Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

The New Coffee Room

  1. TNCR
  2. General Discussion
  3. Another good SCOTUS ruling

Another good SCOTUS ruling

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General Discussion
13 Posts 6 Posters 157 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • LuFins DadL LuFins Dad

    And another good ruling:

    https://nypost.com/2022/06/27/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-washington-football-coachs-prayer/

    George KG Offline
    George KG Offline
    George K
    wrote on last edited by
    #4

    @LuFins-Dad said in Another good SCOTUS ruling:

    And another good ruling:

    https://nypost.com/2022/06/27/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-washington-football-coachs-prayer/

    First Amendment, baby.

    alt text

    "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

    The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.

    AxtremusA 1 Reply Last reply
    • JollyJ Jolly

      Correct.

      And fentanyl is the main problem, not opioids.

      MikM Offline
      MikM Offline
      Mik
      wrote on last edited by
      #5

      @Jolly said in Another good SCOTUS ruling:

      Correct.

      And fentanyl is the main problem, not opioids.

      Yep. People are not overdosing on Norco.

      “I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill

      1 Reply Last reply
      • LuFins DadL LuFins Dad

        And another good ruling:

        https://nypost.com/2022/06/27/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-washington-football-coachs-prayer/

        JollyJ Offline
        JollyJ Offline
        Jolly
        wrote on last edited by
        #6

        @LuFins-Dad said in Another good SCOTUS ruling:

        And another good ruling:

        https://nypost.com/2022/06/27/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-washington-football-coachs-prayer/

        Now, I hope he owns the school board.

        As somebody who has taken, and given, some pretty nasty shots on a football field, a little prayer can't hurt.

        “Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”

        Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton

        1 Reply Last reply
        • LuFins DadL LuFins Dad

          And another good ruling:

          https://nypost.com/2022/06/27/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-washington-football-coachs-prayer/

          taiwan_girlT Offline
          taiwan_girlT Offline
          taiwan_girl
          wrote on last edited by
          #7

          @LuFins-Dad said in Another good SCOTUS ruling:

          And another good ruling:

          https://nypost.com/2022/06/27/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-washington-football-coachs-prayer/

          I don't know enough about this to agree or disagree.

          But I wonder if this means that anybody can do it. In other word, what if a fan want to pray on the field after the game? Is it restricted to only the coach? If a player wants to have a Devil prayer, would that be allowed?

          1 Reply Last reply
          • JollyJ Offline
            JollyJ Offline
            Jolly
            wrote on last edited by
            #8

            Knock yourself out.

            “Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”

            Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton

            taiwan_girlT 1 Reply Last reply
            • JollyJ Jolly

              Knock yourself out.

              taiwan_girlT Offline
              taiwan_girlT Offline
              taiwan_girl
              wrote on last edited by
              #9

              @Jolly LOL.

              Probably won't do that. But, my personality is that religion is a private things for me. If I were a strong christian, I probably would not even join the prayer, even if I agreed with it. Not my "style" I guess. I would be more comfortable doing it by myself, on my own terms.

              But, thats what makes the world great - everybody is a bit different.

              AxtremusA 1 Reply Last reply
              • George KG George K

                @LuFins-Dad said in Another good SCOTUS ruling:

                And another good ruling:

                https://nypost.com/2022/06/27/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-washington-football-coachs-prayer/

                First Amendment, baby.

                alt text

                AxtremusA Offline
                AxtremusA Offline
                Axtremus
                wrote on last edited by
                #10

                @George-K said in Another good SCOTUS ruling:

                @LuFins-Dad said in Another good SCOTUS ruling:

                And another good ruling:

                https://nypost.com/2022/06/27/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-washington-football-coachs-prayer/

                First Amendment, baby.

                alt text

                Different. (1) Because NFL is a private league, NFL players’ employers are private employers, these private league/employers can endorse, require, or ban certain religious expressions on their premises without running afoul of the First Amendment. (2) The nature of Kaepernick’s expression is not religious.

                The “Washing state football coach” case is different because the football coach is a state employee, an “agent of the state,” hence his public religious expression was called into question as to whether it violated the First Amendment.

                The First Amendment limits what the state (and its agents) can do with religion. The First Amendment does not restrict what a private entity can do with religion.

                George KG 1 Reply Last reply
                • taiwan_girlT taiwan_girl

                  @Jolly LOL.

                  Probably won't do that. But, my personality is that religion is a private things for me. If I were a strong christian, I probably would not even join the prayer, even if I agreed with it. Not my "style" I guess. I would be more comfortable doing it by myself, on my own terms.

                  But, thats what makes the world great - everybody is a bit different.

                  AxtremusA Offline
                  AxtremusA Offline
                  Axtremus
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #11

                  @taiwan_girl said in Another good SCOTUS ruling:

                  Probably won't do that. But, my personality is that religion is a private things for me. If I were a strong christian, I probably would not even join the prayer, even if I agreed with it. Not my "style" I guess. I would be more comfortable doing it by myself, on my own terms.

                  But, thats what makes the world great - everybody is a bit different.

                  It’s not just “everybody is a bit different,” but the religious teachings themselves are different.

                  Some religions’ teachings are devoid of any encouragement for you to share your faith/belief with others. Some other religions teach that you should share your faith/belied with others, to various degrees, at various levels of insistence.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  • AxtremusA Axtremus

                    @George-K said in Another good SCOTUS ruling:

                    @LuFins-Dad said in Another good SCOTUS ruling:

                    And another good ruling:

                    https://nypost.com/2022/06/27/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-washington-football-coachs-prayer/

                    First Amendment, baby.

                    alt text

                    Different. (1) Because NFL is a private league, NFL players’ employers are private employers, these private league/employers can endorse, require, or ban certain religious expressions on their premises without running afoul of the First Amendment. (2) The nature of Kaepernick’s expression is not religious.

                    The “Washing state football coach” case is different because the football coach is a state employee, an “agent of the state,” hence his public religious expression was called into question as to whether it violated the First Amendment.

                    The First Amendment limits what the state (and its agents) can do with religion. The First Amendment does not restrict what a private entity can do with religion.

                    George KG Offline
                    George KG Offline
                    George K
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #12

                    @Axtremus said in Another good SCOTUS ruling:

                    Different. (1) Because NFL is a private league, NFL players’ employers are private employers, these private league/employers can endorse, require, or ban certain religious expressions on their premises without running afoul of the First Amendment. (2) The nature of Kaepernick’s expression is not religious.

                    All true. But that reasoning didn't seem to percolate to the surface when Kaepernick was "taking a knee" or wearing socks with "pig" embroidered on them.

                    I wonder why.

                    "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

                    The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    • LuFins DadL Offline
                      LuFins DadL Offline
                      LuFins Dad
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #13

                      One big case left. West Virginia vs EPA…

                      The Brad

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      Reply
                      • Reply as topic
                      Log in to reply
                      • Oldest to Newest
                      • Newest to Oldest
                      • Most Votes


                      • Login

                      • Don't have an account? Register

                      • Login or register to search.
                      • First post
                        Last post
                      0
                      • Categories
                      • Recent
                      • Tags
                      • Popular
                      • Users
                      • Groups