olicy was to limit access for certain purposes, Justice Clarence Thomas for the majority assumed (because the parties so stipulated) that its building in this case was a limited public forum. Justice Thomas reiterated a rule which the Court had enunciated in several previously decided cases, namely, as Justice Anthony Kennedy stated for the majority in Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 879 (1995), "discrimination against speech because of its message [or specific viewpoint] is presumed to be unconstitutional." See also Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384 (1993).
Reasoning of the Majority. Thomas argued that the speech involved in Good News was akin to the film in Lamb's Chapel which dealt with the teaching of family values and childrearing from a Christian viewpoint. Here he said what was involved was merely "the teaching of morals and character, from a religious standpoint." The method of teaching, livestorytelling and prayer, v. film, were different but Thomas found such a distinction to be "inconsequential." He disagreed that something which was 'religious in nature' could not properly be categorized as the teaching o
...