High school football coach prays at midfield, now in Supreme Court religious liberty case

[Lorewarn]

1 minute ago, TGHusker said:

The school was wrong for firing him.  

 

 

You're probably right, but I've got a sneaking suspicion based off of his quotes and recollection of the story that there is more here than his argument is letting on. Mainly, I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that he was making a much bigger show out of it than his version of events implies.

[TGHusker]

2 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

You're probably right, but I've got a sneaking suspicion based off of his quotes and recollection of the story that there is more here than his argument is letting on. Mainly, I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that he was making a much bigger show out of it than his version of events implies.

Hopefully not.    Then your OP Bible verse comes into play and Jesus said "He got is reward" but it won't count much for eternity. 

[teachercd]

39 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

You're probably right, but I've got a sneaking suspicion based off of his quotes and recollection of the story that there is more here than his argument is letting on. Mainly, I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that he was making a much bigger show out of it than his version of events implies.

Yep!

 

 

[JJ Husker]

4 hours ago, RedDenver said:

He's a school employee at a school event where he's being paid by the school to do a job. There are exceptions to the 1st Amendment for government employees, but it's complex, so not at all clear if the school/government had the right to restrict the coach's 1st Amendment rights in this case. (This goes into it in some detail starting on page 30.)

 

I could be wrong, but I think intent and location matters in the legality of this case.

 

I doubt it as the players are not employees. Although students at school have limited 1st Amendment rights as schools can limit things like lewd speech, acts disruptive to school environment, or acts that violate the rights of other students. I don't think a school would likely win a legal battle over a player pointing to the sky or crossing themselves though.

What is really confusing me about this deal is some of y’all are acting like this is something new, some sort of new Christian overreach. These post game midfield  prayers have been happening practically forever at the HS and college level. Frankly the thing that surprises me at all about it is that the school seemed to think they could fire him for it. There has to be more to the story that we aren’t aware of because at first blush they look to be WAY out of line. JMO

[RedDenver]

Just now, JJ Husker said:

What is really confusing me about this deal is some of y’all are acting like this is something new, some sort of new Christian overreach. These post game midfield  prayers have been happening practically forever at the HS and college level. Frankly the thing that surprises me at all about it is that the school seemed to think they could fire him for it. There has to be more to the story that we aren’t aware of because at first blush they look to be WAY out of line. JMO

Nobody is claiming this is new Christian overreach that I've seen, maybe old Christian overreach as it's been going on for decades.

 

Also note that the school didn't fire him for praying at midfield but rather for telling him not to keep doing it and then him deciding to do it anyway. That's not to say the school was right, but it's not like they up and fired him all of a sudden for it.

[Danny Bateman]

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

Nobody is claiming this is new Christian overreach that I've seen, maybe old Christian overreach as it's been going on for decades.

 

Also note that the school didn't fire him for praying at midfield but rather for telling him not to keep doing it and then him deciding to do it anyway. That's not to say the school was right, but it's not like they up and fired him all of a sudden for it.

 

The bolded is an important distinction. If we remove the religious context that's pretty standard fare cause for any employer to fire any employee. You'[d think there would be more intermediate disciplinary measures but maybe we're not privy to that. It sure doesn't feel like we have all the context.

 

And also, here's a separate thought exercise for everyone, because it seems like the majority opinion here is that prayer is fine at school events so long as participation isn't coerced:

 

What if the coach had thrown on a black robe and offered up a quick postgame prayer to Satan after games? Should that be allowed as long as participation is voluntary?

 

Because I've got a pretty good idea a lot of folks who feel very, very strongly about this would feel very, very different if that were the case, which tells me their belief isn't rooted in principle but their personal Christian values.

[teachercd]

1 minute ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

The bolded is an important distinction. If we remove the religious context that's pretty standard fare cause for any employer to fire any employee. You'[d think there would be more intermediate disciplinary measures but maybe we're not privy to that. It sure doesn't feel like we have all the context.

 

And also, here's a separate thought exercise for everyone, because it seems like the majority opinion here is that prayer is fine at school events so long as participation isn't coerced:

 

What if the coach had thrown on a black robe and offered up a quick postgame prayer to Satan after games? Should that be allowed as long as participation is voluntary?

 

Because I've got a pretty good idea a lot of folks who feel very, very strongly about this would feel very, very different if that were the case, which tells me their belief isn't rooted in principle but their personal Christian values.

Why do people always seem to think that satanists are always wearing black robes?  Haha

[Danny Bateman]

1 minute ago, teachercd said:

Why do people always seem to think that satanists are always wearing black robes?  Haha

 

You're right. Let's say he could also be wearing a stylish satanic tye-dye hoodie and some satanic jorts.

[teachercd]

Just now, Danny Bateman said:

 

You're right. Let's say he could also be wearing a stylish satanic tye-dye hoodie and some satanic jorts.

Jorts are evil!

 

And why does it have to be a "he"!!!!  Unreal!  Ha

[BigRedBuster]

4 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Jorts are evil!

 

And why does it have to be a "he"!!!!  Unreal!  Ha

How about Pat in jorts. 

[JJ Husker]

2 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Nobody is claiming this is new Christian overreach that I've seen, maybe old Christian overreach as it's been going on for decades.

 

Also note that the school didn't fire him for praying at midfield but rather for telling him not to keep doing it and then him deciding to do it anyway. That's not to say the school was right, but it's not like they up and fired him all of a sudden for it.

 

2 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

The bolded is an important distinction. If we remove the religious context that's pretty standard fare cause for any employer to fire any employee. You'[d think there would be more intermediate disciplinary measures but maybe we're not privy to that. It sure doesn't feel like we have all the context.

 

And also, here's a separate thought exercise for everyone, because it seems like the majority opinion here is that prayer is fine at school events so long as participation isn't coerced:

 

What if the coach had thrown on a black robe and offered up a quick postgame prayer to Satan after games? Should that be allowed as long as participation is voluntary?

 

Because I've got a pretty good idea a lot of folks who feel very, very strongly about this would feel very, very different if that were the case, which tells me their belief isn't rooted in principle but their personal Christian values.

So you guys see a distinction between A) being fired for praying at midfield and B) being told not to do it, he continues to do it and then they fire him? Wow!  I’m failing to see absolutely any difference as far as his religious liberty is concerned.

 

I know an employer who makes excessive allowances to allow muslim employees to pray at the prescribed time daily and it gets even more crazy during Ramadan. This is a huge assembly line packing house deal and TBH it really screws up their production times, break times etc. Maybe they should just tell them to not pray and then fire them when they keep doing it. ???

[Lorewarn]

12 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

 

So you guys see a distinction between A) being fired for praying at midfield and B) being told not to do it, he continues to do it and then they fire him? Wow!  I’m failing to see absolutely any difference as far as his religious liberty is concerned.

 

I know an employer who makes excessive allowances to allow muslim employees to pray at the prescribed time daily and it gets even more crazy during Ramadan. This is a huge assembly line packing house deal and TBH it really screws up their production times, break times etc. Maybe they should just tell them to not pray and then fire them when they keep doing it. ???

 

 

In your example, if they asked them to stop (due to reasons unrelated to the religion itself, but things such as "really screwing up our production times"), and then they kept doing it, yes they would have much better grounds for firing them.

 

Not good grounds necessarily, but better ones than if they never gave a warning/reason to stop. The posts you quoted said there's a distinction (one even said "IF we remove the religious context); not that saying not to first makes it fine.

[Danny Bateman]

17 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

 

So you guys see a distinction between A) being fired for praying at midfield and B) being told not to do it, he continues to do it and then they fire him? Wow!  I’m failing to see absolutely any difference as far as his religious liberty is concerned.

 

I know an employer who makes excessive allowances to allow muslim employees to pray at the prescribed time daily and it gets even more crazy during Ramadan. This is a huge assembly line packing house deal and TBH it really screws up their production times, break times etc. Maybe they should just tell them to not pray and then fire them when they keep doing it. ???

 

Presumably they didn't just tell him not to do it without some kind of legal reasoning why; it seems silly to open oneself up to a lawsuit by wantonly denying one their religious liberty. I continue to feel there's more to the story than we know here. 

 

@Lorewarn said it pretty well. I merely think their legal argument is a lot BETTER if B above occurred rather than A. Personally I agree with you guys - any religious gathering is probably fine as long as it's entirely optional and there's no endorsement from the school for or against any religion, including things like satanic worship or something silly like Pastafarianism.

[JJ Husker]

8 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

In your example, if they asked them to stop (due to reasons unrelated to the religion itself, but things such as "really screwing up our production times"), and then they kept doing it, yes they would have much better grounds for firing them.

 

Not good grounds necessarily, but better ones than if they never gave a warning/reason to stop. The posts you quoted said there's a distinction (one even said "IF we remove the religious context); not that saying not to first makes it fine.

To be fair, my example with the muslim employees is an allowance the employer is willing to make to keep/get employees. I really don’t think they have to allow them to disturb their production schedule like they do.

 

I guess why I think the coach praying after a game is different is because it’s pretty harmless. It’s not affecting his productivity and I think it could be debated if he is even being paid for that time. It’s happened so often in so many places it just seems to be acceptable.  And using @Danny Bateman example of a satanist doing the same thing, I guess I do feel differently about that so maybe I am biased. But I would like to see it happen just to know if it’s really a viable hypothetical.

[JJ Husker]

9 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Presumably they didn't just tell him not to do it without some kind of legal reasoning why; it seems silly to open oneself up to a lawsuit by wantonly denying one their religious liberty. I continue to feel there's more to the story than we know here. 

 

@Lorewarn said it pretty well. I merely think their legal argument is a lot BETTER if B above occurred rather than A. Personally I agree with you guys - any religious gathering is probably fine as long as it's entirely optional and there's no endorsement from the school for or against any religion, including things like satanic worship or something silly like Pastafarianism.

I agree, there has to be more to the story. And sure it helps them justify it by telling him not to first. The guy is probably a total doucher and bad coach and they just wanted a little more ammo to fire him.