LOL, from the guy who brought us KrAKeN insight!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.