They really don't get it...

[Wolseley]

More "gay marriage" drivel from the Huffington Post:

As Mainstream Religion Embraces Marriage Equality, The "Threat to Religious Liberty" Argument Crumbles | Jeffrey S. Trachtman

Some of the more pungent quotes:

Allowing all couples to marry has zero impact on anybody's legally protected free exercise of religion.

Unless, of course, they wish to operate their own businesses on Christian moral principals.

The courts are addressing only civil marriage. No church will ever be forced to change its definition of marriage

For now. We all know fully well that that will not be enough for the Pink Mafia. Churches will face increasingly strenuous pressure to either roll over and acquiesce, or be destroyed by pickets, threats, lawsuits (it will come), petty legal restrictions, you name it. All designed to force church to tow the line, or be forced out of operation.

You think I'm out of my mind, right? Sit back and watch.

Problems arise only when religious organizations act in the commercial realm -- such as by operating a public catering hall -- or when business owners harbor religious qualms about serving gay people (or black people or Japanese people) in their restaurants, bakeries, entertainment venues, or other public accommodations. In these settings, civil rights laws trump personal preferences -- even those based on religious conviction.

If that's the case, then I would encourage all supporters of "gay marriage" to lodge lawsuits against every Muslim halal delicatessen which refuses to stock bacon, pork chops, and sliced ham for the customer if that's what the customer wants----because civil law trumps personal religious beliefs in the commercial realm.

Right?

Most people understand that if they open a public business they have to serve everybody.

Sure. When a couple of homosexuals go to a Christian bakery and want a gay wedding cake, and the baker says, "I'm sorry, we don't carry that here," the homosexuals and their liberal fellow travelers go completely berserk. But if an atheist couple go to a Muslim halal deli and want a couple of ham sandwiches, and the Muslim owner says, "I'm sorry, we don't carry that here," the gays and libs never so much as twitch.

How are the two situations any different? They aren't.

Even among faiths that remain staunchly opposed to recognizing same-sex relationships, the laity is often ahead of the leadership. For example, a 2013 poll showed that 57 percent of American Catholics supported marriage equality.

They just never seem to absorb the fact that the Catholic Church is not run by popularity contests, and the laity does not elect the leadership. So it doesn't matter one whit what 57% of American Catholics support.

So don't let anybody tell you that marriage equality is a threat to religion.

No, just as long as you practice that religion in accordance with the proper, politically-correct, homosexual-celebratory regulations demanded by the left.

Otherwise, you can practice your stupid religion all you want---within the designated catacombs of your own home or your picketed, graffiti-defaced church; just don't try to open a business, express an opinion, or do anything else that gives the impression that your religious rights should be on an equal level with gay civil rights.

 

[parousia70]

Unless, of course, they wish to operate their own businesses on Christian moral principals.

Capitalism is a Christian moral principle?
I'd like to see the chapter and verse that spells this one out.

For now. We all know fully well that that will not be enough for the Pink Mafia. Churches will face increasingly strenuous pressure to either roll over and acquiesce, or be destroyed by pickets, threats, lawsuits (it will come), petty legal restrictions, you name it. All designed to force church to tow the line, or be forced out of operation.

You think I'm out of my mind, right? Sit back and watch.

When the Government forces Catholic Churches to Hold Jewish Weddings, I'll be right there with ya.

If that's the case, then I would encourage all supporters of "gay marriage" to lodge lawsuits against every Muslim halal delicatessen which refuses to stock bacon, pork chops, and sliced ham for the customer if that's what the customer wants----because civil law trumps personal religious beliefs in the commercial realm.

Right?

And If Oil Can Henrys or NAPA Auto parts refuses to carry Floral Arrangements and baked goods, we should sue them too?

Sure. When a couple of homosexuals go to a Christian bakery..

No such thing. Only individuals can be saved by the blood of the lamb... Dunkin Donuts can't.

and want a gay wedding cake....

Baked Goods have no sexual orientation...

and the baker says, "I'm sorry, we don't carry that here," the homosexuals and their liberal fellow travelers go completely berserk. But if an atheist couple go to a Muslim halal deli and want a couple of ham sandwiches, and the Muslim owner says, "I'm sorry, we don't carry that here," the gays and libs never so much as twitch.

How are the two situations any different? They aren't.

Of course they are... Bakeries that offer wedding cakes, carry wedding cakes.
Why is that so hard to understand?

Jewish Deli's don't carry BLT's, just like GoodYear tire Co doesn't carry Dishwasher parts.

 

[Fish and Bread]

I don't even see the point in debating this.

Gay marriage will be the law of the land when it comes to civil ceremonies. Churches that so choose will still be allowed to set their own criteria for who they marry that can include extra criteria that civil marriages don't have (Like barring gay couples, or prohibiting couples who are divorced and want to remarry without annulments), just as they do now.

But if you're a cake shop, you might have to sell your cakes to gays the same way racists have to serve blacks at their lunch counters. Deal with it.

I don't mean any disrespect here to any individuals, but the anti-gay rights crowd is not coming off well in how they are reacting to events.

 

[brewmama]

More "gay marriage" drivel from the Huffington Post:

As Mainstream Religion Embraces Marriage Equality, The "Threat to Religious Liberty" Argument Crumbles[bless and do not curse]|[bless and do not curse]Jeffrey S. Trachtman

Unless, of course, they wish to operate their own businesses on Christian moral principals.

For now. We all know fully well that that will not be enough for the Pink Mafia. Churches will face increasingly strenuous pressure to either roll over and acquiesce, or be destroyed by pickets, threats, lawsuits (it will come), petty legal restrictions, you name it. All designed to force church to tow the line, or be forced out of operation.

You think I'm out of my mind, right? Sit back and watch.



If that's the case, then I would encourage all supporters of "gay marriage" to lodge lawsuits against every Muslim halal delicatessen which refuses to stock bacon, pork chops, and sliced ham for the customer if that's what the customer wants----because civil law trumps personal religious beliefs in the commercial realm.

Right?

Sure. When a couple of homosexuals go to a Christian bakery and want a gay wedding cake, and the baker says, "I'm sorry, we don't carry that here," the homosexuals and their liberal fellow travelers go completely berserk. But if an atheist couple go to a Muslim halal deli and want a couple of ham sandwiches, and the Muslim owner says, "I'm sorry, we don't carry that here," the gays and libs never so much as twitch.

How are the two situations any different? They aren't.

They just never seem to absorb the fact that the Catholic Church is not run by popularity contests, and the laity does not elect the leadership. So it doesn't matter one whit what 57% of American Catholics support.

No, just as long as you practice that religion in accordance with the proper, politically-correct, homosexual-celebratory regulations demanded by the left.

Otherwise, you can practice your stupid religion all you want---within the designated catacombs of your own home or your picketed, graffiti-defaced church; just don't try to open a business, express an opinion, or do anything else that gives the impression that your religious rights should be on an equal level with gay civil rights.

Sadly, you are absolutely right. And it won't take long either. Amazing how some people just cannot see the obvious.

 

[Genersis]

Nope, probably never will either.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Sadly, you are absolutely right. And it won't take long either. Amazing how some people just cannot see the obvious.

Every once in a while, I read an article about some congregationalist church in the south that refuses to marry interracial couples or something. They are allowed to discriminate in that way if they do so on religious grounds in the context of a religious ceremony, but fortunately the government and non-religious businesses that are considered public accommodations, like restaurants, are not allowed to discriminate against interracial couples.

That's the same way gay marriage is likely going to go- churches don't have to marry gays if they don't want to, but gays will have the right to go to a court house and get civil marriages with all the legal and taxation rights that come with it, on the grounds of equal protection under the law. They'll also be allowed to buy wedding cakes from businesses that sell cakes.

If all these years after desegregation, churches can still decline to marry interracial couples, I think it stands to reason that churches will still be able to decline to marry gay couples if they want to. Of course, some churches won't want to decline to marry gay couples (i.e. Episcopalians are working on a proposal to take gender distinctions out of their wedding ceremonies), and they'll be allowed to marry gay couples if they want to.

Churches are allowed a lot of leeway on who they choose to allow to marry and who they don't. For example, I went to school with a guy who was raised, baptized, and confirmed Roman Catholic and went to mass frequently. His family even had priests over for dinner and the like sometimes. He got engaged to a Catholic woman of about the same age. The pastor at the local parish refused to marry them, citing psychological immaturity, which he was legally allowed to do even though they met all the legal requirements for marriage.

So, the couple in question decided to meet with a Methodist pastor. The Methodist pastor agreed to marry them (Though he didn't have to either), and they got married in a Methodist church building. If the Methodist pastor had declined, they could have checked with other ministers from other denominations, or just gone to a court house and gotten married by a justice of the peace. I don't think the church they grew up in recognized their wedding, which I thought was kind of a shame, but the point is that we already have plenty of precedent of churches being allowed to not marry people for religious or personal reasons even if they meet the legal requirements, and not having to recognize a civil marriage or a marriage in another church, denomination, or faith for their own religious purposes.

As far as people saying that those who oppose gay marriage won't be allowed to speak about it, I think those fears are unfounded. Why? Well, again, even though discrimination against racial minorities is now illegal, people are still free to express racist views, and fly Confederate flags. It's not really socially acceptable to be racist, but the constitution doesn't guarantee you the right to have your views socially accepted, it just gives you freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom from discrimination in the workplace and in public places like restaurants and such.

So, if people's fear is that they might be looked down on for opposing gay marriage, then, yeah that might happen. So what? Are you guys advocating that the government protect you from people looking down on you?

 

[topcare]

Sadly, you are absolutely right. And it won't take long either. Amazing how some people just cannot see the obvious.

And the USA will die just like other civilizations that were stupid enough to legalize sin

 

[Red Fox]

This country has been tainted with sin and immorality since its inception (legalized slavery, attempted genocide, racism), but in modern America, the murder of unborn children, sexually immorality, and homosexual marriages, are now legalized sins. Oh yes, America certainly is a Christian nation all right...

 

[FlaviusAetius]

Capitalism is a Christian moral principle?
I'd like to see the chapter and verse that spells this one out.

Even if it's not, your fine with Catholics being effectively either forced to encourage sin or be blacklisted from the service industry?

What about Catholic adoption agencies? Will you just shrug when the last one is closed down for refusing to give kids to homosexuals?

 

[Fantine]

The real problem with marriage today is not so much that gay people want to get married--but that heterosexual people don't.

We need to spend more energy trying to find ways to encourage marriage among heterosexual couples, especially if they have children together.

It's been about forty years or so since the Catholic Church has told couples in the family way to come back after the baby is born and get married. There is a six month waiting period. I know that the reason is to prevent divorces and annulments on the back end but plenty of couples in the family way got married in the Catholic Church fifty years ago, and there were many fewer divorces then.

Is there a better way to bring back the natural order of things that we used to sing about in jump rope chants? First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes _______ with the baby carriage? I sang that every recess for eight years in Catholic grammar school, and so did all the other girls...it planted an idea in our heads that took hold. I know lots of women my age who got married in haste because of that jump rope song, and lots of them are still married.

Better to let them attend an intensive pre-Cana (like an Engaged Encounter weekend--haven't heard of them for a long time) and offer educational support (with babysitting, if necessary) afterwards. And if pregnancy is involved, the NFP classes can wait a few months, too.

Are we in the business of discouraging marriage? "Living together? Separate until you're married--who cares about the expense and disruption!" "Pregnant? Get married after the baby's born, when you get around to it."

We're not solving the REAL marriage crisis in today's society. Instead, "Marriage is a sacrament. Life is never easy, but you will receive graces to help you work through the difficulties. And we, your Church, will stand by you and encourage you and love you through it all."

 

[brewmama]

Churches are allowed a lot of leeway on who they choose to allow to marry and who they don't. For example, I went to school with a guy who was raised, baptized, and confirmed Roman Catholic and went to mass frequently. His family even had priests over for dinner and the like sometimes. He got engaged to a Catholic woman of about the same age. The pastor at the local parish refused to marry them, citing psychological immaturity, which he was legally allowed to do even though they met all the legal requirements for marriage.



As far as people saying that those who oppose gay marriage won't be allowed to speak about it, I think those fears are unfounded. Why? Well, again, even though discrimination against racial minorities is now illegal, people are still free to express racist views, and fly Confederate flags. It's not really socially acceptable to be racist, but the constitution doesn't guarantee you the right to have your views socially accepted, it just gives you freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom from discrimination in the workplace and in public places like restaurants and such.

So, if people's fear is that they might be looked down on for opposing gay marriage, then, yeah that might happen. So what? Are you guys advocating that the government protect you from people looking down on you?

I do think we need to worry about speaking of opposing gay marriage, because if you look to Canada and Europe, which we usually lag behind a few years culturally, Christians are being imprisoned for "hate speech", which includes speaking out about homosexuality.

And no, we're not looking for protection per se, but there are definitely things to worry about. This article puts it well:

The New Intolerance by Mary Eberstadt | Articles | First Things


Oops, sorry, you have to be a First Things subscriber to read the whole thing. It's worth finding a copy though.

 

[brewmama]

The real problem with marriage today is not so much that gay people want to get married--but that heterosexual people don't.

We need to spend more energy trying to find ways to encourage marriage among heterosexual couples, especially if they have children together.

It's been about forty years or so since the Catholic Church has told couples in the family way to come back after the baby is born and get married. There is a six month waiting period. I know that the reason is to prevent divorces and annulments on the back end but plenty of couples in the family way got married in the Catholic Church fifty years ago, and there were many fewer divorces then.

Is there a better way to bring back the natural order of things that we used to sing about in jump rope chants? First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes _______ with the baby carriage? I sang that every recess for eight years in Catholic grammar school, and so did all the other girls...it planted an idea in our heads that took hold. I know lots of women my age who got married in haste because of that jump rope song, and lots of them are still married.

Better to let them attend an intensive pre-Cana (like an Engaged Encounter weekend--haven't heard of them for a long time) and offer educational support (with babysitting, if necessary) afterwards. And if pregnancy is involved, the NFP classes can wait a few months, too.

Are we in the business of discouraging marriage? "Living together? Separate until you're married--who cares about the expense and disruption!" "Pregnant? Get married after the baby's born, when you get around to it."

We're not solving the REAL marriage crisis in today's society. Instead, "Marriage is a sacrament. Life is never easy, but you will receive graces to help you work through the difficulties. And we, your Church, will stand by you and encourage you and love you through it all."

This is true. Gay marriage is merely the nails in the coffin. Another article that I can post is also worth reading:

"Where the power struggle ensues is in the terms by which a marriage can be dissolved, and it was the divorce revolution that precipitated the battle that the church refused to fight. Here is where the churches ceded to the state the authority to dissolve marriages on its own terms and at its own pleasure and to erect a regime of governmental micromanagement over the private lives of the contracted parties (innocent as well as guilty ones)—all without any scrutiny or objection by the churches which consecrated the supposedly sacred union."

Read more: Touchstone Archives: Altered Matrimony

 

[Fish and Bread]

I do think we need to worry about speaking of opposing gay marriage, because if you look to Canada and Europe, which we usually lag behind a few years culturally, Christians are being imprisoned for "hate speech", which includes speaking out about homosexuality.

Many European countries do not have as strong of a tradition as free speech as we do, nor as many legal protections for it. I think there is a genuine culture difference in some of these countries in that respect. Germany was ruled by a Kaiser (Essentially a Monarch) into the 20th century, for example, and he had real power. I'm guessing dissents were not well treated, if things went there the way they normally go under circumstances like that. And then later (After a republic and fascist dictator in between) a lot of the German hate crime laws were put in place to deal with the Nazis in post-Nazi Germany, which was a real issue for them, because losing a war does not mean everyone goes from one ideology to another over night, and they had to keep the fascists in check.

The French Revolution had a very strong anti-religious streak to it where they went out and hung the priests and at one point tried to introduce a female goddess of wisdom and briefly, a new calendar, if I recall correctly. The US revolution was much more moderate in character and was launched by a coalition of Deists, Unitarians, and traditional Christians of various sorts (Not the "Christian nation" many claim, but not hostile to traditional religion either) in the British tradition of documents such as the Magna Carta and moderate philosophes like John Locke (Voltaire, who was less moderate, was an influence as well, but less of one).

Though we live in a global cultural marketplace of sorts these days where trends tend to spread, and we can look at where they tend to spread from and where they tend to spread to, I don't think we can one to one say that what is going in x place now is what will happen in y place in 20 years. Historical culture and location still informs some decisions and trends, just to a lesser extent than before.

Also, this thread is full of what are called "slippery slope" arguments, which considered logical fallacies for which points are deducted in scored formal debates. Of course, this isn't a formal debate, it's just a friendly informal discussion, but saying stuff like civil gay marriage leads to throwing Baptist preachers in jail does not really logically follow. It's assuming a chain of events in between that could, and probably will, go a different way than people fear they will.

I mean, we were all told gay marriage would destroy existing marriages. My parents still seem to be relatively happily married, even though gay marriage was legalized in my state a while back. In fact, I don't know of any married heterosexual couple that spontaneously divorced because gays started marrying.

 

[LoAmmi]

I do think we need to worry about speaking of opposing gay marriage, because if you look to Canada and Europe, which we usually lag behind a few years culturally, Christians are being imprisoned for "hate speech", which includes speaking out about homosexuality.

It's fantastic we live in a country with the foresight to put an Amendment in the Constitution promising the freedom of speech for all citizens, isn't it?

 

[brewmama]

Except it's falling apart, as the OP stated. As anti-religion as the courts have become, soon it will be no protection.

 

[LoAmmi]

Except it's falling apart, as the OP stated. As anti-religion as the courts have become, soon it will be no protection.

Proof? The Supreme Court has always struck down laws that prohibit free speech, including "hate speech". Hate speech can be used to show that a committed crime is a "hate crime", but it cannot be a law because of previous Supreme Court rulings.

 

[brewmama]

Proof? The Supreme Court has always struck down laws that prohibit free speech, including "hate speech". Hate speech can be used to show that a committed crime is a "hate crime", but it cannot be a law because of previous Supreme Court rulings.

Blog: Purdue University and my 'hate speech'

Houston subpoenas pastors? sermons in gay rights ordinance case - The Washington Post

I know that she eventually dropped this, but next time I doubt it will be dropped.

Articles: Conversion Therapy Law Threatens Christians

"A year ago, I authored a column that addressed the topic, "Christianity or Thoughtcrime," as a follow-up to the media's hysterical response to Christian actor Kirk Cameron's opinion on gay marriage. I laid out the scenario in what sounds like an Orwellian plot:

Christian publicly asserts Christian beliefs; beliefs are politically incorrect speech; speech equals hate; hate encourages mistreatment; encouragement equals crime...


"We all know what the next step is," Breitbart's John Nolte declared in his piece on the Cameron debate. "[T]hat's the outlawing of these opinions under the principle that the speaking of such things will cause harm to others. This, of course, would mean the end to the church -- which is the whole idea."

Read more: Articles: The Left's Viking Politics
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Not to mention the TNTC times that prayer at schools has been ruled illegal, because one part of the first amendment trumps all the rest. This includes a judge that banned memorial art at Columbine that included crosses, even though the students memorialized were Christian.

And forcing Brandon Eich out of his position because he supported a certain side of Proposition 8, although not the government per se, bodes very poorly for people with traditional views in this country. Freedom of speech did not protect him. So perhaps the government will sit back and let political correctness do its dirty work. What, in the long run, is the difference?

 

[LoAmmi]

Blog: Purdue University and my 'hate speech'

Not a free speech issue at all. This is a civil matter and doesn't involve the government restricting free speech, which is what you are arguing about.

Houston subpoenas pastors? sermons in gay rights ordinance case - The Washington Post

I know that she eventually dropped this, but next time I doubt it will be dropped.

I doubt it won't be dropped. But the FACTS show that it WAS dropped. Besides, prosecutors overstep their bounds all the time, not just with religious matters. The Courts put them in line. So no argument here. 0/2.

Articles: Conversion Therapy Law Threatens Christians

"A year ago, I authored a column that addressed the topic, "Christianity or Thoughtcrime," as a follow-up to the media's hysterical response to Christian actor Kirk Cameron's opinion on gay marriage. I laid out the scenario in what sounds like an Orwellian plot:

Christian publicly asserts Christian beliefs; beliefs are politically incorrect speech; speech equals hate; hate encourages mistreatment; encouragement equals crime...


"We all know what the next step is," Breitbart's John Nolte declared in his piece on the Cameron debate. "[T]hat's the outlawing of these opinions under the principle that the speaking of such things will cause harm to others. This, of course, would mean the end to the church -- which is the whole idea."

Children should not be forced into camps by parents to "convert" them. I'm sure you'd not like to see a child who decided to accept Jesus be sent to a camp to convert them from Christianity. I wouldn't either.

Not to mention the TNTC times that prayer at schools has been ruled illegal, because one part of the first amendment trumps all the rest. This includes a judge that banned memorial art at Columbine that included crosses, even though the students memorialized were Christian.

Lies about prayer. No school in the nation has prayer ruled illegal. You cannot have teacher-lead school-sponsored prayer, which has to do with the Establishment clause. It's also why the art was banned, even though I disagree with that.

I have seen cases where a child praying was sent the office, but it was always when the child was supposed to be doing something else. Like schoolwork and they were being insubordinate by refusing to do their work.

And forcing Brandon Eich out of his position because he supported a certain side of Proposition 8, although not the government per se, bodes very poorly for people with traditional views in this country. Freedom of speech did not protect him. So perhaps the government will sit back and let political correctness do its dirty work. What, in the long run, is the difference?

Not a freedom of speech issue, as discussed above.

Your batting average would be abysmal.

 

[brewmama]

Not a free speech issue at all. This is a civil matter and doesn't involve the government restricting free speech, which is what you are arguing about.

Except that universities come under governmental jurisdiction the same as public schools, so it actually does.

I doubt it won't be dropped. But the FACTS show that it WAS dropped. So no argument here. 0/2.

We'll see what happens next time.

Children should not be forced into camps by parents to "convert" them. I'm sure you'd not like to see a child who decided to accept Jesus be sent to a camp to convert them from Christianity. I wouldn't either.

How does making conversion therapy illegal a proper response to your complaint? What if the teen wants it? Do you realize how fluid sexuality is in youth, and now all we have is a culture that promotes homosexuality and makes it cool and absolutely nothing to offer professionally against it? It's criminal.

Lies about prayer. No school in the nation has prayer ruled illegal. You cannot have teacher-lead school-sponsored prayer, which has to do with the Establishment clause. It's also why the art was banned, even though I disagree with that.

"A murkier issue is student-initiated, student-led prayer at school-sponsored events. On one side of the debate are those who believe that student religious speech at graduation ceremonies or other school-sponsored events violates the Establishment Clause. They are bolstered by the 2000 Supreme Court case of Santa Fe v. Doe, which involved the traditional practice of student-led prayers over the public address system before high school football games.

According to the district, students would vote each year on whether they would have prayers at home football games. If they decided to do so, they would then select a student to deliver the prayers. To ensure fairness, the school district said it required these prayers to be “non-sectarian [and] non-proselytizing.”

A 6 to 3 majority of the Supreme Court still found the Santa Fe policy to be unconstitutional. The majority opinion first pointed out that constitutional rights are not subject to a vote. To the contrary, the judges said the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to place some rights beyond the reach of political majorities. Thus, the Constitution protects a person’s right to freedom of speech, press, or religion even if no one else agrees with the ideas a person professes.
In addition, the Court found that having a student, as opposed to an adult, lead the prayer did not solve the constitutional dilemma. A football game is still a school-sponsored event, they held, and the school was still coercing the students, however subtly, to participate in a religious exercise."
faqs

Not a freedom of speech issue, as discussed above.
Your batting average would be abysmal.

You ignored the point of this example.

 

[LoAmmi]

Except that universities come under governmental jurisdiction the same as public schools, so it actually does.

I don't believe this is correct. At least not in the same way. Universities receive grants, but they are not run by the government.

How does making conversion therapy illegal a proper response to your complaint? What if the teen wants it? Do you realize how fluid sexuality is in youth, and now all we have is a culture that promotes homosexuality and makes it cool and absolutely nothing to offer professionally against it? It's criminal.

Conversion therapy works about as well as having someone pull the tumors from your stomach when you have cancer in a "faith healing". In other words, it doesn't work. From an objective point of view the failure rate is in the 90s. I'm not sure why you would even bother defending such a sham, but whatever. I don't think it's something children should be at, or teens. If an adult wants to go pay good money for a sham, that's their business, but I also would be against lobotomies for children even if they wanted it.

"A murkier issue is student-initiated, student-led prayer at school-sponsored events. On one side of the debate are those who believe that student religious speech at graduation ceremonies or other school-sponsored events violates the Establishment Clause. They are bolstered by the 2000 Supreme Court case of Santa Fe v. Doe, which involved the traditional practice of student-led prayers over the public address system before high school football games.

According to the district, students would vote each year on whether they would have prayers at home football games. If they decided to do so, they would then select a student to deliver the prayers. To ensure fairness, the school district said it required these prayers to be “non-sectarian [and] non-proselytizing.”

A 6 to 3 majority of the Supreme Court still found the Santa Fe policy to be unconstitutional. The majority opinion first pointed out that constitutional rights are not subject to a vote. To the contrary, the judges said the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to place some rights beyond the reach of political majorities. Thus, the Constitution protects a person’s right to freedom of speech, press, or religion even if no one else agrees with the ideas a person professes.
In addition, the Court found that having a student, as opposed to an adult, lead the prayer did not solve the constitutional dilemma. A football game is still a school-sponsored event, they held, and the school was still coercing the students, however subtly, to participate in a religious exercise."
faqs

Yes, it's a murky issue indeed and one I go back on forth with. I think the school should be able to say that the student's words don't necessarily reflect the views of the school, BUT if they allow prayer they'd have to then allow an atheist student given the mic to say they don't believe in any gods and how they believe the practice of religion is stupid were the student to decide that's what he or she wanted to say.

You ignored the point of this example.

The point that a business can fire people for whatever reason they like? You don't like it, I'd support a law that gives people more protection from being fired for their political views outside the office, but it's conservatives that love "at-will" more than liberals.