The board will pay over $15,000 to resolve the suit. That includes $14,845 in attorneys’ fees and costs to FFRF and cooperating counsel. The board will also pay one dollar for nominal damages to The Satanic Temple and $196.71 for various fees previously paid by the Temple in connection with rental reservations that had not yet been refunded.
Further, the Shelby County Board of Education has agreed not to discriminate against the organization with regard to its requests to rent and use school board property at Chimneyrock Elementary School; the Temple will be subject to the same rules and requirements as other nonprofit organizations seeking to rent or use the school’s facilities. In addition, the school board’s administration has promised not to hold any press conference with regard to the Temple’s lawful rental or use of school property.
Ah nice. Lawyers get ~99.5%
That seems right. /s
It’s FFRF lawyers though. They are already working at well below the high salaries that people typically associate with lawyers. They have these jobs because they believe in these causes and are trying to help the public.
Besides, the plantiff wasn’t seeking to cash in on the situation, they just wanted equal rights/benefits to be provided for all religious groups, which it sounds like they got.
They got everything the satanic temple wanted, and they’re just costs. This wasn’t ever about the money, it was about making sure the constitution was followed.
People get mad at good points. I remember when Experian compromised millions of people’s private information. Apparently my SSN leaked forever is worth $7.
It’s apparent that our data security was second only in priority to quarterly earnings.
How this isn’t a cruelty case is beyond me.
Should they … not be payed for their labor?
Uhh I didn’t say that.
Idk, maybe 90/10 would be a good look.
Not 99.95/00.05
Just a thought idk. Maybe too progressive sorry.
The temple specifically fights for $1 only. It’s not about the money and the lawyer fees aren’t a percentage in this case.
So you just think the temple should have asked for more? I don’t think that’s what they’re in it for.
That’s saying that they can’t be paid for cases that don’t have money on the line.
No, it isn’t.
Then the Temple would have had to pay them. So only the wealthy can sue for non monetary reasons?
Another victory!
not exactly. a victory would have been for the court to disallow use to any religious organization at all - in accordance with the separation of church and state - but this (a settlement to allow equal use to all) is an acceptable compromise, imo.
I’ll take what I can get. So much grim news on this front these days
I agree in spirit, but that’s not what the lawsuit was. The lawsuit was victorious.
Eh, not quite what that means. Separation of church and state means no church in government decisions. It doesn’t mean “no church in the building.”
Thomas Jefferson wrote “a wall of separation” but since nobody ever reads his letter to the Danbury Baptists, this is how we end up where we are.
A secondary letter doesn’t really matter in this case. There’s nothing in the constitution saying “something owned by the government cannot be rented by a religious organization.”
The very concept is silly. Can’t have religious entities renting a room in a government building because government owns and operates those buildings. Okay. Ca they purchase land within city limits? Because the government owns and operates that land. And guess who controls the entirety of the US?
In reality, it is freedom of (and inclusively from) religion, with the government not being allowed to place any religion over any other. That doesn’t mean that religious groups can’t rent things from them, it means they can’t only rent to a specific religion, or give a specific religion a discount or extra fee.
The “secondary” letter is where the phrase “separation of church and state” comes from and has been quoted innumerable times by judges, elected officials. The complete context is:
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson Jan. 1. 1802.
Thomas Jefferson took this notion so seriously that he did not attend church services while President.
Cool cool cool.
So can you explain what that has to do with not renting out space to religious groups?…
Says you. It could absolutely mean the latter. We decide that.
See: France as a counterexample.
It’s pretty clear in the constitution what it means.
We collectively decide what the constitution means.
Mostly the Supreme Court decides, of course, but we can vote for presidents that will pick justices that agree with us and congressional reps that will impeach justices that don’t.
Congress shall make no law respecting can be interpreted in different ways. Every part of the constitution is open to interpretation.
I’m sorry, but if your argument is that the constitution means everything and nothing depending on “us collectively” than you don’t really understand it.
That shows your ignorance.
