The combined effect of two very bad SCOTUS decisions

[dsc]

The Court recently ruled that if a state provides money to any private school, it must provide money to religious schools on an equal basis and that religious schools can declare any teacher (and probably any employee) a minister and have them be exempt from any (on edit employment) law. Combined that means that taxpayer money will go to schools that openly and notoriously discriminate against certain religions, women, and LGBT people at a minimum. It will also mean that tax payer money will go to schools which discriminate on the basis of age and disability (as the two schools in yesterday's ruling were accused of). But, as the Ginzu commercials say, there's more. Under this ruling there is no reason to believe religious schools couldn't fire teachers or any other employee for reporting rape and child molestation (all with tax payer money). We will rue these decisions for years to come.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

1. Ministers are exempt from laws?

I never knew that.

[Thekaspervote]

3. Hummm.yes, I would question that

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

4. Actually, I feel quite certain that ministers are subject to the

same laws all of the rest of us are. And the OP is wrong that states do not have to provide as much money to private/religious schools as they do to the public ones. My recollection of that ruling was that where states have been all along providing things like textbooks or bus transportation, they need to continue to do so.

[dsc]

7. that isn't what I said

they have to provide money to private and religious schools on an equal basis to each other.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

9. On an equal basis sounds like funding them exactly as the public schools are funded.

Can you clarify that for me?

[dsc]

10. No to each other

so if you pay for tuition for a private school you must for tuition for a religious one.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

11. Thank you.

And of course states should not be paying the tuition for either one. Religious groups can fund their own schools, parents who send their kids to private school can either pay for it themselves or apply for scholarship money, which many private schools have.

[dsc]

12. Well I tend to agree with that, but many states already have voucher programs

and now those states either have to end them or include religious schools in them.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

15. Luckily my state doesn't have a voucher program.

I think they are a very, very bad idea. And now they are an even worse precedent.

[dsc]

6. I meant employment laws and added it

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

8. Big difference. Thanks for adding that.

[flying_wahini]

2. It's time to Tax ALL churches and private schools run by religious organizations.

[Moostache]

5. I am going to set up a bunch of Madrasa-style Muslim schools and get funding to give back...

Fuck the Christofacists ... they want religious donations? SURE they do, THEIR religions though, no one else need apply...but so many more should....

[tritsofme]

13. Why are states providing funding to non-parochial private schools to begin with?

I agree on your other points, but this jumped out at me.

[dsc]

14. a variety of reasons

In some cases, it is because the area is so sparcely populated that they can't afford to have a high school (far north Vermont for example). In others, they are long standing voucher programs that while I oppose, do exist. Some of those states have Blaine amendments which banned funding religious schools, those are now inoperative.