This. From what I can tell, this was the right call but a call that really shouldn’t need to be made.
Government shouldn’t be picking and chosing which religions are religious enough. But our governments should also stop favoring religions with these carve outs. I doubt there is a carve out for non-religious charities. Being a religious organization is nothing special and they shouldn’t get special treatment.
Like @DukeTrout and @danimagoo said, if a religious entity employs, they should pay for everything any other employer does and be subject to the same laws. They don’t wanna do that? Don’t employ people and keep it all volunteer based.
They should also have to pay taxes unless they qualify as a non-profit in the same exact way every non-religious non-profit does.
The high court’s 6-3 conservative majority has had plenty of chances to weigh in against these wrong-house raids. But for decades, the court has rejected several claims against law enforcement officers, making it more difficult to bring cases like this one.
On Thursday, it took a different course. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion for the unanimous court.
Interesting. Not certain how to interpret it, but interesting.
Wow. That’s pleasantly surprising. I gotta read that opinion later.
Here’s another one that makes me wonder what is going on.
That’s because courts in that part of the country require plaintiffs in lawsuits against schools to show officials used “bad faith or gross misjudgment,” a higher legal standard than most disability discrimination claims.
The district also argued that all claims over accommodations for people with disabilities should be held to the same higher standard — a potentially major switch that would have been a “five-alarm fire” for the disability rights community, the girl’s lawyers said.
Weird…
This country has done a lot of bad things over the years. But it has also done a lot of really good things, and one of the best things this country has done in my lifetime is the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I’m happy the Court decided against weakening it. Conservatives have been predicting the end times as a result of the ADA since it was first proposed, and none of their fears have come true. The same will happen here. Other schools in other parts of the country have adapted to provide accommodations to students like her, and this one will as well.
ETA: This issue is very personal to me. I grew up with a disability. When I was in primary and secondary school, the ADA had not yet been enacted. Schools were not required to provide accommodations. Mine did anyway. Because they felt it was the right thing to do. As a result, I got to go to school. And at times, school came to me, in the hospital and in my home. I ended up a National Merit Scholar, went to college, got a BS, then an MS, and recently a JD. None of that would have been possible without my primary and secondary public schools making accommodations. Everyone should have that same opportunity, and the fact that some people don’t feel that way really pisses me off.
The passage of the ADA in 1990 also shows how much this country has changed, for the worse, since then. That bill passed with a lot of bipartisan support. Big Business opposed it, but most Republicans in Congress still voted for it. It passed the House with 377 votes, and the Senate with 91 votes. George H. W. Bush also supported it, and proudly signed it into law.
Anyone, anywhere, anytime can become disabled, whether permanently or merely temporarily.
Even a billionaire can break a leg on a ski slope and find their home difficult to navigate.
Only a total idiot would not understand that.
Dammit I can’t get any previews to work
“Today’s decision is a welcome victory for our clients and the rights of all people to safe, usable identity documents,” added Julie Murray, co-director of the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative.
“The Attorney General’s move to target transgender people in this way has always been baseless and discriminatory. As this case returns to the lower courts, we will continue to defend the ability of all Kansans to access driver’s licenses that reflect who they know themselves to be.”
That’s the guts of it. I gotta admit, I get very confused with the way these get reported of “reversing the block of the block.” I find myself counting up the reversals to figure out if it ends negative or positive!
I’m not a fan of the MeidasTouch folks. I don’t trust them long-term and their clickbait headlines are squicky. I do like Michael Popak’s analyses, though. Here’s a good one on the next steps in the lawsuit seeking to return control of the Cali National Guard in LA to the Governor:
A district court judge in LA issued a temporary restraining order against the administration, halting ICE raids in 7 California counties due to racial profiling.
That’ll stop them for sure. 
I mean, it probably won’t stop them, but it will at least put the issue on record, so when, someday, sanity is restored to our government, maybe some of these assholes can be held accountable. I’m not holding my breath for that, but I do still want the courts to keep trying to uphold the law.
What if Mayor Bass orders LAPD to follow ICE around and enforce the order? Same with Newsom and CHP? I guess they could deny the orders, but that’s a good way to get fired. I would imagine the power imbalance between fed and local shifts a bit when one is clearly violating court orders and one is upholding them, and ICE just doesn’t have much law enforcement scope to begin with.
I don’t think, legally, the mayor of a city or the governor of a state has much authority over federal law enforcement, unless they’re violating state law for which they could be arrested.
Are you sure? I thought local law enforcement also enforces federal law when there aren’t appropriate federal law enforcement present. For instance, I know that state police enforce violations of the Endangered Species Act in the ocean (state waters). They don’t have to wait for NFWS to show up.
Sure, but that’s not the same thing as trying to enforce a federal court order against federal law enforcement officers, especially when it concerns immigration, which is the exclusive domain of the federal government.