Just showing you the hypocrisy of equal protection

[Moi]

Today the Supreme Court of the United States decided that tax dollar supported scholarships for college students are all well and good as long as the student chooses to study anything but theology. Now, I realize that the purpose of the first amendment has been so distorted that people actually believe there is a separation of church and state in this country to ridiculous proportions, but by eliminating those who study theology from scholarships is actually discrimination based upon religion. An act specifically forbidden by the constitution.

I certainly don't need to hear anymore whining about equal protection in this country...it seems to only apply to those who choose either to engage in immoral or criminal activity and those who exploit the social services in this country, citizens or not.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...0225/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_religion&printer=1

Court OKs Denial of Divinity Scholarships

2 minutes ago
By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court, in a new rendering on separation of church and state, voted Wednesday to let states withhold scholarships from students studying theology.

The court's 7-2 ruling held that the state of Washington was within its rights to deny a taxpayer-funded scholarship to a college student who was studying to be a minister. That holding applies even when money is available to students studying anything else.
...
Davey won a state Promise Scholarship, but the state rescinded the money when it learned what he planned to study.
...
Justices Antonin Scalia (news - web sites) and Clarence Thomas (news - web sites) dissented.
"Let there be no doubt: This case is about discrimination against a religious minority," Scalia wrote for the two. "In an era when the court is so quick to come to the aid of other disfavored groups, its indifference in this case, which involves a form of discrimination to which the Constitution actually speaks, is exceptional." Scalia said the court's majority was trying to play down the damage to Davey, who continued his education without the subsidy. He did not choose to enter the ministry after graduation, and is now in law school.

The case is Locke v. Davey, 02-1315.
___

 

[jimnyc]

I was going to post this myself. It's ok to ban scholarships based on religion, but no way are you going to ban the queers!

This is why there needs to be an amendment.

 

[wonderwench]

It's sad that you don't recognize that both situations are based upon the same flawed interpretation of the Constitution. If you wish equal protection for religious education, then you must also extend equal protection for two consenting adults to have a civil union.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
It's sad that you don't recognize that both situations are based upon the same flawed interpretation of the Constitution. If you wish equal protection for religious education, then you must also extend equal protection for two consenting adults to have a civil union.

Wrong again!

It's sad that someone can be wrong so many times!

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by wonderwench
It's sad that you don't recognize that both situations are based upon the same flawed interpretation of the Constitution. If you wish equal protection for religious education, then you must also extend equal protection for two consenting adults to have a civil union.

Note the title of this thread. It's called hypocrisy.

The very fact that some of the same arguments are made for and against the generation of privleges bears out how hypocritically the argument of equal protection is applied. It is the same as I've said many times before about morality- only when one is opposed to the specific moral tenet does one decry using morality to formulate laws.

If it is acceptable to discriminate against a college student solely because he/she decides to pursue a degree in theology (an action that is specifically PROHIBITED in the constitution) than it is certainly acceptable to discriminate against other people for their actions (especially those not mentioned in the constitution as protected). You can't have one without the other. Nor, I might add, is it acceptable to censure one person for disobeying what they believe is an invalid law (the 10 commandments judge) while allowing another person to do the same thing without reproach (Mayor of SF).

 

[DKSuddeth]

I find it odd that the USSC ruled on a 7-2 split when the bench has 5 conservatives on it.

 

[Aquarian]

From what I know of the case, it was wrong to yank this guys scholarship and wrong for the supreme court to support the restriction. If a state school teaches theology, then a state scholarship should be allowed for a student on that track.

Nor, I might add, is it acceptable to censure one person for disobeying what they believe is an invalid law (the 10 commandments judge) while allowing another person to do the same thing without reproach (Mayor of SF).

regarding this, Judge Moore had his trip through the court system, the sf mayor will go the same route. If he loses and continues I would expect the same treatment that moore received.