I'm inclined to think that since the primary use for the grant is for a church, that the state was correct in denying the grant, due to the wording in the states constitution. What irks me is the statement that this is hostility against religion. In this age of lawsuits for "religious equality" it was probably the safest call for the state to make.
I'm inclined to think that since the primary use for the grant is for a church, that the state was correct in denying the grant, due to the wording in the states constitution. What irks me is the statement that this is hostility against religion. In this age of lawsuits for "religious equality" it was probably the safest call for the state to make.