# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/161 "2017-04-19T21:01:39Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Depends on whether you agree with their decisions. One might also say they have done this quite _often_. No, he means “successfully”, just as he said. As in, they were able to reach a decision which accomplished the specified goal within the parameters of the applicable law. The fact that _ **you** _ don’t like the result doesn’t mean the court wasn’t successful. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/162 "2017-04-19T22:46:50Z")
And it would appear that this one may end up being a 7-2 or even 8-1 result in favor of the church. When you have both Justice Alito and Justice Kagan taking your side, you have a pretty strong chance of winning. [U.S. Justices Lean Towards Church in Key Religious Rights Case](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-church-idUSKBN17L14G) ---
**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 20, 2017, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/163 "2017-04-20T00:35:22Z")
What does this say about the lower courts? When one side loses at the circuit and appeals level but looks to have a chance at a not-so-close win at SCOTUS then it seems the lower courts are a bit out of touch. The plain language of the Missouri Constitution seems so sweeping that it seems that it invites challenges. > [@](#): > > Prohibition of public aid for religious purposes and institutions. > Section 8. Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, town, township, school district or other municipal corporation, shall ever make an appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever, anything in aid of any religious creed, church or sectarian purpose, or to help to support or sustain any private or public school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other institution of learning controlled by any religious creed, church or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of personal property or real estate ever be made by the state, or any county, city, town, or other municipal corporation, for any religious creed, church, or sectarian purpose whatever. That would seem to prohibit spending public funds fighting a fire at a religiously owned school or in investigating a murder at a religiously owned university. That is just off the deep end hostile. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2017, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/164 "2017-04-20T01:41:19Z")
**Iggy** , the lower court here specifically said that it was bound by what it viewed as the controlling precedent (_Luetkemeyer_), which in its view had not been changed by subsequent cases (including _Locke_). No doubt, the Supreme Court will establish that either a) _Luetkemeyer_ no longer is valid, or b) it is valid, but not in this specific instance. For understandable reasons, Circuit Courts of Appeal are hesitant to tell the Supremes they were wrong. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2017, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/165 "2017-04-20T21:47:01Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > You can’t make your case using only _half_ the equation-What about whether there are any benefits to the church? On another topic-Planned Parenthood-it is argued that even if government funds are not being used directly for birth control, it supposedly frees up money from the general fund to transfer for the use of birth control. Likewise, if the grant is used for this church project, it frees up church funds, that would otherwise be used for this non-secular purpose, to be used for a secular purpose instead. Any benefit to the church will always free up church funds for religious purposes. Suppose a bridge is widened near the church (on a roadway that benefits a portion of the remaining community) that allows/results in more congregants attending. Can the state not erect that bridge because, if we follow the money, it allows the church to broadcast a greater volume of its religious message without spending more of its own money? ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2017, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/166 "2017-04-21T13:49:28Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Any benefit to the church will always free up church funds for religious purposes. Suppose a bridge is widened near the church (on a roadway that benefits a portion of the remaining community) that allows/results in more congregants attending. Can the state not erect that bridge because, if we follow the money, it allows the church to broadcast a greater volume of its religious message without spending more of its own money? Church doesn’t own the bridge. Church can’t modify the bridge with its own money. In fact, the government owns the bridge, and is the only entity that can legally modify it. That situation is not analogous. ---
**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 21, 2017, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/167 "2017-04-21T14:34:50Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Any benefit to the church will always free up church funds for religious purposes. Suppose a bridge is widened near the church (on a roadway that benefits a portion of the remaining community) that allows/results in more congregants attending. Can the state not erect that bridge because, if we follow the money, it allows the church to broadcast a greater volume of its religious message without spending more of its own money? Does this bridge cross the Charles River? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2017, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/168 "2017-04-21T15:32:54Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > The 3% stat is correct because it is for percentage of services rendered, not percentage of revenue brought in(which is what your second stat is speculating on). When you are talking about funding, the number of transactions involving the sale of a condom is irrelevant compared to how much money is involved. So yes, the 3% statistic is correct but misleading. ---
**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 21, 2017, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/169 "2017-04-21T17:51:05Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Church doesn’t own the bridge. Church can’t modify the bridge with its own money. In fact, the government owns the bridge, and is the only entity that can legally modify it. > > That situation is not analogous. The problem is the overly broad language in the state constitution. It bars a payment not on the basis of who gets the money but rather on the basis of who might benefit from that money. And the prohibition does not require that the monies aid solely the church or religious institution. So it does not matter that the government owns the bridge. In this example the state is paying from a public fund monies for a secular purpose. But since that aids a church it is ostensibly prohibited. Indeed many general public expenses might have an issue with such limitation. Take the example of a local water utility that is owned by the local government like the [Water Division](https://www.stcharlescitymo.gov/215/Water) in St Charles, MO. Suppose, hypothetically, the local government builds a new school and wishes to run water and sewer service lines to the school. Certainly the local government could spend public funds to do that. But when a church buys property along the route of the utility installation and plans to build a new church they would benefit by having a lower construction cost to connect to water and sewer service. So does the public expenditure to run utilities to the new school now become prohibited since the church benefits in some way? Or must the local government force the church to run utilities to a connection point as if the new water and sewer lines did not exist? Or instead we could step back and realize that government cannot take a negative action against an organization or person solely on the basis of religious affiliation or lack thereof. Then we let the new church connect to the utilities on the same basis we would permit a commercial establishment to make that connection. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2017, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/170 "2017-04-21T19:42:49Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > No, it’s between 3% and 37% of _non-government health service_ revenues. Since the whole point of the debate is what percentage of government funds are indirectly used for abortion services, counting only private funding doesn’t make sense at all. That’s especially true since government sources comprise PP’s largest funding source - 43% of all revenue. > > PP’s actual abortion revenue as a percentage of health services alone (it provides numerous non-healthcare services too) is therefore between 2% and 28%. Where are you getting 3%? That is one of the most nonsense numbers in the entire abortion debate and it undermines the credibility of the pro-choice side of the debate when they fudge numbers like that. > **[The Most Meaningless Abortion Statistic Ever](https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/05/3-percent-of-planned-parenthood-s-services-are-abortion-but-what-about-their-revenues.html)** > > Amanda, it’s been so long since I’ve seen a reference to the claim that abortions make up only 3 percent of the services  that Planned Parenthood... AFAICT PP performed about 300K+ abortions. At an average cost of $500, it is pretty clear that the vast majority of PP non-Governmental revenue is from abortion and there is also reason to believe that the cost of these abortions might be even higher than $500 if PP didn’t get donations and provide government funded services. When the argument is that the church shouldn’t get a rubber playground because money is fungible, then i think you should be able to apply the same rationale to PP and abortion. I don’t think it should apply to either organization. PP should be able to offer government funded services that other health services organizations offer without regard to the fact that they also provide services that cannot legally be funded with federal dollars. Trinity Church should be able to avail itself of a grant for rubber playgrounds even though the government could not give them money for other purposes. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2017, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/171 "2017-04-21T19:52:48Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I don’t know, why don’t you ask someone who brought them up last week. > So, there is no reason why you brought up marriage at all then. I did not bring up gay marriage. See posts 81, 77, 76, 71, etc. But the point remains that people seem to have different standards of review based on what outcome they want to see. > [@](#): > > You are saying that it is unfair that a heterosexual couple gets money, and a gay couple does not. I would agree, to a very large extent, that that is not fair, but that has nothing to do, whatsoever, with a church not getting funds for its playground. I think it is unfair for a Montesorri to get money for their playground while a parochial school cannot. How is this so different that the comparison cannot be made? > [@](#): > > Think polygamy. My point is, you can be married in some churches as a polygamist, but the govt will not recognize it. Can you unpack that a bit for me. it makes no sense. What does government recognition of polygamy have to do with funding a playground at a parochial school? > [@](#): > > If the govt is giving away 5k to all the married happy couples, should the govt have to give away to the polygamists that were married in the church and “in the eyes of god”, but did not receive a valid state sanctioned marriage certificate. In what way if the parochial school here like a polygamist marriage? Are they not licensed to have a playground or something? Lets say Kansas had a law that prohibited promoting gay marriage with government funds and Kansas gave every hetero couple $5000 but didn’t give money to the gay couples because of their law. How is that not a better analogy than your analogizing parochial schools with polygamists? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2017, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/172 "2017-04-21T20:02:36Z")
> [@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? > > It’s not like gay couples at all, who have no way of organizing to obtain the benefits of marriage. Churches who are denied access to this grant are denied such because they’re choosing to take advantage of favorable tax laws. These folks want to have their cake and eat it too: they want the tax exemption of being religious, and the access to grants of being nonreligious. > > I’m happy for them to choose either (under current law; I’d prefer churches not have tax exemption for those parts of their mission not related to charity), but not to choose both. And why would they have to do that when the Montesorri doesn’t? Why place an additional burden of any sort on them? Can we place additional burdens on unfavored groups before getting government services? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2017, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/173 "2017-04-21T20:05:40Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > And it would appear that this one may end up being a 7-2 or even 8-1 result in favor of the church. When you have both Justice Alito and Justice Kagan taking your side, you have a pretty strong chance of winning. > > [U.S. Justices Lean Towards Church in Key Religious Rights Case](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-church-idUSKBN17L14G) I don’t think this was ever a very close call except in the minds of those who were already predisposed to create a Mexican wall between church and state. ---
**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 21, 2017, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/174 "2017-04-21T20:56:33Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Under this rationale we should cut off all federal funding to all institutions that offer subsidized abortions. Just because money is fungible does not mean it is untraceable. If the funding is earmarked for a secular purpose, then what does it matter if that leaves them with extra money for other things that the federal government cannot fund? It does not work like this for Planned Parenthood. They keep very carefully separate accounts for their abortion services and the rest of their programs. They have to because they have many opponents who watch like a hawk hoping for a slip-up here. So no, a $1 from the Feds is not fungible to PP when it comes to abortion services. It is not like my example for the church at all. It is not like PP takes a dollar from the Feds then very carefully follow that particular dollar around to make sure it does not go to abortion services while taking money not from the fed that they saved and send it to abortion services. For the church to be equivalent it would need a completely separate set of books for their secular playground and be scrupulously careful that the monies between the religious and secular parts never mingle and have completely separate revenue streams. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2017, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/175 "2017-04-21T21:41:15Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t think this was ever a very close call except in the minds of those who were already predisposed to create a Mexican wall between church and state. Yes, the 8th Circuit seemed to signal quite strongly that they would have loved to ignore _Luetkemeyer_ and get to the heart of the question. Fortunately, the Supreme Court isn’t so constrained where _stare decisis_ is concerned. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2017, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/176 "2017-04-22T02:44:24Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Lets say Kansas had a law that prohibited promoting gay marriage with government funds and Kansas gave every hetero couple $5000 but didn’t give money to the gay couples because of their law. How is that not a better analogy than your analogizing parochial schools with polygamists? This is a good analogy. Having a Christian church is a constitutional right. Entering into a same sex marriage is likewise a constitutional right per _Obergefell_. A law of general applicability like a recycling program for playgrounds, or direct subsidies for a marriage cannot be tailored so as to deny the thing to a person or people who are doing nothing but exercising their constitutional right. Imagine if the law was the same, except it held that only Jewish Temples could not receive state funding. Is that okay? ---
**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 22, 2017, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/177 "2017-04-22T04:18:45Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Imagine if the law was the same, except it held that only Jewish Temples could not receive state funding. Is that okay? No, because that would be giving different treatment to different religions. Giving nothing to any religion is equal treatment to all religions. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2017, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/178 "2017-04-22T04:35:52Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Giving nothing to any religion is equal treatment to all religions. It is also discrimination solely because of religion. That is, and should be, a bad thing in a society that protects the freedom of religion. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2017, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/179 "2017-04-22T11:22:09Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > No, because that would be giving different treatment to different religions. Giving nothing to any religion is equal treatment to all religions. But it’s not treating religion neutrally. Using religion as the criterion for no giving is not neutral; it’s disfavoring. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Terrific](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tom_terrific/32/342_2.png) [@Tom\_Terrific](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Terrific)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2017, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994/180 "2017-04-22T13:29:48Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > **Iggy** , the lower court here specifically said that it was bound by what it viewed as the controlling precedent (_Luetkemeyer_), which in its view had not been changed by subsequent cases (including _Locke_). No doubt, the Supreme Court will establish that either a) _Luetkemeyer_ no longer is valid, or b) it is valid, but not in this specific instance. > > For understandable reasons, Circuit Courts of Appeal are hesitant to tell the Supremes they were wrong. 😛 Not really wanting to hijack the thread, but what would happen if the Circuit Courts of Appeal did say exactly that? The Supremes are wrong in this case. Wouldn’t that almost ensure that the Supreme Court would revisit the case? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer/783994.md?page=10)