Wrong again but that seems to be your forte.
I said the Board was inviting who they wanted and they were not showing preference to any other faith. Both points are correct.
Without the "one faith" element, there is no unconstitutional action here.
But thanks for playing.
The fact that they were not showing preference to only one faith does not mean that they were not showing preference to any faith.
Without the "one faith" element, there is no unconstitutional action here.
Not correct. Government cannot skirt the 1st Amendment by giving preference to Baptists and Catholics over other faiths, rather than to just Baptists alone (as an example).
They are allowing preferred faiths access to the public meetings while disallowing faiths they don't like. That's counter to the First Amendment - establishment of a *type* of faith if not an outright faith.
It's as though they allowed Islamic and Jewish speakers but refused Christian speakers the same access - would you really be okay with that?