The and with their application ranked asThe and with their application ranked as

            The Trinity Lutheran Church Child Learning Center, a
preschool and daycare center located in Missouri was originally set up as a
nonprofit association, they later affiliated and runs their activities on the
church property. The center has a playground that has a rough pea gravel
surface beneath much of the play equipment. (Did The Supreme Court Just Open the
Door for Public Money to Go to Religious Schools?”). In 2012, the Trinity
Lutheran Church plan on upgrading their rough graveled playground surface, in order
to facilitate this idea, they put in an application to the Missouri state department
of Natural Resources(DNR) for scrap tire program that repay the amount of money
used to install recycled teared up tires which is suitable for a softer and
safer playground surface.                                                                                                Despite
the school’s high ranking and with their application ranked as fifth out of the
44 submitted applications, the state wholly denied the grant because it was
associated with a church. The state used the Blaine Amendment, a 19th century
anti-Catholic and bigoted law that forbids religious organizations, such as a
Florida prisoner ministry, a Catholic orphanage and several religious schools,
from participating in public programs. In 2013, Trinity Lutheran Church
believed this was a glaring discriminating act from the Missouri State and this
made them sue them to court. Becket, along with Stanford Professor Michael
McConnell, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief defending Trinity Lutheran’s
right to participate in the state’s tire recycling program on equal footing as
all other applicants. Trinity Lutheran, represented by Alliance Defending
Freedom, has fought all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard the case
on April 19, 2017.eligious schools, from participating in public programs (Trinity
Lutheran Church V. Comer”).

            “The case focused on whether this decision conflicts with
the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and specifically whether
Missouri was violating the free-exercise clause by preventing Trinity Lutheran
from participating in a secular, neutral aid program” (Green). In June 2017,
the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that Missouri can’t discriminate against the
school in a program that provides shredded-tire resurfacing to make playgrounds
safer for kids. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the
7-2 majority, “the Court held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First
Amendment protected the freedom to practice religion and subjects laws that
burden religious practice to strict scrutiny, First Amendment precedent had
established that laws that deny an otherwise generally available benefit,
because of religious status are unconstitutional, though laws that are neutral
and generally applicable may be upheld even if they hamper religion, the
distinction was whether the law in question discriminates against some or all
religious beliefs.” (Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer.) “In
this case, there is no dispute that Trinity Lutheran is put to the choice
between being a church and receiving a government benefit,” wrote Roberts
(Green). He further explained that the rule is simple: No churches need apply.”
While this case concerns Missouri, many states have their own versions of the
constitutional provision Missouri used to deny money to Trinity Lutheran, they’re
often referred to as “Blaine amendments,” based on their historical grounding
in suspicion toward Catholics. Even though the facts of the case may seem
inconsequential, the difference between a few knees scraped on a rough
pea-gavel playground, the stakes of the decision were high, Roberts wrote. He
compared Missouri’s actions to 200-year-old efforts in places like Maryland to
prohibit certain individuals from running public office simply because of their
faith. “The result of the State’s policy is nothing so dramatic as the denial
of political office,” he wrote. “But the exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a
public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a
church, is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot stand.”

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

            In my own opinion about the case and supported by Supreme
Court of Justice of the United States ruling which further explained that the
state violated the First Amendment by denying a public benefits to a religious
organization shows the sign of discrimination, because churches are classified
as charitable organizations and many charitable organizations also benefits
from secular programs, therefore singling out churches to be ineligible for
such grants because of their religious backgrounds is totally wrong and biased,
because even if the charitable organizations doesn’t pay taxes, the people who
either work for them or their church members do pay taxes which makes me think that
they are fully entitled to enjoy the state benefits.