5 ms·

I really don’t understand this ruling. > “Respect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free and diverse Republic—whether those expressions t

I really don’t understand this ruling. > “Respect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free and diverse Republic—whether those expressions take place in a sanctuary or on a field, and whether they manifest through the spoken word or a bowed head,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority. The coach is a public employee acting in an official capacity. This ruling basically allows any public employee to practice religion as part of their governmental duties.

legobmw99 4y ago
Looking for rock solid jurisprudence in rulings like this might be generous at this time
- mhh__ 4y ago
  I think the idea that law can be rock solid is a bit like continental philosophers borrowing science words. An easy retort to my argument is that most interpretation is easy, surely we only hear about contentious ones? This is true, but it's like having a seatbelt that only works when you don't crash
mhh__ 4y ago
I haven't read it yet but other people seem to suggest that the dissent and majority opinions seems.to have vastly interpretation of even the simpler question of in what capacity he was acting while praying.
- gumby 4y ago
  The majority decision clearly misrepresented the facts of the case: this was a public spectacle, not a quiet, private action (as the coach proudly points out), but the majority claimed their decision was based on it being the opposite.
acdha 4y ago
If you’re familiar with parallel reconstruction, this is the judicial version: people who were selected to be activists are unsurprisingly starting with the politically preferred outcome and working backwards. You will drive yourself crazy trying to find a logic in this rulings beyond “this is the pretext we picked”.
kaczordon 4y ago
No, what the ruling said was the government couldn’t treat him differently because of his religion. Are public employees not allowed to pray on the job? Same logic applies elsewhere. Should governmental employees be banned from wearing hijabs(they’re a public form of religious expression)? Should we ban/fire a Muslim employee for praying in public(if there’s no available private space) while working as a member of TSA? Limited powers on governmental religious discrimination is a good thing.
- atwood22 4y ago
  > Are public employees not allowed to pray on the job? In this case, I would say yes, the coach should not be allowed to pray because the prayer was done as part of his role as a coach. Like if a social worker prays that a child is ok while driving to a home visit, then that’s ok. But if the social worker forces the family to pray then that’s different.
- KerrAvon 4y ago
  The problem is that he wasn’t praying on his own. He was coercing the players to pray with him. Thus is documented. The justices lied.
  - kcplate 4y ago
    So where was it documented that he was coercing other people? It is certainly a fact that other people, players both on his team and other teams, did choose to join him. The schools argument for him to stop was that the administration felt that players might feel compelled to join him against their wishes, but is there literally anything that was entered in to evidence that he forced anyone to join or punished anyone for choosing not to join him? I don’t think so. He chose to pray and others chose to join him. Frankly, I think the argument to support Kennedy was pretty compelling. The first amendment allows for the free practice of any religion by the people. It makes no commentary on the government specifically censoring any religion. In fact it appears to be just the opposite. The text reads that the government has a duty to not act at all when religious expression is made by the people.
drewbug01 4y ago
> I really don’t understand this ruling. > The coach is a public employee acting in an official capacity. This ruling basically allows any public employee to practice religion as part of their governmental duties. You understand it perfectly.

legobmw99 4y ago

Looking for rock solid jurisprudence in rulings like this might be generous at this time

mhh__ 4y ago
I think the idea that law can be rock solid is a bit like continental philosophers borrowing science words. An easy retort to my argument is that most interpretation is easy, surely we only hear about contentious ones? This is true, but it's like having a seatbelt that only works when you don't crash

mhh__ 4y ago

I haven't read it yet but other people seem to suggest that the dissent and majority opinions seems.to have vastly interpretation of even the simpler question of in what capacity he was acting while praying.

gumby 4y ago
The majority decision clearly misrepresented the facts of the case: this was a public spectacle, not a quiet, private action (as the coach proudly points out), but the majority claimed their decision was based on it being the opposite.

acdha 4y ago

If you’re familiar with parallel reconstruction, this is the judicial version: people who were selected to be activists are unsurprisingly starting with the politically preferred outcome and working backwards. You will drive yourself crazy trying to find a logic in this rulings beyond “this is the pretext we picked”.

kaczordon 4y ago

No, what the ruling said was the government couldn’t treat him differently because of his religion. Are public employees not allowed to pray on the job? Same logic applies elsewhere. Should governmental employees be banned from wearing hijabs(they’re a public form of religious expression)? Should we ban/fire a Muslim employee for praying in public(if there’s no available private space) while working as a member of TSA? Limited powers on governmental religious discrimination is a good thing.

atwood22 4y ago
> Are public employees not allowed to pray on the job? In this case, I would say yes, the coach should not be allowed to pray because the prayer was done as part of his role as a coach. Like if a social worker prays that a child is ok while driving to a home visit, then that’s ok. But if the social worker forces the family to pray then that’s different.
KerrAvon 4y ago
The problem is that he wasn’t praying on his own. He was coercing the players to pray with him. Thus is documented. The justices lied.
- kcplate 4y ago
  So where was it documented that he was coercing other people? It is certainly a fact that other people, players both on his team and other teams, did choose to join him. The schools argument for him to stop was that the administration felt that players might feel compelled to join him against their wishes, but is there literally anything that was entered in to evidence that he forced anyone to join or punished anyone for choosing not to join him? I don’t think so. He chose to pray and others chose to join him. Frankly, I think the argument to support Kennedy was pretty compelling. The first amendment allows for the free practice of any religion by the people. It makes no commentary on the government specifically censoring any religion. In fact it appears to be just the opposite. The text reads that the government has a duty to not act at all when religious expression is made by the people.

drewbug01 4y ago

> I really don’t understand this ruling. > The coach is a public employee acting in an official capacity. This ruling basically allows any public employee to practice religion as part of their governmental duties. You understand it perfectly.