Boise, ID – Attorney General Labrador led a coalition of 22 states challenging California’s discrimination against religious observers in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Attorney General Labrador filed a brief last week urging the Ninth Circuit to overturn a confusing and erroneous California federal district court decision that upheld a California law that makes public funding available for private schools, but only for “nonsectarian” schools.
The California law’s “nonsectarian” requirement prohibits parents from receiving any of the funds if their children attend a religious private school. Such blatant discrimination plainly violates the First Amendment. But it also flouts three recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have repeatedly held that government cannot condition generally available public funding on religious status.
“The law is clear: regardless of how a government defines it, generally available funding cannot be withheld solely on the basis of religious affiliation,” Labrador said. “The Supreme Court has gone to great lengths to stamp out that type of religious discrimination. We will always defend the First Amendment rights of citizens.”
Attorneys General from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia joined the brief led by Idaho.
The full brief can be read here.
One reply on “Attorney General Labrador Leads 22-State Coalition Defending Parents’ Free Exercise of Religion Rights”
Attorney General Labrador is, therefore, a violator of the First Commandment!
To promote religious rights must be done not only for the sake of Christians, but also on behalf of Muslims, Hindus, Jews, etc. – all of them anti-Christs per 2 John 1:7-11, etc.
Religious Freedom and Christian Liberty are NOT the same thing. In fact, Christian Liberty (aka biblical dominion) was sacrificed on the altar Religious Freedom.
Without the parameters of the Bible’s moral law, the First Amendment has proven to be a toxic brew. For example, Amendment 1 condemns the prohibition of speech, whether spoken or written. Does the Bible provide for free speech or does it limit speech? What about freedom of speech and freedom of the press as it concerns Yahweh Himself? Does God grant us freedom to curse Him or blaspheme His name?
On the other hand, freedom of speech and freedom of the press is used to provide protection for those who promote false religions, in utero infanticide, sodomy, drug abuse, violence, obscenities, and other abominations condemned by Yahweh.
The provision in Amendment 1 for United States citizens to assemble peaceably appears innocuous. But is it harmless to give sodomites, infanticide advocates, and Satanists the right to assemble peaceably? If you are a proponent of the Constitution and a defender of Amendment 1, you must also champion the rights of such criminals and anti-Christians to assemble and promote their wicked agendas.
Homosexuals and infant assassins claim freedom of speech and the right to assemble to combat Christians who speak out or assemble against these heinous people and their brazen debauchery. By labeling what Christians do as hate crimes, these immoral people are able to employ Amendment 1 against Christians speaking and/or assembling against these atrocities.
According to the Bill of Rights, it is the alleged religious right of these sodomites, baby killers, and Satanists to use Amendment 1 against Christians.
For more, see Chapter 11 “Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism” of free online book “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at https://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt11