So I read the Supreme Court ruling about the Coach and his prayer. The ruling was narrow and didn't consider the coaches history. Only the 3 games after the coach had been asked to stop. They ruled his actions were as an indivual protected free speech. The ruling sounds fair until you read the dissent. Then you get the details. He was continuing the cohersive practice of after game leading prayer sessions while on duty, in uniform, and in the purposeful public eye. The district offered him alternatives to support his indivual right to pray. That wasn't what he wanted to do. He even asked the district to not stop students from joining him.
Now since the decision was narrow and didn't address all the prior facts of the case: It does not make legal staff leading students in prayer or students being forced to engage in prayer. Yet it is an opening of the door for laymen interpretation that could lead to it happening more.
