Trinity Lutheran Church Of Columbia, Inc. V. Comer Case Analysis

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court Case Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) which nationally legalized same sex marriage, the religious right has felt that protections on religious liberty in this country have gone under attack. As the LGBTQ+ movement gains more traction in mainstream media, local municipalities, and even state governments, many religiously conservative states legislatures have begun to fight back by passing laws that protect a person’s right to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community because of religious objections. While a person’s right to abstain from participating in a business transaction concerning a same sex marriage has been widely debated (and continues to be widely debate) for some time now, the new anti-transgender

Facts: This case consists of Hereford a criminal informant who gets information of narcotic laws to Officer Marsh; a federal narcotic agent with 29 years on the job. Hereford had been feeding Marsh information for close to 6 months and that information was accurate and reliable. In the early days of September 1956, Hereford told Officer Marsh that the defendant James Draper was distributing illegal narcotics throughout Denver. Several days later, Hereford told Marsh that in the days before Draper went to Chicago and set to return with several ounces of heroin. Along with the information given Hereford gave a physical description of Draper, which included his age, weight, race, and clothes that he had

In 1995, Doe v. Duncanville Independent School District centered around a female student-athlete and her unwillingness to participate in prayer activity. She claimed her refusal to engage in team sponsored worship subjected her to ridicule from teammates, peers, and spectators. The Supreme Court ruled that the school district had failed the Lemon Test by endorsing religion through employee-led prayer, which is a direct violation of the Establishment Clause (Lee, 2005). As a result, “school officials, administrators, and employees were prohibited from initiating, leading, sponsoring, or promoting prayer at athletic events, or using the public address system for similar purposes” (Willett, 2014). This may not have been the popular decision, but

Facts: In 1974, Ehlich Anthony Coker, who was serving a number of sentences for murder, rape, kidnapping, and assault, escaped from prison. He broke into Allen and Elnita Carver’s home, raped and kidnapped the woman, and stole their car. Coker was convicted of rape, armed robbery, and the other offenses. The Georgia courts sentenced him the death penalty.

The bill is controversial. Supporters said that faith-based agencies should be protected from facing penalty for adhering to their faith tenets, such as by refusing to place children in certain potential foster families, or placing children in religious schools. Opponents argued this bill would give religious agencies the license to discriminate against individuals such as those in the LGBT community.

In the Supreme Court case R. V Hutchinson is a legal case where Craig Jaret Hutchinson was charged with aggravated sexual assault in the lower court after the complainant had consented to have sexual intercourse but wanted Hutchinson to wear a condom. However, Hutchinson poked holes in the condom unknown to the complainant. This resulted in pregnancy. In the Supreme Court case, the file says, “Mr. Hutchinson was charged with aggravated sexual assault. The complainant said that she did not consent to unprotected sex. The trial judge agreed and convicted Mr. Hutchinson of sexual assault (2011 NSSC 361, 311 N.S.R. (2d) 1) (Supreme Court, 2014).” This quote from the supreme court judgment is explaining how Mr. Hutchinson was convicted of aggravated sexual assault under the criminal code Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 265(3) (c), 273.1(1). This section of the code focuses on the meaning of consent and when consent has not been obtained from the complainant. Consent can be obtained through multiple ways such as verbal agreement. However, consent cannot be attained when one person is forceful, uses threat or fear to manipulate the other party, fraud, or abuse of power.

In the state of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island both states had established a law that allowed the local government to fund educational programs that were religious based. The law was passed in 1968 through the Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Alton Lemon, an instructor, did not agree with the law that had been passed. He believed that is violated the First Amendment. (The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion...)

I, Jason Tison, am writing this opinion to support the majority opinion on the case of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier.

The people involved in defending this case was Richard G. Evans and The one against this case was Roy romer. This case came about when the christian groups went around signing petitions to put the second amendment on the ballot stating that this would repeal any state or local laws protecting lesbians, gays,or bisexual orientation. The 53% percent of colorado voted on this and it passed. That ended up with Evans the administrator in denver suing Romer for violation on the 14th amendment which prohibits states from denying anyone the equal protection of The laws.

Kelsey, I follow your train of thought in that American’s should have health insurance because the health care system is a nationwide, comprehensive financial issue that impacts the individual premium holder, to the providers, hospitals, and medical supply and drug companies, the state and federal governments, and health insurance providers. The one thing I learned from these readings especially the 11th Circuit Court decision is that even if a person does not want or has insurance, it still impacts everyone else when they require unexpected care. It creates cost-shifting problems that everyone else has to pick up the tab for. In the reading, the Court identifies the perspective in which Congress was coming from by defining on page 15 that

of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer it is a widely known case. This case is about a church that made a request for state funds in Missouri to receive reimbursement to purchase recycled tires to upgrade the playgrounds at its preschool and daycare center. Trinity Church raised an objection to that decision; saying that this decision is a violation of the First Amendment’s protections of freedom of religion and speech; and that the church being penalized for their religious status.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed in 1993, allows for any business to be entitled to an exemption from applicable laws as long as it can be proven to be due to one’s religious belief. (Rivkin, David & Whelan, 2012). In simpler terms, it means that a business owner or church has the right to discriminate in the form of not providing pro-choice rights to female employees, to deny patronage to their businesses to gay/lesbian couples and to not offer the aforementioned employee benefits because of their sexual orientation. However, bear in mind, in order to deny these individuals, their particular rights, one merely has to cite the new RFRA act. In order to support the statements made previously, please see examples below:

I Support the majority opinion of the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier. This case was based on school newspapers I believe students should be allowed it gives them a chance to express they talent though the press. No one can take freedom of the press away it one of our amendment. The principal didn’t have the right to cut off part of the article. The only time he had the right if it was Violate words. Also if the articles are related to the school or reasonably things the students have a right. Students have the right to show how they feel about things going on in their surroundings. If you ask them their opinion why cut off the answer you ask for.

American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Chris Brook, who represented the three residents who challenged the previous ruling, applauded Wilkinson’s words. The lawyer said people should not be afraid of being discriminated against just because they do not participate in the board’s prayer.

If the court ruled against not only St. Louis University but the St. Louis politicians (who expressed an explicit interest in awarding the TIF to SLU), there would have been a major political fallout. Interestingly, courts in such cases tweak and interpret the law to appease both the political entities and the public even in the face of blatant violation of the law. It is pertinent to understand the reasoning behind why courts on multiple occasions decide in favor of churches/religious institutions despite blatant violation of law.