. They are free to do whatever they want in their private homes and institutions. They just are not free to force those practices on others or other’s children. You don’t have the freedom to “exercise” if exercise means forcing your will on others. And anyone that thinks that should be the case is specifically calling to remove that constitutional freedom from our society.

It’s un-American… by definition…

[–] nymwit@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago

but but but it's an historical document, not religious at all [wink wink to stage left]

[–] hydrospanner@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Wouldn't the combo of the first amendment and the supremacy clause pretty neatly dismantle the new Louisiana law?

[–] MutilationWave@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

That would be correct in my opinion but nothing this court does can surprise me anymore, legal or not.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

Re: 1, the concept of church/state separation is espoused by the First Amendment, if not explicitly stated as such. But as has been made clear, Roberts' SCOTUS has yet to miss a case dismantling that wall.

Re: 2, SCOTUS has held that amendments only apply to Congress unless they have been incorporated via the 14th out to the states. The First Amendment's restriction on state-endorsed religion was incorporated in a case from 1947 called Everson vs. Board of Education which means that if Congress can't create an official government religion, state legislatures can't either. Of course, what one SCOTUS decides another can overturn, so it's not out of the realm of possibility for Roberts' activist Court to remove the concept of incorporation altogether.