" Supreme Court may be poised to offer a ruling protecting religious nonprofits from such heavy-handed hostility." Really?

So with limited funds the state should give to those that do not pay property taxes above those who do? The state should help public properties before private profit/nonprofit properties. Maybe if those who do not pay property tax use some of those funds saved to provide playground materials more children would be protected.

Using fear such as the term "heavy-handed hostility" pits the church against government which is not the case.

Just like other cases the church has said they won on religious grounds by hurting a church member, on questionable reasons in my opinion. Did we hurt one of our own calling it biblical or was the reason funds?

I maybe out of touch but I feel the need to question the leadership.