Drumcollie
* See DC's list of Kook posters*
What do expect to happen when one reads your lies?Yikes. Your cranial seizures are getting even worse.
What do expect to happen when one reads your lies?Yikes. Your cranial seizures are getting even worse.
Another brain damaged GOP cultist who just can’t focus on the topic.Cockeyed lefty culture has kids literally slaughtering one another in schools…lefty continues war on faith and views general moral component as anathema.
The selfsame nutcases who demand drag queens deliver story time and who insist 4-12 year olds be subjected to trans and gay education hike skirts at any thought of non-deviant exposure.
Still trying to kill children, eh?Another brain damaged GOP cultist who just can’t focus on the topic.
I focused on the topic. You’re gonna need a lotta trannnies/deviants of all stripes to ram down your desired societal collapse. Then again, Sodom wasn’t built in a day…eh?Another brain damaged GOP cultist who just can’t focus on the topic.
This one thinks quoting “parties” is quoting Cornell law. His mind is completely shot.Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether a state violates the religion clauses or equal protection clause of the United States Constitution by prohibiting students participating in an otherwise generally available student-aid program from choosing to use their aid to attend schools that provide religious, or “sectarian,” instruction.
Carson v. Makin | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
Uh oh! I quoted Cornell law...That is off topic for leftty.
What a weird place for your “gay talk.”I focused on the topic. You’re gonna need a lotta trannnies/deviants of all stripes to ram down your desired societal collapse. Then again, Sodom wasn’t built in a day…eh?
Your point, if any?Facts
Maine’s constitution mandates the state legislature to require towns to provide “support and maintenance” of public schools at the towns’ own expenses. To do so, the legislature divided the state into 260 school administrative units (“SAUs”) and required that each SAU “make suitable provisions” to maintain and support public schools. Less than half of the SAUs contain a public secondary school. Therefore, a Maine statute allows the SAUs without public secondary schools to either contract with a public secondary school in a nearby SAU or to pay tuition for a public or an “approved” private school of the parent’s choice. To be “approved,” a private school must meet accreditation, reporting, and auditing requirements and must be “nonsectarian in accordance with the First Amendment.”
Carson, Gillis, and Nelson (collectively “Carson”) are parents who live in SAUs that have no public secondary schools. Their SAUs instead have chosen to pay tuition assistance for parents to send their children to “approved” private schools. The Nelsons currently send their child to a nonsectarian school; however, they would prefer to send her to an accredited religious school, but cannot afford to do so without tuition assistance. The Carsons and Gillises currently send their children to an accredited religious school and receive no tuition assistance. Consequently, on August 21, 2018, Carson sued Makin, in her official capacity as the Commissioner of the Maine Department of Education, in the District of Maine, alleging that the “nonsectarian” requirement infringes on their “First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.”
Makin responded by alleging that Carson did not have standing and did not state a claim on which relief could be granted. Both parties stipulated to the facts that Carson’s choice of schools were “biblically integrated” and refused to hire homosexual teachers. Additionally, the parties stipulated that the religious schools would not accept tuition assistance if they would be subjected to the Maine Human Rights Act (“MHRA”) which bans employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
The Federal District Court for the District of Maine held that Carson had standing and rejected Carson’s contention that the Supreme Court’s holding in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley (“Trinity Lutheran”) upset the First Circuit Court of Appeals’s holding in Eulitt v. Maine Department of Education (“Fullit”) because Trinity Lutheran involved discrimination based on religious identity rather than “religious uses of funding.” Thus, the District Court upheld Maine’s educational funding law.
On July 23, 2019, Carson appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Two weeks after the First Circuit heard oral arguments, the United States Supreme Court, in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (“Espinoza”) struck down a provision of Montana’s Constitution that prohibited state aid to church-run private schools.
The First Circuit held that Carson satisfied the redressability requirement of standing—the requirement that a favorable decision will remedy their injury—because a ruling in Carson’s favor would give them an “opportunity” to enroll their children in religious secondary school. Next, the First Circuit rejected Carson’s argument that Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement was religious discrimination in violation of the Free Exercise Clause and thus, the Court upheld Maine’s law. Relying on Espinoza and Trinity Lutheran, the First Circuit distinguished discrimination based on religious “status,” which is subject to strict scrutiny, from discrimination based on religious “use.” Furthermore, the First Circuit reasoned that Maine’s funding rule was in place to ensure equal access to public—not private—education and thus simply by refusing to subsidize religious schools, Maine’s legislature did not show “impermissible animus” against religion.
The United States Supreme Court granted Carson certiorari on July 2, 2021.
Carson v. Makin | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
Did read the link did ya? This is why you can't define what a woman is. When you go to the bathroom, do you know whether to sit or stand?This one thinks quoting “parties” is quoting Cornell law. His mind is completely shot.
You gonna go to the race card next because you don't understand?What a weird place for your “gay talk.”
I’m sure you know you have “issues.”
;-)
Are “trannies” gay? I don’t know. Apparently you are committing that they are. Correct?What a weird place for your “gay talk.”
I’m sure you know you have “issues.”
;-)
More of your “gay talk” instead of addressing the topic.Are “trannies” gay? I don’t know. Apparently you are committing that they are. Correct?
It was YOU who just said that referencing "trannies" is characterized as "gay talk". Are you trying to walk this back now, Bugsy? Are transgender folks "gay" as you suggest?More of your “gay talk” instead of addressing the topic.
Your “issues” are quite apparent. Do you confront them?
Your “gay talk” is getting repetitive and boring.It was YOU who just said that referencing "trannies" is characterized as "gay talk". Are you trying to walk this back now, Bugsy? Are transgender folks "gay" as you suggest?
It is a human being of the female gender.How would you know...You can't even define what a woman is, thus the idea that you can define what the Supreme Court is doing is highly doubtful.
The Black Hebrew Israelites are going to love this decision by those white devils.The illegally stacked SCOTUS continues to take a wrecking ball to the Constitution, this time striking down a law because it does not allow for governmental funding of religious schools. At the same time, the right wing’s attack against public education continues…
Carson v. Makin - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
The right wing’s destruction of the America formed by the Constitution continues.
And you get upset with people who tell you that the election was stolen period. ha haYou missed it the first thousand times this was explained to you?
;-)
Thing is if you tell @Bugsy McGurk that the election was stolen he'll bust a gasket. ha haHe can even define what a woman is, so how do expect an answer. Good question though.