« How the Voters Really Feel about Abortion
Dave in Fla [Guest Monkey] |
Main
|
"If that's not child molestation, it is definitely close": Tucker Carlson Blasts Joe Biden Over His Daughter's Revelation That She Took Showers With Her Creepy Father At a "Not Appropriate" Age »
June 21, 2022
Huge: Supreme Court Rules That States Cannot Discriminate Against Religious Schools In Tuition-Assistance Plans, Clearing Way for Education Passports
Pardon the use of "education passports." What I mean is, the left has always insisted that we cannot use the same system used in some European countries in which the state simply gives a tuition voucher to a parent for a child, and then that parent chooses which school to send his child, and the voucher, to. The left has always claimed that the Constitution forbids this, at least as far as using those vouchers to pay for religious schooling -- even though it is the parent, not the state, making the decision and depositing the tuition voucher.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the left's excluding of religious schools from programs in which tuition assistance is offered to parents to defray the costs of private school is unconstitutional, as it discriminates against religious choice.
"Maine has enacted a program of tuition assistance for parents who live in school districts that do not operate a secondary school of their own. Under the program, parents designate the secondary school they would like their child to attend--public or private--and the school district transmits payments to that school to help defray the costs of tuition. Most private schools are eligible to receive the payments, so long as they are 'nonsectarian,'" the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, states. "The question presented is whether this restriction violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment."
"The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment protects against 'indirect coercion or penalties on the free exercise of religion, not just outright prohibitions,'" the opinion states. "A State's antiestablishment interest does not justify enactments that exclude some members of the community from an otherwise generally available public benefit because of their religious exercise."