SCOTUS: kneeling in sports

Autoprax

Duke status
Jan 24, 2011
68,234
22,988
113
62
Vagina Point
The problem is that everyone is dysregulated now.

When the nutty religious coach does a quick prayer at the game, the atheists just need to humor him like you would a little mentally retarded child.

But now everyone is in spaz mode.

Everyone needs to chill out.

But that is a two way street.
 

Bayview

Billy Hamilton status
Dec 21, 2009
1,667
1,098
113
NJ
Yep

befuddles me the lower circuits couldn’t figure this out.

scotus agreed to hear for a reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ifallalot

Autoprax

Duke status
Jan 24, 2011
68,234
22,988
113
62
Vagina Point
But the right wingers need to be okay when Johnny Muslin starts chanting Allah Akbar on the 50 yard line before the big game on Friday night.

If you think whitey won't loose his sh!t, you are . . . . I don't know what.

They want to bring religion into the school as long as it's their religion.
 

mundus

Duke status
Feb 26, 2018
36,724
15,942
113
Kap got crucified for kneeling on the football field, tell me the difference?
 

Sharkbiscuit

Duke status
Aug 6, 2003
26,265
19,092
113
Jacksonville Beach
LOLOLOL "there may well be a coercion concern".

Reading some of those articles, it sounds like the issue is more the School and the Coach don't agree on what was happening. If this was Vero Beach in the 1990s, I'd say the coach is full of complete sh!t. No idea about this situation, but if you put a gun to my head, I'd assume again that the coach is full of sh!t.

If the coach is telling the truth I'd say he was wrongfully fired. Would not be surprised if "insisting on audible prayers" and "put pressure on players to join the prayers" is one side's idea of quiet praying alone.

Arguing for the school district, lawyer Richard Katskee told the justices that the problem was not Kennedy’s quiet prayer by himself. Instead, Katskee explained, the issue was that Kennedy “insisted on audible prayers at the 50-yard line with students,” because he believed that the prayers “are how he helps these kids be better people.” Kennedy’s actions, Katskee continued, put pressure on players to join the prayers, “divided the coaching staff, sparked vitriol against school officials, and led to the field being stormed and students getting knocked down.”
 

Mike_Jones

Tom Curren status
Mar 5, 2009
11,341
2,234
113
Kap got crucified for kneeling on the football field, tell me the difference?

Gladly.

Kaepernick was not sued to make him stop like this coach was. Kaepernick has every right to show contempt for the United States, but the people for whom he is showing contempt have every right not to pay for him to insult them. If you can't understand the difference then you are beyond reason.

This case was brought by people who want to stop this coach from worshiping at a school venue. There might be some intrenic merrit in separtating church and state like this plaintif wants. Conversely, there could be merit to allowing the leader of this team to exercise his freedom of religion. However, that question was answered in 1789. The Constitution does not, as this plaintiff asserts, separate church from state . The Constitution prohibits the establishment of a state religion, and ensures that people have the freedom to worship. The Constitution also says that all powers not reserved to the federal government, including federal courts, are reserved "to the states respectively or to the people".

This case should be a slam dunk.

Edit: I got the sides reversed. The coach is the plaintiff. The school stopped him from leading his team in prayer during football games. The coach brought the lawsuit to restore his right to religious worship. The same constitutional principles apply in either direction.
 
Last edited:

mundus

Duke status
Feb 26, 2018
36,724
15,942
113
Gladly.

Kaepernick was not sued to make him stop like this coach was. Kaepernick has every right to show contempt for the United States, but the people for whom he is showing contempt have every right not to pay for him to insult them. If you can't understand the difference then you are beyond reason.

This case was brought by people who want to stop this coach from worshiping at a school venue. There might be some intrenic merrit in separtating church and state like this plaintif wants. Conversely, there could be merit to allowing the leader of this team to exercise his freedom of religion. However, that question was answered in 1789. The Constitution does not, as this plaintiff asserts, separate church from state . The Constitution prohibits the establishment of a state religion, and ensures that people have the freedom to worship. The Constitution also says that all powers not reserved to the federal government, including federal courts, are reserved "to the states respectively or to the people".

This case should be a slam dunk.
Fist off, Kav went to an ex special forces guy for the most respectful way to protest. Secondly forced religious indoctrination is supposedly counter to everything this Country stands for. Your take is exactly what was expected form a stupid, mentally ill welfare leech.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sharkbiscuit

afoaf

Duke status
Jun 25, 2008
49,204
22,753
113
guys, squidley thinks you're beyond reason and is sure he knows what the constitution intended so this will totally be a slam dunk

lolololol

of course all the rulings prohibiting prayer in the classroom have no bearing because squidley just knows
 
  • Like
Reactions: mundus

StuAzole

Duke status
Jan 22, 2016
28,246
9,456
113
Fist off, Kav went to an ex special forces guy for the most respectful way to protest. Secondly forced religious indoctrination is supposedly counter to everything this Country stands for. Your take is exactly what was expected form a stupid, mentally ill welfare leech.
It's a trip that Christians hate all indoctrination but their own.

There's zero chance a Muslim coach would survive a season if he pressured his players pray to Allah on the 50 yard line.
 

Mike_Jones

Tom Curren status
Mar 5, 2009
11,341
2,234
113
Fist off, Kav went to an ex special forces guy for the most respectful way to protest. Secondly forced religious indoctrination is supposedly counter to everything this Country stands for. Your take is exactly what was expected form a stupid, mentally ill welfare leech.

You have an incorrect, unhinged understanding of this country's values. They are stated in the Constitution, and the Constitution disagrees with you. If you want to change our values, the Constitution has 2 ways to do that. Both require super majorities. You are welcome to try. If you do try then you will learn how many people disagree with your view of what this country stands for.
 
Last edited:

Mike_Jones

Tom Curren status
Mar 5, 2009
11,341
2,234
113
It's a trip that Christians hate all indoctrination but their own.

There's zero chance a Muslim coach would survive a season if he pressured his players pray to Allah on the 50 yard line.

A coach of a team with no players would not be a coach for long.
 

Mike_Jones

Tom Curren status
Mar 5, 2009
11,341
2,234
113
So my revised statement would be:

Kaepernick was not prohibited from kneeling during the national anthem. This coach was prohibited from leading team prayers on the field. Kaepernick has every right to show contempt for the United States, but the people for whom he is showing contempt have every right not to pay for him to insult them. If you can't understand the difference then you are beyond reason.

This case was caused by people who want to stop this coach from worshiping at a school venue. There might be some intrenic merrit in separtating church and state like this defendant wants. Conversely, there could be merit to allowing the leader of this team to exercise his freedom of religion. However, that question was answered in 1789. The Constitution does not, as this defendant asserts, separate church from state . The Constitution prohibits the establishment of a state religion, and ensures that people have the freedom to worship. The Constitution also says that all powers not reserved to the federal government, including federal courts, are reserved "to the states respectively or to the people".

This case should be a slam dunk.