The state rejected the request, citing a provision in Missouri’s constitution, similar to those in many other states, that says, “no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion”.
Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas wrote in their own opinions that they disagreed with that footnote and said the opinion should apply more broadly.
“The express discrimination against religious exercise here is not the denial of a grant, but rather the refusal to allow the church – exclusively because it is a church – to compete with secular organizations for a grant”, wrote Justice Roberts.
Gustafson said he plans to file a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear oral arguments in the Colorado case when their term begins in October.
The ruling came in the case of a Columbia, Missouri, church which operates a daycare and preschool as part of its church ministry and sought a state grant to resurface its playground with rubber. The issue may not seem like a big deal since it is just for a playground but as Roberts explained, the stakes of the decision were high. Florist Barronelle Stutzman of Richland’s Arlene’s Flowers faced a lawsuit when she refused to serve gay customers for their wedding.
Churches and other religious entities can not be flatly denied public money even in states where constitutions explicitly ban such funding, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a major religious rights case that narrows the separation of church and state.
The Court today profoundly changes that [church and state] relationship by holding, for the first time, that the Constitution requires the government to provide public funds directly to a church.
The New Mexico Supreme Court’s next steps are unclear.
“Since you have a constitutional right to practice your religion, they can’t condition funds that are generally available to anyone on you giving up those rights”, McGinnis said.
Under Arkansas law, when a married couple has a child, the spouse of the birth mother is automatically listed on the birth certificate as the child’s parent, regardless of how the couple conceived the child or whether the spouse is genetically related to the child.
Waggoner told CP that she liked how Gorsuch emphasized “that the government shouldn’t be treating people of faith as second-class citizens”. A husband whose child was conceived using a sperm donor.
The Supreme Court has set up a battle between the rights of LGBTQ Americans and proponents of “religious freedom”.
He says he feels “pretty good” having attorney Ted Olson representing the state before the court and that it’s a “very good sign” the court made a decision to hear the case.
Demands for religious exemptions from civil rights laws are not new.
– President Donald Trump’s travel ban affecting six majority-Muslim countries can go into effect, with some limits.
Now, the nation’s top court will decide.