DeSantis vs. Disney

Actually, the cake case sort of proves the point. In its actual holding, SCOTUS didn't find that requiring bakeries to make cakes for gay weddings violates the constitution.

What they held is that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the baker's rights just by being mean to him. Not because they retaliated against him. Not because they singled him out to punish him for something he said. But literally because they (supposedly) weren't respectful enough of his views during the review process.

If something as minimal as that is enough to trigger a first amendment violation, it's laughable to think that actual, targeted government retribution would ever be kosher.

 

As a definitive statement of fact, this is just not true. Some constitutional lawyers and scholars believe they may have been.

Its possible that it needs to be resolved in court and can't be proven, but it's simply false to state it in this manner at this point.

 

I have been following the case a bit but have not read the briefs or delved too deeply into it as of yet. Waiting for this Strict Scrutiny take, which may have already been released but I haven't listened or downloaded yet.

But I suspect it again avoids the elephant in the room of coercion, which is not really part of the record usually. Maybe it is here. Coercion in this context is hard to demonstrate but absolutely normal from a authority figure, and we can't pretend that it is strictly analogous other less favored types of social expression. Mainstream evangelical Christianity, especially among football coaches, has a far higher propensity for coercion because any individual instance occurs in a far larger environment of similar conduct elsewhere which makes it far more likely to succeed in coercion. It's part of the reason cases like this even make it to the High Court, because there is a dedicated legal movement trying to create a legal regimen of religious coercion that is legally recognized notwithstanding the Establishment Clause. Of course we have one justice who believes that the Establishment Clause does not even bind states and was not selectively incorporated, but that's beside the point.

You are referencing the Michael McConnell argument of using free speech to avoid Establishment Clause violations. He was eventually appointed the 10th Circuit, I found his argument very persuasive when first stated, that we should overlook the religious dimensions and just talk about equal treatment under speech principles, using the example of meeting rooms for religious organizations at schools. Again, I originally found that highly persuasive. I don't anymore. First, we're in a different environment now. You can never omit context, and since he first articulated argument, I think over 20 years ago, we have a far more established (no pun intended) cottage industry of organized attempts to create the legal regiment of religious coercion as mentioned above.

But even looking strictly at the Constitutional text, the original text envisions that the danger from state-sponsored religious coercion presents a special danger. Note that it is the only "right" of the First Amendment that is two-sided, not only permitting individual exercise but affirmatively precluding state endorsement.

And those are not even the only original clauses that recognize the special threat to society from potential religious coercion in the name of the state. The Constitution also precludes religious tests for holding office. And it does so in the context of having almost no other requirements for holding office, leaving everything else to the political process. Only age, and in the case of the President, being natural born, are qualifications. Everything else is left to the political process, with one exception. The original constitutional text, in fact even predating the free exercise clause and the establishment clause of the First Amendment, prohibits any religious test for office.

I'm not going to cite the "Founders" because we get into much ancestor worship, but the text says what it says. The possibility of official religious coercion was recognized as an especially dangerous threat, far beyond other "isms", likely because of recognition of its power. Blaise Paschal - Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.

 

Don't even get me started on that case. Kennedy and his lawyers have lied nonstop to misrepresent what actually happened, and the right-wing extremists on the Supreme Court are happy to accept those lies because it advances their cause.
How the Right Is Bringing Christian Prayer Back Into Public Schools

 

Government employees have less freedoms than the rest of us. Especially in their official capacity. If he is a football coach, he has very limited freedoms on the football field. If he were doing this in a different place than where the government is paying him to be, he would have a much better case.

 

FWIW, coercion is in the record. Players and parents made quite clear that they/their children felt pressured to join in on the prayers out of fear that the coach would give them less playing time if they didn't. It's an atrocious case.

 

In America, we teach kids that there might be private consequences to free speech. Like being banned on social media. We aren't supposed to be teaching them that government will retaliate for speech against it, because government isn't supposed to do that. In authoritarian countries, they teach children to fear the government when they speak. That appears to be what you want.

BTW, your claim about a lack of rights being violated is misrepresentation again. Maybe the government should take something away from you for misrepresentation, right?

 

Yeah, you obviously know the case better than I, but it sounded to me like some of the arguments were about the extent to which his years of prior conduct should be considered given that he lawyered up and was more careful about what he was doing and saying around the events which led to his termination. Based upon what I heard, he clearly had the intent to evangelize and/or make the students better people.

I just wonder about the implications if the Court rules in favor of the coach. Can Florida teachers do something similar with respect to gay rights if they take the position that their religious beliefs require them to say a prayer asking for respect of all people regardless of sexual orientation? Is it possible that a ruling in favor of the coach may result in public school teachers being able to "indoctrinate" kids about other issues so long as they claim a religious basis? It seems to me like we're getting to a point where people are arguing that religious beliefs trump nearly everything, and I don't know if liberals will start using these arguments to their advantage too.

 

It’s not retaliation, according to poster, because he agreed with the retaliation. It’s ok, because Disney deserved the retaliation. Disney was wrong for having a special district and not praying to DeSantis.

It’s the absurd, legally flawed, circular arguments by DeSantites that establish there is a new religiosity in the DeSantite Movement. Nothing he does is flawed, everything is great … because he says so. Amen.

 

We think it’s wrong to tell anyone, be it a coach or a fan, how and when and where to pray. Praying is the essence of practicing one’s religion. Think that should be a hard, bright line.

Now, if the facts showed in this specific instance that the coach required, as a condition to be on the public team or have playing time, etc., that prayer participation was mandatory, that’s a line that was crossed.

 

The problem is that even if there was no overt coercion to pray there is still the real possibility that players may have felt the need to join in the post-game team prayers to please their coach.

 

Sure, conditioning playing time on participation would be a very easy call, but I don't think it should have to be that egregious to be viewed as an Establishment Clause violation.

If people supporting this coach would be okay with a Wiccan or Scientologist or Muslim teacher or coach doing things similar to what this coach did, then I would appreciate that consistency. We had an uproar in my town because people wanted (Christian) prayers before public meetings but then got very mad because a Santanist got to do one. In any event, even assuming we're going to be consistent about that, I feel like requiring proof of outright coercion via a quid pro quo should not be the test. A teacher wearing a cross, for example, seems to me to be quite different. Sometimes lines are tough to draw, but in this time when people are concerned about students being indoctrinated by teachers, I hope people are trying to see the other side of the coin on this.

 

How can you NOT understand that when "consequences" come as a result of speech, IT'S NOT FREE SPEECH! An entity cannot be punished (or, using your word, face negative "consequences") by a government for its speech.

You either cannot understand English and have very limited reading comprehension or you are trolling us. IT'S NOT FREE SPEECH IF YOU ARE PUNISHED FOR IT! (That was written in English...can you understand that SIMPLE verbiage?)

 

Yeah. Say what you want and get benefits because it is government.

Disney is not being denied any rights. In fact it is owning them.

 

How can you not understand there are consequences for speech that afford people special privileges? There can be positive and negative consequences for speech.

Disney can speak as freely as they wish.

 

When consequences in the form of government force come as a result of speech, it's not free speech.

It is not free speech if you are punished by the government for it.

Private citizens can punish others for their speech all they want. The line is at using government force to punish speech.

 

Your understanding of the 1st amendment is lacking. You should spend some time reading up on court rulings and then come back to this thread when you are more informed about how courts in the United States interpret the 1st amendment.

 

His behavior actually became more egregious after he lawyered up, oddly enough. Also, he wasn't terminated. He was put on leave after he defied the school. He opted not to try and renew his contract and moved to Florida.

I completely disagree. When you take a job working for the government, you are agreeing to abide by the Establishment Clause. The fact that you are on the job definitely should limit when, where, and how you pray. A public school teacher should not be able to stop class, kneel in the middle of the room, and say a prayer.

 

You've locked onto your mantras, so you won't think beyond them now. Propaganda works!