Hey, y'all, Darebee, which does those amazing single-page exercise routines that used to be all over tumblr is really struggling to make funding goals again. They are a non-profit trying to make exercise accessible to everyone, and if you have a couple of bucks you could give them to help them out, that'd be awesome.

In fact, here's the first one I ever saved from tumblr (they don't have this exact one anymore, but they have several options for pre-sleep stretching:

In fact, here's a link to all the pre-sleep stuff they DO have! And that's literally just the start.

If you’re not in the Chicagoland area, I don’t know what comes to mind if I say “Broadview.” ICE has a processing facility in Broadview, IL. It’s meant to hold up to 236 adults for up to 12 hours each, before they’re released, transferred, or deported. As a result of the Trump administration’s Operation Midway Blitz, however, it has transformed into a de facto detention center, holding people for…

Miller v. Civil Rights Department, No. 25-233 is a case the Supreme Court may agree to review. The docket is herewith linked. The petition for certiorari says

Cathy Miller is the sole owner and operator of Cathy’s Creations, Inc., a small bakery in Bakersfield that does business as Tastries Bakery. App.377a-378a. In addition to selling ready-to-eat baked goods and Christian books and gifts, Miller and her staff also make custom-designed baked goods for special events like birthdays, quinceañeras, and weddings***

After Miller opened her bakery in 2013, she began receiving requests for custom projects that “were not in line with” her faith. *** Miller turned these requests down. App.386a-387a, 396a. She then consulted with her pastor to create Tastries’ Design Standards, which she uses to communicate her policies to both employees and customers. App.386a-387a, 394a-395a. The Design Standards refer to Miller’s mission to create “custom designs that are Creative, Uplifting, Inspirational and Affirming,” and that are “lovely, praiseworthy, or of good report.” App.276a-277a. Miller’s mission is rooted in the Bible. Ibid. (quoting Philippians 4:8). The Design Standards state that Tastries “do[es] not accept requests” for baked goods “portraying explicit sexual content,” “promoting marijuana or casual drug use,” “featuring alcohol products or drunkenness,” “depicting gore, witches, spirits, and satanic or demonic content,” or “that violate fundamental Christian princip[les].” Ibid. The standards also state that “wedding cakes must not contradict God’s sacrament of marriage between a man and a woman.” Ibid. Miller updates her Design Standards “[e]ach year” to address new types of requests for custom goods that conflict with her faith.***

There are no standardized, off-the-shelf wedding cakes available from Tastries—every wedding cake is custom-made. Miller keeps non-edible examples of possible designs around her store, each of which are original creations.*** Mireya and Eileen Rodriguez-Del Rio entered a legal marriage in December 2016, as they wished to “get married before [Donald Trump] goes into presidency because we will be denied that option.” App.373a-374a. But they still wanted to “exchange vows in front of” their “extended family and friends from out of town” and “have a reception,” all as part of a “traditional” wedding. App.364a, 372a.***

Of course, they wanted Miller to make them a cake with two women on top. Miller declined.

Over the following months, Miller received hundreds of messages calling her “scum,” a “hateful c[**]t” “[h]iding behind God,” and wishing her dreams filled with “men having hot anal sex on a cross.” App.324a. One woman told Miller that “Jesus himself will condemn you to hell” and that “other religions hate Christians, because they are bigoted, sexist and racist.” App.323a. Another person told Miller that “[b]igotted [sic] scum like you do not deserve to feel safe” and that “[b]ricks through the window can serve as excellent reminders that you are not welcome in our modern society.” App.321a. Another man repeatedly posted threats, saying “I hope someone violently rapes you. God knows you deserve it.” App.322a. The bakery also received many other malicious emails and phone calls that included pornographic images and threats to assault or rape Miller and her young female employees. App.381a-382a, 361a-362a. Miller lost half of her employees due to the ongoing harassment. App.381a382a. She also lost several corporate contracts. App.402a-403a.

On the evening before the preliminary injunction hearing in this case, one of Miller’s employees was violently assaulted behind the bakery by a man who referred to this litigation during the attack. ***

The Rodriguez-Del Rios held their ceremony on October 7, 2017. App.371a. For their wedding cake, the couple ultimately chose “a three-layer cake” where the top layer was “real” for use in the cake cutting ceremony, while “the other two layers were * * * Styrofoam.” App.372a. That cake was made for free by a former Tastries employee. App.349a-352a, 372a. She stated that the cake she made was a “beautiful” cake that she was “proud of.” She wanted to post a picture of their wedding cake on Instagram, but the Rodriguez Del-Rios advised her “it’s not a good idea” after “speak[ing] to their lawyer.” App.349a-350a. The baker said she considered herself a cake artist,” and that the cake she created was “art.” App.354a-356a.***

On October 18, 2017, the Rodriguez-Del Rios filed a complaint against Petitioners with Respondent Civil Rights Department. App.316a-319a. On October 26, 2017, the Department notified Petitioners that it had opened an investigation. App.307a-315a. On December 13, 2017, the Department brought a first lawsuit against Petitioners under California’s public accommodations law, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code Section 51 (the “Act”), alleging unlawful sexual orientation discrimination. The Department sought a preliminary injunction in the Kern County Superior Court, which the court denied.***

[Appeal]

While that appeal was ongoing, the Department filed a second lawsuit—this action—on October 17, 2018, alleging that Petitioners had violated the Act, seeking fines and an order prohibiting Petitioners’ conduct. App.121a-122a.***

California appealed all rulings in favor of Miller. The state court of appeals ruled in favor of the state and required her to bake and decorate cakes to which she had strong, sincere moral objections. The state supreme court refused to review the lower court rulings.

If the Miller facts sound a lot like Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado C.R. Comm’n, 584 U.S. 617 (2018) and 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570 (2023), there's a reason for that. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the 1st Amendment means states can't trample on one's free exercise of religion. States can't force people to support or participate in marriages to which they have religious objections.

Pretty clearly, the Supreme Court is going to vacate or reverse the lower court rulings. The interesting aspect of Miller's case is raising the issue of whether Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) should be overruled. That case was about an Indian in Oregon who was denied unemployment benefits because he consumed peyote in a religious ritual. The Court ruled that because Oregon's law was neutral toward religion and generally applicable, it did not violate the man's right to free exercise. Lower courts have routinely misused Smith in order to deny free exercise.

Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Comm'n, 605 U. S. __ (2025) unanimously defended freedom of religion. J. Sotomayor wrote for the Court.

Wisconsin, like many other States, exempts certain religious organizations from paying taxes into the State’s unemployment compensation system. One such exemption covers nonprofits “operated primarily for religious purposes” and controlled, supervised, or principally supported by a church. Wis. Stat. §108.02(15)(h)(2) (2023–2024). Petitioners, Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc., and four of the entities that it operates, claimed that they qualify for the exemption as religious organizations controlled by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Supreme Court disagreed, holding that petitioners are not “operated primarily for religious purposes” because they neither engage in proselytization nor serve only Catholics in their charitable work. The question here is whether §108.02(15)(h)(2), as applied to petitioners by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, violates the First Amendment. The Court holds that it does. The First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religions and subjects any state-sponsored denominational preference to strict scrutiny. The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s application of §108.02(15)(h)(2) imposed a denominational preference by differentiating between religions based on theological lines. Because the law’s application does not survive strict scrutiny, it cannot stand.***

“The clearest command of the Establishment Clause” is that the government may not “officially prefe[r]” one religious denomination over another.*** This principle of denominational neutrality bars States from passing laws that “‘aid or oppose’” particular religions, ***, or interfere in the “competition between sects,” ***. The Establishment Clause’s “prohibition of denominational preferences is inextricably connected with the continuing vitality of the Free Exercise Clause,” too. *** That is because the “‘fullest realization of true religious liberty requires that government’” refrain from “‘favoritism among sects.’” *** Government actions that favor certain religions, the Court has warned, convey to members of other faiths that “‘they are outsiders, not full members of the political community.’”

It is fundamental to our constitutional order that the government maintain “neutrality between religion and religion.” *** There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one. When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny. Because Wisconsin has transgressed that principle without the tailoring necessary to survive such scrutiny, the judgment of the Wisconsin Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

U.S. Supreme Court Sides with Public High School Coach in Free Speech/Freedom of Religion Case

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling which will have wide-ranging effects on the ability of governmental entities to react to religious and other speech of public employees. In Kennedy v. Bremerton Schools, the Court ruled that a public high school could not discipline or disfavor a football coach for his practice of kneeling on the 50-yard line and praying at the conclusion of each game,…