Christian lawyers fail to invent persecution at public school

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by LionsDen

No problem! See http://religionclause.blogspot.com/

You have to look for the relevant passages.

You mean like this one?

Free use was permitted for school-related organizations, organizations offering joint programs with the school, and, in the original version of the policy, others where the school found a fee waiver to be in the school's best interest. After suit was filed against it, the District eliminated the waiver provisions, but grandfathered in free usage for groups that had been using school facilities in the past. The court found these to be valid classifications, and rejected CEF's free speech, free exercise, equal protection and establishment clause arguments.

So the school ended the waiver process - i.e., everyone has to pay, but also found a way to keep some groups free of charges forever. And those groups didn't include the little fundie club, which has to go on paying a fee.

I'd say that things are actually worse now for the fundies than before the lawsuit.

This is the change that made the case moot.

On the contrary. The case is not moot. Moreover, your original claim was as follows:


Did you know the school district changed its fee policy shortly after the lawsuit was filed? That is because the same policy in other districts had been found unconstitutional.

There is no evidence that the school changed its policy because it feared any constitutional issues. Why would it? The court had already sided with the school on all the constitutional issues --both before, and after the policy change. Which includes the grandfathered groups.

The article names the two religious clubs: Boy Scouts and YMCA. The ACLU in fact sued to ban Boy Scouts from CA schools and lost. Interesting? They are able to meet for free, yet neither is an academic club, and both are religious.

The Boy Scouts is not a religious organization.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Sauron

The Boy Scouts is not a religious organization.

No...But it is religiously exclusive. The organization itself has stated that members must attest to a belief in a god. They are, in essense, a theistic exclusionary organization....by their own declaration.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

No...But it is religiously exclusive. The organization itself has stated that members must attest to a belief in a god. They are, in essense, a theistic exclusionary organization....by their own declaration.

Yes, but there's a wide latitude to believe in pretty much anything, and there isn't any proselytization. Not perfect, but certainly a hell of a lot better than, oh, say, the US Air Force Academy.

My current gym is a little neighborhood YMCA - and there's no religion in it at all. They have posters on the wall that say things like "One can never be truly happy without understanding the language of gratitude - what are YOU truly grateful for?" And other posters that say "Respect" or "Courage", etc. It could be a Rotarian club based on the available evidence.

[LionsDen]

Originally Posted by Sauron

You mean like this one?

Free use was permitted for school-related organizations, organizations offering joint programs with the school, and, in the original version of the policy, others where the school found a fee waiver to be in the school's best interest. After suit was filed against it, the District eliminated the waiver provisions, but grandfathered in free usage for groups that had been using school facilities in the past. The court found these to be valid classifications, and rejected CEF's free speech, free exercise, equal protection and establishment clause arguments.

Yes, I mean like that one, only I suggest you think about what you read!
The article is clear that certain clubs were shown favoritism over other clubs. That is what exposed the school to the original lawsuit... a fact you overlooked.

You have to answer the question: What was unconstitutional with the original policy that made the school abandone it? The answer is that it had already been held unconstitutional in another federal district.

So the school ended the waiver process - i.e., everyone has to pay, but also found a way to keep some groups free of charges forever. And those groups didn't include the little fundie club, which has to go on paying a fee.

And the 'way' the school found is to change its original policy. And to grandfather in the original beneficiaries and victims of anti-faith discrimination and viewpoint discrimination. That is why the school is still in trouble and on its way to losing upon appeal.

I'd say that things are actually worse now for the fundies than before the lawsuit.

HeHe Yes, YOU would say something about fundies when none are involved! I bet you don't even know the difference between a fundamentalist and an evangelical!

On the contrary. The case is not moot.

Yes, it did. Here is why. The policy that was the subject of the initial suit was abandoned. So the school could only be sued on the basis of the new one.

Moreover, your original claim was as follows:


Did you know the school district changed its fee policy shortly after the lawsuit was filed? That is because the same policy in other districts had been found unconstitutional.

There is no evidence that the school changed its policy because it feared any constitutional issues. Why would it? The court had already sided with the school on all the constitutional issues --both before, and after the policy change. Which includes the grandfathered groups.

You are wrong. Another federal court had ruled against an identical policy in CA I believe. That left the school vulnerable. It was only AFTER the school in this case changed its policy, that the court ruled in its favor. Learn to read or get someone to read for you!

The Boy Scouts is not a religious organization.

You are mistaken. The ACLU in CA argued unsuccessfully to argue that the Boy Scouts was a secular group... a public accomodation, and the court rejected their claims. The Boy Scouts requires its leaders to acknowledge the existence of God, publishes its own religious materials, requires scouts to pledge 'reverence' and holds religious worship services at camps. That is why the ACLU lost. The Boy Scouts is very much a religious organization, and in this case it is one that is given fee-free status while CEF is not. The school board is not allowed to make a content-based discrimination in fee structure.

According to the Supreme Court a school may favor academic clubs, but if it allows non-academic clubs, it must treat them all equally. That is why this is going to be overturned; similar cases have been tried and won by religious free speech and libertarian groups numerous times.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by LionsDen

No problem! See http://religionclause.blogspot.com/

You have to look for the relevant passages.

You mean like this one?

Free use was permitted for school-related organizations, organizations offering joint programs with the school, and, in the original version of the policy, others where the school found a fee waiver to be in the school's best interest. After suit was filed against it, the District eliminated the waiver provisions, but grandfathered in free usage for groups that had been using school facilities in the past. The court found these to be valid classifications, and rejected CEF's free speech, free exercise, equal protection and establishment clause arguments.

Yes, I mean like that one, only I suggest you think about what you read!

I do more thinking by 730am, than you do all day along, LionsDen / alphamale. Which is kind of a neat trick, since I don't wake up until 800am.

The article is clear that certain clubs were shown favoritism over other clubs. That is what exposed the school to the original lawsuit... a fact you overlooked.

Probably because it is incorrect. The text in blue (i.e., the grandfathering of certain clubs) was not what exposed the school to the lawsuit. The lawsuit came about because a group of fundie clowns thought they had a case. The court told them twice, in no uncertain terms, that they did not.

Anyone can be *exposed* to a lawsuit. That's only measures the willingness of some random group of idiots to file a claim. It says nothing about the legal soundness of the target of said lawsuit.

You have to answer the question: What was unconstitutional with the original policy that made the school abandone it?

Since the original policy was not unconstitutional, I don't have to answer any such question. On the other hand, you DO have to demonstrate that the reason for the school switching policies had to do with questions of constitutionality.

Predictably, you haven't done that part yet.

The answer is that it had already been held unconstitutional in another federal district.

1. You have provided zero such evidence.

2. You will then need to provide evidence that this particular school in SC had any such ideas in its collective head, when it changed the policy. Happy hunting.

So the school ended the waiver process - i.e., everyone has to pay, but also found a way to keep some groups free of charges forever. And those groups didn't include the little fundie club, which has to go on paying a fee.

And the 'way' the school found is to change its original policy.

Incorrect. The court decision made it clear that even if they had not changed their policy at all, they were still legally in the right. And the court went further: it also told them that their grandfathering policy (i.e., the new policy) was also legally sound.

I don't know why they changed their policy. But the court's decision basically says that they didn't have to. Before the change, as well as after, the school was always in the right and was never in violation of any constitutional boundaries.

And to grandfather in the original beneficiaries and victims of anti-faith discrimination and viewpoint discrimination. That is why the school is still in trouble and on its way to losing upon appeal.

1. There was no anti-faith discrimination, hence there cannot be any such victims. The court made it clear that the little fundie bigot club did not have a valid legal case, and the school was justified in charging some groups a fee, while not charging others.

2. You have provided zero evidence of any such appeal being filed, or that the school has anything to fear.

I'd say that things are actually worse now for the fundies than before the lawsuit.

HeHe Yes, YOU would say something about fundies when none are involved! I bet you don't even know the difference between a fundamentalist and an evangelical!

1. There are fundies involved - the Child Evangelism Fellowship is a fundie organization;
2. I do know the difference.

This is the change that made the case moot.

On the contrary. The case is not moot.

Yes, it did. Here is why. The policy that was the subject of the initial suit was abandoned. So the school could only be sued on the basis of the new one.

The case is not moot, and your babble doesn't change that fact.

Why would they fear a legal challenge to a school policy that had already been tested in court and been found constitutional? That fact alone would make the existing policy harder to challenge than any new policy would be. If the school was really interested in avoiding lawsuits, they should have kept their original policy because the hurdle to challenges was higher.

Bottom line: the school was sued on their original policy and WON. That sets the legal precedent. The court further blessed their NEW policy. In both cases, school WINS, and brainwashing little fundie clubs LOSE. Oh, and glory-seeking phony legal team (i.e., Matt Staver) also loses.

Moreover, your original claim was as follows:


Did you know the school district changed its fee policy shortly after the lawsuit was filed? [b]That is because the same policy in other districts had been found unconstitutional.

There is no evidence that the school changed its policy because it feared any constitutional issues. Why would it? The court had already sided with the school on all the constitutional issues --both before, and after the policy change. Which includes the grandfathered groups.

You are wrong. Another federal court had ruled against an identical policy in CA I believe. That left the school vulnerable.

1. "I believe" doesn't cut it. You have provided zero such evidence of any school in CA. Given your deliberate twisting of sources and predictably bad understanding of legal matters, I'm sure you'll forgive us if we dont' just take your word on this.

2. The court case in this situation was in South Carolina, so it's unlikely they gave a rip about any (alleged) case in CA. They aren't in the same state or even the same judicial circuit.

3. Your claim is that the reason the school changed its policy was because it feared challenges based upon the constitutionality of its policy. To prove that, you need to show evidence that speaks to the intent and motive behind such a change. You've utterly failed to offer any evidence at all so far, much less evidence that meets this bar.

It was only AFTER the school in this case changed its policy, that the court ruled in its favor. Learn to read or get someone to read for you!

Incorrect. The court ruled on the ORIGINAL policy, as well as the changed one. That's only natural, since the original policy was the basis of the trumped up complaint from Staver and the fundie bigot club.

The Boy Scouts is not a religious organization.

You are mistaken.

No, I'm not.

The ACLU in CA argued unsuccessfully to argue that the Boy Scouts was a secular group... a public accomodation, and the court rejected their claims.

Incorrect on all points.

The Boy Scouts requires its leaders to acknowledge the existence of God,

No, it does not.

According to the Supreme Court a school may favor academic clubs, but if it allows non-academic clubs, it must treat them all equally.

Uh, not if the clubs have different requirements. There is a ceteris paribus element here that you are either (a) unaware of or (b) deliberately ignoring.

[LionsDen]

Originally Posted by Sauron

I do more thinking by 730am, than you do all day along, LionsDen / alphamale. Which is kind of a neat trick, since I don't wake up until 800am.

How would you know? Are you a self-styled psychic? HeHe

As usual you didn't read or interact with the article.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Sauron

On the contrary. The case is not moot.

Originally Posted by LionsDen

Yes, it did. [sic] Here is why. The policy that was the subject of the initial suit was abandoned. So the school could only be sued on the basis of the new one.

There's something to be said for consistency, I suppose, even if it's consistent incorrectness. From the court's opinion:

The District's mootness argument centers around its changing policy KG to KF after CEF initiated this suit and its position that CEF's damage claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. "The burden of demonstrating mootness is a heavy one" if a defendant voluntarily ceases the alleged wrongdoing and attempts to show that the alleged wrong will not recur, and interim relief or events have resolved the effects of the alleged wrong. Los Angeles County v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631, 99 S. Ct. 1379, 59 L. Ed. 2d 642 (1979) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, as noted above, the court has found that the Eleventh Amendment offers the District no immunity. Additionally, CEF is attacking both policies, and not only seeks the return of fees paid while policy KG was operative, but argues that policy KF, while worded differently, maintains the same discriminatory effect initiated under policy KG. There is no dispute that CEF seeks the funds it paid the District under policy KG and that the District has not refunded them, so the effect of the District applying policy KG to CEF's fee waiver application remains. Cf. id. Upon review, the court finds that the District's argument that CEF's claims are moot is without merit.

The court went on to address the constitutionality of both policies.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

There's something to be said for consistency, I suppose, even if it's consistent incorrectness. From the court's opinion:

The District's mootness argument centers around its changing policy KG to KF after CEF initiated this suit and its position that CEF's damage claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. "The burden of demonstrating mootness is a heavy one" if a defendant voluntarily ceases the alleged wrongdoing and attempts to show that the alleged wrong will not recur, and interim relief or events have resolved the effects of the alleged wrong. Los Angeles County v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631, 99 S. Ct. 1379, 59 L. Ed. 2d 642 (1979) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, as noted above, the court has found that the Eleventh Amendment offers the District no immunity. Additionally, CEF is attacking both policies, and not only seeks the return of fees paid while policy KG was operative, but argues that policy KF, while worded differently, maintains the same discriminatory effect initiated under policy KG. There is no dispute that CEF seeks the funds it paid the District under policy KG and that the District has not refunded them, so the effect of the District applying policy KG to CEF's fee waiver application remains. Cf. id. Upon review, the court finds that the District's argument that CEF's claims are moot is without merit.

The court went on to address the constitutionality of both policies.

Thanks, Esq. Serjeant Maturin.

[LionsDen]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

Thanks, Esq. Serjeant Maturin. This is even better than I thought! That is now TWO grounds for overturning this lower court.