# Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 7, 2017, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994 "2017-04-07T17:15:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/101 "2017-04-12T15:44:14Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I wonder if churches already have access to this grant: all they have to do is to organize themselves either as a non-tax-exempt organization, or as a 501(c)(3) based on educational or charitable criteria rather than religious. If they did so, would everyone agree they should have access to this grant? > … Some churches and other religious institutions do choose to organize a separate 501(c)(3) for some of their charitable outreach. And they are eligible for all sorts of government grants so long as a few criteria are met: [ol][li]separation in time and/or place of religious activities and government grant supported activities[/li][li]no religious participation required of member of public to access government supported activities[/li][li]open to all - cannot limit beneficiaries to members of religious organization[/li][/ol] So a food pantry, women’s crisis center, homeless shelter, or other community outreach a religious organization might wish to engage in might be eligible for government grants on the same basis as non-religious organizations. A church using grant money to run an anger management program can use the same building at the same time as is used for a bible study group, but different rooms or some other means of physical separation may be required. A mosque offering and English as a Second Language program might qualify for government grants but they could not limit participants to only members of that mosque or more generally to only Muslims. A fundamentalist Baptist church may qualify for grant money to run a jobs retraining program but they cannot condition access to the program on participation in a religious worship service. However religious institutions are not obligated to wall off such government funded programs to a separate 501(c)(3). Doing so might be easier, particularly for larger programs where grant monies may support the salary of a member of staff, but it is not a requirement. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/102 "2017-04-12T16:01:38Z")
> [@OldGuy](#): > > Surely the state doesn’t originate the process and say "You specific non-profit entity, are a church and you, the other one over there, are not. The organization must first claim to be a church. (At which point it might be argued and I do find this problematic.) Therefore, this whole problem would be solved if organizations just never said they were churches. They’d just apply for non-profit status. I don’t think the problem would be solved. The Missouri constitution applies to money given to churches, but also in aid of “sect[s], or denomination[s] of religion” as well as any school “controlled by any religious creed, church or sectarian denomination.” So, at some point, the Missouri officials must come along as say: you specific non-profit entity (for example a preschool) are “controlled” by a “religious creed” and you specific non-profit entity indirectly aid a denomination. When the University of Notre Dame applied for 501(c)(3) status, I don’t know whether it checked the box for “religious” or “educational” (or both). But I do know that Missouri (if they were in Missouri) wouldn’t give them rubber for their playground because of their religious affiliation. So _this_ problem doesn’t get solved. They can’t just spin-off the preschool as a subsidiary. Relatedly, thanks for the list of benefits. I’m not sure i think that benefits provided to individual ministers (e.g., the confessional privilege) should be counted as benefits for an organization identifying itself as a church. But fair enough on the others. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/103 "2017-04-12T16:21:39Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Gay marriage is a 14th amendment issue; this is a 1st amendment issue. So I don’t see any good in this ongoing anology using a hot button topic. This is a 14th amendment issue (bolding mine): > [@](#): > > Trinity Lutheran went to federal district court, arguing (among other things) that the state’s refusal to provide funds for its playground violated two different provisions of the U.S. Constitution: the First Amendment’s free exercise clause, which bars governments from making laws or enacting policies “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion; **and the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, which requires a state to apply its laws equally and avoid treating individuals or groups of people in similar circumstances differently.** > > SOURCE: [Argument preview: More than just a playground dispute - SCOTUSblog](http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/04/argument-preview-just-playground-dispute/) ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/104 "2017-04-12T16:30:53Z")
> [@g8rguy](#): > > The reason, that I haven’t repeated your argument is this: I have argued that there is some point at which the government cannot deny funding to a religious organization, and I don’t know what that point is. You agree that there is a point at which the government cannot deny funding to a religious organization, and you further claim to know what that point is: when religion would otherwise cease to exist. You have provided no evidence in support of this assertion, and it is not an assertion which I think is obviously true, because as far as I can tell you have ignored the word “free” in the phrase “free exercise.” > > Your argument – that the government can do anything it wants to short of banning religion entirely – would lead me to believe that the government could ban public places of worship, because religion has been practiced without them and your standard is > > I suspect your interpretation is wrong. If the government is more strictly limited than “cannot ban religion entirely” then your assessment of the point at which the government can deny funds is wrong. > > Obviously, because I don’t believe you have nailed down the point beyond which government may not deny funding to religious organizations, I do not accept that I must prove that we have reached that point. I’m not saying the government action would have to ban religion entirely. The government action would merely have to limit the religious activity to the point where it restricted the free exercise of the religion in order to be unconstitutional. Your examples of a punitive tax on religious organizations or a ban on places of worship would qualify for that. But are you prepared to argue that religious organizations must receive public money in order to freely exercise their faith? If so, offer the evidence to support this claim. If not, then you’re conceding a lack of public funds does not restrict the free exercise of religion. And that concession ends the debate over the free exercise clause. As for the equal protection clause, I’ll concede there is a remote possibility there. The reality is the government doesn’t give money to everyone who asks, so giving money to some people and not others isn’t a clear violation of the equal protection clause. But I’ll admit I don’t know enough about the legal standards on where the lines between constitutional and unconstitutional is drawn on the unequal distribution of public funds to offer an opinion on that issue. My gut feeling is that this case won’t fall on the unconstitutional side but I could be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/105 "2017-04-12T16:48:34Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > This is a 14th amendment issue (bolding mine): Well, I stand corrected. I have a hard time believing that this won’t be mostly decided on the 1st amendment questions though. Guess we’ll see. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/106 "2017-04-12T16:51:54Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I’m not saying the government action would have to ban religion entirely. The government action would merely have to limit the religious activity to the point where it restricted the free exercise of the religion in order to be unconstitutional. Your examples of a punitive tax on religious organizations or a ban on places of worship would qualify for that. > > But are you prepared to argue that religious organizations must receive public money in order to freely exercise their faith? If so, offer the evidence to support this claim. If not, then you’re conceding a lack of public funds does not restrict the free exercise of religion. And that concession ends the debate over the free exercise clause. Do you agree, as a matter of free exercise, with the following statement: A state cannot exclude individual Catholics, Lutherans, Mohammedans, Baptists, Jews, Methodists, Nonbelievers, Presbyterians, or the members of any other faith, because of their faith, or lack of it, from receiving the benefits of public welfare legislation. Or do you view that as a matter of equal protection (if anything at all), because being denied the benefits of public welfare legislation is unlikely to prevent an individual from actually exercising their religion? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/107 "2017-04-12T17:02:30Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > As for the equal protection clause, I’ll concede there is a remote possibility there. The reality is the government doesn’t give money to everyone who asks, so giving money to some people and not others isn’t a clear violation of the equal protection clause. But I’ll admit I don’t know enough about the legal standards on where the lines between constitutional and unconstitutional is drawn on the unequal distribution of public funds to offer an opinion on that issue. My gut feeling is that this case won’t fall on the unconstitutional side but I could be wrong. If the government gives money to fisherman to help them catch fish they are not also required to give money to deer hunters to help them catch deer. However, they ARE required to give the money to any fisherman regardless if that fisherman is Jewish, christian, atheist or whatever. It would seem Missouri would say they cannot give money to the Church of Fisherman for fish catching purposes because it is a church. ---
**Author:** ![g8rguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7cd45c/32.png) [@g8rguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g8rguy)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/108 "2017-04-12T18:18:39Z")
[QUOTE=Little Nemo] But are you prepared to argue that religious organizations must receive public money in order to freely exercise their faith? If so, offer the evidence to support this claim. If not, then you’re conceding a lack of public funds does not restrict the free exercise of religion. And that concession ends the debate over the free exercise clause. [/quote] My argument, again, is that I am not sure. Let me suppose for a moment that I’m allowed to define “free exercise” for myself. This is how I would reason: it is not _free_ exercise if the government says “you may practice your religion, and this is the price you must pay if you do.” I would conclude that “free exercise” means that the government cannot place a person or an organization in the position of having to choose between their religion on the one hand and better treatment by the state on the other. So if I’m permitted to define “free exercise” for myself, then I think that denying religious organizations access to a public program for which they are otherwise qualified violates the Free Exercise Clause: in denying access the state is imposing a cost on the organization simply because the organization is religious. Obviously I do not get to define “free exercise” for myself, and I’m not sure to what extent the courts have agreed with the interpretation I would offer. But the fact that the Supreme Court is hearing the case at all suggests to me that there is at least an arguable claim that Missouri’s denying the church access to the public purse is indeed in violation of either the Free Exercise Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, or both. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/109 "2017-04-12T20:50:35Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Well, I stand corrected. I have a hard time believing that this won’t be mostly decided on the 1st amendment questions though. Guess we’ll see. In a point of pure legalistic pedantry, I will point out that no case involving the actions of a state government involves the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. The First Amendment applies solely to the actions of the federal government. The _principles_ of First Amendment jurisprudence apply to state action, but only because the term “liberty” in the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause has been determined to include the almost all the basic rights guaranteed to individuals vis a vis the federal government in the first eight amendments. So this MUST be a 14th Amendment case, even if we ignore the substantive issue of the fact that the case was argued on the basis of both the due process AND the equal protection clauses. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/110 "2017-04-12T21:11:06Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Well, I stand corrected. I have a hard time believing that this won’t be mostly decided on the 1st amendment questions though. Guess we’ll see. I honestly do not see how it is a 1st amendment issue at all (I know they argued it). I do not see how a playground in any way bears on the free exercise of religion and how denying money for it is the state “prohibiting” their free exercise of religion. If it did then anything goes. They could have a bicycle repair shop or ice cream stand or car wash or whatever and claim these things are part of the religion as long as it is on church grounds. If the state denies them a permit or benefit related to that activity it is a prohibition on free exercise of religion (by their thinking). That seems ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/111 "2017-04-12T21:21:37Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I honestly do not see how it is a 1st amendment issue at all (I know they argued it). > > I do not see how a playground in any way bears on the free exercise of religion and how denying money for it is the state “prohibiting” their free exercise of religion. If it did then anything goes. They could have a bicycle repair shop or ice cream stand or car wash or whatever and claim these things are part of the religion as long as it is on church grounds. If the state denies them a permit or benefit related to that activity it is a prohibition on free exercise of religion (by their thinking). That seems ridiculous. I think a good way to think about this is the recent 7th circuit case that ruled sexual orientation was covered under discrimination based on sex. Their analysis was that if one thing that was changed (the gender of the person in question) would change the outcome, then it was discrimination based on sex. In this case, if one thing is changed, the organization applying for the playground program, then their application would have been granted. Based on that rationale, it is entirely the fact that the organization is religious that lead to their denial. The free exercise and establishment clauses taken together should mean that the government is neutral on religion. Denying the playground because the organization is religious even when the playground has a secular purpose is not neutral to religion. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/112 "2017-04-12T21:32:52Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I think a good way to think about this is the recent 7th circuit case that ruled sexual orientation was covered under discrimination based on sex. Their analysis was that if one thing that was changed (the gender of the person in question) would change the outcome, then it was discrimination based on sex. > > In this case, if one thing is changed, the organization applying for the playground program, then their application would have been granted. Based on that rationale, it is entirely the fact that the organization is religious that lead to their denial. The free exercise and establishment clauses taken together should mean that the government is neutral on religion. Denying the playground because the organization is religious even when the playground has a secular purpose is not neutral to religion. Your explanation seems a 14th amendment analysis. I do not see how being neutral (or not) to religion encompasses playgrounds as the playground has absolutely zero to do with their religion. It cannot be said their practicing religion is impacted by their playground one way or another. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/113 "2017-04-12T21:35:07Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Your explanation seems a 14th amendment analysis. > > I do not see how being neutral (or not) to religion encompasses playgrounds as the playground has absolutely zero to do with their religion. It cannot be said their practicing religion is impacted by their playground one way or another. Trinity was denied because of their religious nature even though the activity was secular. I suppose SCOTUS will say if that’s a free exercise claim. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/114 "2017-04-12T22:07:30Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Your explanation seems a 14th amendment analysis. > > I do not see how being neutral (or not) to religion encompasses playgrounds as the playground has absolutely zero to do with their religion. It cannot be said their practicing religion is impacted by their playground one way or another. As a matter of first principles, I think I understand what you’re saying. Discrimination against people (or organizations) on the basis of their religion sounds like an equal protection issue. And we can coherently define “free exercise” as involving actual restrictions on exercise. (Which would make even more sense in the pre-Smith world of religious exemptions). Which is sort of the question I asked **Little Nemo** earlier: Do you agree, as a matter of free exercise, with the following statement: A state cannot exclude individual Catholics, Lutherans, Mohammedans, Baptists, Jews, Methodists, Nonbelievers, Presbyterians, or the members of any other faith, because of their faith, or lack of it, from receiving the benefits of public welfare legislation. I think that free exercise is understood more broadly to encompass religious discrimination. I think that’s likely because there was no 14th Amendment at the founding and religious discrimination was an active concern. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/115 "2017-04-12T22:44:55Z")
Uh, I think too many people are focusing on whether this is “First Amendment” or “Fourteenth Amendment”. Ignoring for a moment the pedantry of my response above, it probably is an example of distinction without difference. Let’s assume we approach this as an “equal protection” case. For equal protection analysis to proceed, we have to identify that there is some protected class which is being impacted, forcing us into a stricter look at what the state is doing. Guess what that protected class will be? If we approach it as a due process case, again, we have to identify a “fundamental right” that is being impacted before a stricter look is required. Guess what that fundamental right will be? Either way, we’re involved in discussing the jurisprudence of religious liberty. Which will require that the basics of “First Amendment” analysis get applied. The Court itself often gets quite confused at times over trying to separate the various concepts involved. I thought the 8th Circuit did an admirable job of trying to keep things neat and tidy in their opinion. Even so, you will notice that the whole thing quickly devolved into a single analysis, citing _Luetkemeyer_ and _Locke_. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/116 "2017-04-12T23:04:24Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > Do you agree, as a matter of free exercise, with the following statement: A state cannot exclude individual Catholics, Lutherans, Mohammedans, Baptists, Jews, Methodists, Nonbelievers, Presbyterians, or the members of any other faith, because of their faith, or lack of it, from receiving the benefits of public welfare legislation. Yes, I agree. I will distinguish though that I do not include the institution itself in that analysis. Akin to me not agreeing with Citizens United that corporations are effectively people because they are comprised of people. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2017, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/117 "2017-04-13T03:41:26Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Yes, I agree. > > I will distinguish though that I do not include the institution itself in that analysis. Akin to me not agreeing with Citizens United that corporations are effectively people because they are comprised of people. There is a very big difference between this and Citizens United. There is a right to free speech, and you do not invalidate your rights by exercising another. There is no right to government provided shredded tires, and thus it is very different. But this position seems to be anathema on the “progressive” side that I typically identify with. The ACLU wouldn’t exist without the concepts behind the Citizens United decision, but no church will stop to exist because they are refused government cheese^H^H^H^H^Hshreadded tires. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2017, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/118 "2017-04-13T04:36:29Z")
I don’t really know that _Locke_ applies here. It seems to be distinct. In _Locke_, the student was denied his scholarship because he was specifically studying to be a minister. So, that money was specifically going to further a religious interest. In this, though, the playground resurfacing money isn’t promoting any specific religion or furthering a religious interest. It’s the definition of a secular purpose. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2017, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/119 "2017-04-13T08:21:24Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I think a good way to think about this is the recent 7th circuit case that ruled sexual orientation was covered under discrimination based on sex. Their analysis was that if one thing that was changed (the gender of the person in question) would change the outcome, then it was discrimination based on sex. > > In this case, if one thing is changed, the organization applying for the playground program, then their application would have been granted. Based on that rationale, it is entirely the fact that the organization is religious that lead to their denial. The free exercise and establishment clauses taken together should mean that the government is neutral on religion. Denying the playground because the organization is religious even when the playground has a secular purpose is not neutral to religion. What if the one thing that is changed is an organization’s nonprofit status? Isn’t a grant specifically earmarked for nonprofits discriminatory against for-profit organizations? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2017, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/120 "2017-04-13T08:35:27Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > What if the one thing that is changed is an organization’s nonprofit status? Isn’t a grant specifically earmarked for nonprofits discriminatory against for-profit organizations? Yes. But profit is not an activity mentioned in the Constitution, and religion is. IN other words, it may be that the state can discriminate between non-profits and for-profits in this way, but not between religious non-profits and secular non-profits. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994.md?page=7)