to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. King, 185 Wis. 2d at 46, 517 N.W.2d at 680 (citing Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 313-14 (1952)). Because I conclude that Parental Choice neither promotes religion nor is hostile to it, but instead leaves religious choices with the parents where they are constitutionally permissible, I must respectfully dissent. 1 The trial court granted summary judgment to the Respondents without addressing the First Amendment challenges. The majority opinion does so as well. However, because I conclude that Parental Choice violates neither the United States Constitution nor the Wisconsin Constitution, and because a thorough explication and understanding of Es ch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384 (1993) (<HOLDING>). 10 For a complete detail of the criteria, see
holding school district violated first amendment when it denied church use of public school facilities to show film series solely because it presented a religious view of family values holding the tlo standard governs school searches when school resource officers  who although employed by the local police department are primarily responsible to the school district  are acting in conjunction with school officials holding that a students private school tuition should be reimbursed where parent did not unilaterally place student in private school because the school district tacitly consented to the private school attendance before proposing a different placement holding school board could not deny church right to show film on school property where permission was denied solely because film dealt with an otherwise permissible subject from a religious standpoint holding that a school district was not liable for sexual molestation of plaintiffs daughter by a teacher even though the acts occurred on school property and during school hours