But some do, I have seen it. Many teachers have a desk off to one side and the picture faces them, not the students. You are trying to make a legal argument based on your memory or personal experience of not seeing a picture but osme teachers do. The pic does not face the class but its there.
UsualTard said: "First of all the constitutional basis of Roe wasn’t before the court in the Mississippi case. The AG for Mississippi said so himself during the hearing and after the decision. So it wasn’t any arguments that persuaded the court but activist judges with an agenda." Not precisely true but I will agree that it was quirky. The Mississippi AG - somewhat disingenously I will admit or maybe brilliantly- advanced the case up through the courts by arguing that he did not seek to overturn Roe, but instead, just to get a ruling on the issue of limiting abortion at viability. But in last minute he amended the brief to include an argument that the viability issue should not stand because Roe itself needed to be overturned. And then he made oral argument to that end, thus putting it before the court. So you could make the point that the justices could have tossed that argument for procedural purposes or could have allowed it which they willingly bit into- but I dont think one can make the case that Mississippi did not step up with that argument and that the justices took it on without Mississippi even making that argument. From Mississippi's brief: “Under the Constitution, may a State prohibit elective abortions before viability? Yes. Why? Because nothing in constitutional text, structure, history, or tradition supports a right to abortion,” Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch and four of her attorneys wrote in the brief. In regard to the turban question/scenario the correct answer is that it is not clear where that will/would end out over time under a full constitutional scrutiny. I raised it as one that is sort of on the edge where some things are still being worked out on the playground to accommodate some parties so happily it may never be totally settled through the courts. UsualTard said: "I will also add your question about the turban falls under “business necessity”. If the turban contradicts a uniform used for a business reason then the employer is not obligated to accommodate. This was an issue in the military. The clerical “uniform” creates an interesting question within the context of the wacky Kennedy decision. Where is the religious line now?" Your comments about the "business necessity" rule/guidance are noted but previous rulings are not necessarily determinative of where things would end out with a full constitutional assault on the issue. This is the era of "accommodation" and lots of things that seemed reasonable a decade ago are up for examination. I think that just not long ago the military or a business could argue that they have a business need to not have their people appear on duty ridiculously dressed like a woman when he is clearly dressed like a man. Seems simple. But not so fast Sparky. Having said that, I refer back to my comments in regard to "the issue of being able to wear a turban or having a right is not really clear." Even the branches of the military do not agree. OF NOTE, the U.S. Army does allow some members to wear turbans but upon the Army's approval. And the number of approvals will grow, which is why I say that the issue may never be solved constitutionally (in regard to military) because the parties may be satisfied through accommodation. OR NOT. That does not settle it for the private sector but as I said, the private sector has has to accept lots of changes it did not see coming. What will be pivotal ultimately is what the employer includes under the definition of "business necessity." If for example a public schools says "we don;t want out teachers wearing turbans because they look funny, and parents complain, and it shows a religious affiliation" then I expect that will end out on shaky grounds. If on the other hand, the employer defines specific reasons why a turban cannot be worn because it interferes with the mission well that is another matter. example, a doctor wanting to wear a massive unsterilized turban in an operating room. But then the employer may still need to allow the doctor to wear it in just basic settings. As I said, the times they iz a changin. Keep in mind that these are U.S. Army servicemen: MORE TO COME:
Why would a priest be invited to teach in a public school... is that normal.. I dont think so. We can create fantasy hypotheticals. Graduations have priests or reverands bless the ceremony but no one is asked to to pray or kneel or even partake if they dont want it, the reverend or priest just gives a blessing. Eveyrone is on their seat and dont even have to sawy AMen at the end if they dont want to. Not the same as a teacher leading a prayer in the middle of school and having students participate and creating a situation where non-christians are not being forced somehow to participate because it is your peer. If you want to pray do it in private or before or after on your own. No christian rule or custom requires you to pray on school grounds because you won a football game. If the school told him to take off the cross he wears then that would be too far. But he could not nail a large one on the wall of his classroom.
Ptobably limited instances with priests but ministers wear garb as well, and this country is wall to wall with part time ministers that work another job during the week, including as school teachers and public sector jobs. As an expression of their faith they may wish to wear their garb thoughout the week. Or maybe wear a yamulka. You may say that is not necessary for them but I suggesting that that might not be for you to decide.
Indeed. That would be part of the point. There is a whole lot of deciding what is allowable and what is not for various items yet at the same time some are so quick to be sure that x,y,z or a turban or a minister's collar are not allowed on anyone. There is not really any coherent law or other principles at play. Just that people have developed ideas on their own or through the culture as to what looks like or should be okay. That is not much of a legal or constitutional standard. I could be a teacher and come into class in California with a ministers collar on a monk's habit from the lay order if I belonged to one and they would go apeshit. However if I came in with buddhist style habit and some beads with it they would love it. People just making up what is acceptable as they go along based on their own preferences and tolerances.
That's fine, if you want to say that's what you meant. But we need to be clear that the "government" of the county school board doesn't make laws. And besides, in the article, it claims it is the principals of multiple schools - which isn't the government - that is suggesting taking the pictures down. Regardless of who it is, it isn't the state, and it isn't the law.
No one is making a legal argument. I'm just saying that having a picture of your spouse on your desk isn't necessary to do your job. If you're getting into discussions with your students about your private life, that's your choice. I don't think its a bad idea to bring teachers back to teaching and less about being the student's "friend".
Public opinion is resoundingly against America's new Christofascists. So why are they winning all the battles? The Christian Right is winning cultural battles while public opinion disagrees NPR - https://tinyurl.com/58k9s44e