SCOTUS declines to hear NJ case

All things philosophical, related to belief and / or religions of any and all sorts.
Personal philosophy welcomed.
Post Reply
ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

SCOTUS declines to hear NJ case

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

From Fox News:
Religious liberty cases could head to Supreme Court

Cases involving a high school coach terminated for praying with players and a cross at War World I memorial were both ruled by lower courts to be unconstitutional because they can be interpreted as government endorsement of religion.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a case about whether churches or other religious institutions in New Jersey are entitled to public funds for historic preservation.

The ruling involved a four-year-long battle in Morris County over whether county money should be used to repair historic churches. The New Jersey State Supreme Court ruled last year that the county could not continue to give historic preservation grants to 12 churches.

For years, Morris County had been giving churches money to make aesthetic and structural repairs to historic churches under a historic preservation program. In 2015, a county freeholder objected, arguing that taxpayer funds should not be used to repair places of worship.

The Supreme Court’s ruling was unanimous but three justices said the issue should soon be addressed.

"At some point, this court will need to decide whether governments that distribute historic preservation funds may deny funds to religious organizations simply because the organizations are religious," Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote.

Two other justices, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, agreed
Some good news here in that SCOTUS declined to hear the case which means, broadly, that they agree with the interpretation of law made by the NJ Supreme Court. I do think that religious entities who take care of historic buildings should, under some carefully defined circumstances, be able to apply for and receive public monies like anyone; but if they insist that the First Amendment entitles them to a tax free life then no, I don't.

This was brought home to me many years ago when I was at a men's shop in Buffalo NY. I was buying a sports jacket (this was in the days when it was considered a little racy to wear something as flighty and informal as a sports coat to the office: I was determined to defy tradition and wear [literally] my independence proudly) and I was standing in line at the cashier's desk. Ahead of me was an older guy - gasp - he might have been 55 or even more! - also buying a sports coat. When it was time to pay he pulled a piece of paper from his pocket and the salesman looked at. "Tax exempt, sir'" he said and rang him up. When it was my turn I was of course charged the (IIRC) 6% sales tax in effect at that time. "How come he didn't have to pay tax?" I grumbled. "He's a minister at St. XXXXX."

To me, the government should not prohibit the free exercise of religion. Which means that they should pay the same taxes as the rest ofus.

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: SCOTUS declines to hear NJ case

Post by Big RR »

Not sure what your state is, but I would bet that was illegal; a minister is not exempt from taxation for his personal wardrobe, as many televangelists have learned. Churches and other charitable organizations are generally exempt from sales tax for goods bought for charitable use, but it would not include the minister's personal wardrobe.

Post Reply