The US Supreme Court frequently takes up cases involving the Establishment Clause about the extent to which religious elements can be introduced into the public sphere. Rather than unequivocally declare that it should never be allowed and thus ending the debate once and for all, a decision that would likely result in them having to face the wrath of the religious in America, they have instead tried to rule very narrowly, inserting intricate conditions on when such things can be allowed. They have done this with prayers, religious displays, and the like.
The aftermath of such rulings has also been predictable. Religious people ignore all the conditions that the court laid down and proceed to act as if they were given carte blanche to do whatever they want, triggering a new round legal challenges.
This has happened with the so-called ceremonial prayer to open meetings of government entities. In the case Greece v. Galloway, the court ruled that such invocations were acceptable as long as they were non-sectarian and open to all faiths and non-faiths. But the Ohio Senate has decided that secular, non-religious invocations will not be allowed and that they must “be given by an ordained representative of that faith, it must appeal to a higher power, and the individual must be sponsored by a member of the Legislature.” The Freedom From Religion Foundation has now issued a legal warning to the Senate that this practice is unconstitutional.
Then we had the Masterpiece cake case where a baker was allowed to not bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. The court said that this decision was narrow and that the more general issue had to await a later case. But the owner of a hardware store in Tennessee decided that it was a blanket license to discriminate and put up a ‘No Gays Allowed’ sign on his store. That will undoubtedly be challenged too.
As long as the Supreme Court continues trying to not offend the religious by issuing intricate rulings, such cases are going to repeat themselves over and over.
Intricate doesn’t bother me, per se. I’m more interested in how SCOTUS continually embraces an ethos of non-accountability. If there are many steps, but lower courts can clearly follow them to arrive at a judgement that SCOTUS would uphold (were it appealed that far), then the number of steps isn’t a problem per se, at least in my view.
Greece v Galloway is a good example. Yes, there are a number of conditions, but the conditions are clear and I don’t think that lower courts have a problem following the precedent. The Ohio senate undoubtedly knows that they are in violation. The problem isn’t the lack of clarity that a violation has occurred or is occurring. The real problem is that SCOTUS’s precedents and expected future behavior both preclude the idea of any consequences for those who break the rules. Qualified immunity cannot be read as broadly as the courts have read it if we want justice.
Right now, the senate can be sued, and they can lose BIGLY, and not a single senator will face a day in jail. No senator will have to pay from personal funds the costs of the successful lawsuit against them. It simply doesn’t matter how clear SCOTUS decisions or tests are: the religious want to break them and they will always break them as long as there is no punishment.
Punish the violators. Not the taxpayers. The violators.
THEN you’ll see this shit stop, and it won’t matter if the rules are complicated or simple as long as they are understandable.
How the hell does he plan on enforcing that?
Of course, I strongly suspect that it’s just a trial balloon for dusting off the “Whites Only” signs…
@Dunc, No. 2
What makes you think there’s any dust on the sign? : )
“…..and put up a ‘No Gays Allowed’ sign on his store.”
.
What was he thinking? Doesn’t he know it’s not “his store”?
.
Why the very moment he decided to sell hardware that he thought privately belonged to him, the public was vested with magical interests as to and with whom he could transact business.
.
Didn’t he know that the majority had this thing called Democracy that gave them magical authority to authorize men in funny uniforms to control the disposal of what he believed was his private property?
.
Didn’t he know that the first plank in the Communist Manifesto was the abolition of private property?
.
Power to the Progressive commune!
.
Good thing there’s already a magical Law, cuz if not there shore oughta be one.
His action doesn’t mean the glass is half empty. What about the great opportunity for some Gays to open their own hardware store? Instead of seeing that opportunity they will see an opportunity to sue for the violation of a psudo-right based upon magical authority in the hope of violently imposing their will on him.
#4
You seem mixed up.
Mixed up about what, Holms?
I’m not nearly as mixed up as the Statists, most of whom claim to believe in some religion combined with some of whom even claim to be Atheists, who exercise Belief and Faith in the imaginary underpinnings of non-existent Powers and Authorities.
.
This mixed up bunch can’t even comprehend, much less admit, the fact that the earthly Powers and Authorities they assert to exist are totally imaginary and illegitimate. In spite of the fact that they were for the most part taught around the age of 3, what all sane people agree to be true, that the initiation of violence and aggression against their equals is morally wrong, they nevertheless attempt to justify the necessity of those imaginary Powers and Authorities by both encouraging and participating in the violence and aggression that sustains their imaginary and nefarious doctrines and pseudo-authorities.
.
They live with this inconsistency in their hearts and minds while justifying their selfish and violent beliefs.
.
So again I ask, “Mixed up about what, Holms?” Think I am mixed up about it being wrong to utilize violence or the threat of violence to compel others to conform with your will?
“Mixed up” was a euphamistic way of saying you are not rational.
Holms, euphemisms are known for leaving things unclear. Just be straight with me.
.
Do you think it wrong to utilize violence or the threat of violence to compel others to conform with your will?
If you don’t think it is wrong then tell me from where did you receive your authorization to compel others to conform to your will?
Quirky,
So, if as in my childhood, most places don’t want to do business with black people are you ok with that? Do we need to bring back the Green Book?
@ Robert,
I’m not OK with any of that. But I am even more not OK with someone using guns, prisons, and threats of violence against anybody that might choose otherwise.
The difference in you and I is I believe in Freedom, and I don’t believe legitimate Authority exists to use modes of violence to effect political and cultural change..
Had it not been for the Statist Jim Crow laws the Green Book would likely have never existed. Remember it was the States and the Constitution that first sanctioned slavery in this country. Statism is still about another form of slavery to this day. They just make you feel free by guaranteeing you the right to eat where you will.
Now I answered you. Go back and answer me some of the questions I posed earlier.