Why are lefty public school administrators making regulations which violate the 1st Amendment and punishing an individual for practicing his religious rights?

A public school cannot set "conduct rules" for employees which conflict with the Constitution. Public institutions must have a legal foundation for their internal regulations. There is no Constitutional foundation for any laws restricting the free practice of religion, with the sole exception of congressmen when they attempt to pass laws regarding religion.

"Cardinal 5671 has a perfectly reasonable stance and concealed carry is as wrong as wrong can be." It may be a reasonable stance, but Cardinal's position is incorrect. "The rule of employment says no distributing religious literature and he did. He lost his job for not following the rules." A public institution cannot have a "rule" which contradicts the Constitution. This rule is clearly a violation of the 1st Amendment. "What if he gave a Koran? What if he gave a Christian Bible to a Jew? Do the parents not get a say?" So what? The parents have every say once their kid gets home and asks them questions. It's an issue of good parenting. "It does not matter if it is a public or private organization. There are rules of employment, if you dont follow them, work elsewhere." Again, the rules of employment must coincide with the requirements set forth by the Constitution - most especially in a public organization. "If people who live in that school district want to protest and change the rule then they can, but it wont change the fact the substitute teacher violated the rules and was fired for it." The rule was illegal - the teacher was perfectly within his Constitutional rights.

The 1st Amendment has everything to do with this case. So far, the school has violated it twice: first, by creating a restriction on the free practice of religion of employees and second, by punishing a teacher for practicing his religious freedom by sharing a book with a child who asked about it.

According to the First Amendment, the only people effected by the ban are congressmen, and even that only applies when they are attempting to pass laws regarding religion. There is no ban on the individual practice of religion - the position or location of that individual are irrelevent. Public schools cannot supercede the authority of the Constitution. They cannot have a regulation which prevents teachers from speaking or practicing their religions, as that is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment. This is not a question of "all or none," as there is no provision for "no religion," instead, children should be able to request representatives / literature of whatever faith they should desire to learn about. That is the true freedom of religion.

"But as a public entity it is also required to abide by the first amendment restriction against establishing a religion. Or at least that's the grounds on which this was done." Speaking about religion, or even proselytizing, is not the same thing as "establishing a religion." The 1st Amendment bans Congress from making laws regarding religion - it does not ban individuals from speaking about their beliefs. There might be a violation if it could be proven that teachers of other religions were forbidden to speak while this teacher was permitted, but otherwise, this is just the school restricting religious freedom in violation of the 1st Amendment. Again, there is no provision for "no religion" in the Constitution.

Public schools are required to abide by legal standards and cannot exceed those standards. A ban on the free practice of religion is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment. As such, a public school cannot have internal requirements / regulations which prevents teachers from discussing religious matters or distributing literature.

False. First, if the 1st Amendment prevents the passage of any law restricting the practice of religion, then there is nothing preventing this teacher from "proselytizing." Second, if an individual chooses to proselytize, regardless of his position (government official) or his location (public property), there would be no violation of the First Amendment unless that individual is a member of Congress who is trying to pass law regarding religion. The "all religion or none" concept of "religious fairness" is a Constitutional fallacy, as there is no provision for "no religion."

The 1st Amendment allows for the free practice of all religion, and as such, it functions as a ban on any restriction of such practice. Any law which would forbid someone from speaking of his religion (or distributing religious materials) is a violation of the 1st Amendment. There is no provision for "no religion," (an outright ban of all religion in favor of "fairness") but students should be free to request representatives / literature from whatever religion they may choose. That is the definition of religious freedom.

Uh, no. Sorry, screwball, but the Constitution was written in a manner to be quoted by the average man as a means of defending his legal rights. I don't rely on the decisions of the constantly changing courts which have proven their unwillingness to abide by the very basic and plain dictates of the Constitution. If you feel you need to rely on a judge to tell you what "No person...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" means, then you are a lost cause. You aren't teaching anyone, anything, other than whatever interpretation of the Constitution you feel suits your political persuasion the best. The fact that abortion violates both the letter and the spirit of the law goes clearly right over your head. You are welcome to do your own research - it's all been covered before. I feel absolutely no need to waste time offering "academically approved" citations to the likes of you, particularly when you yourself have provided no specific citations, and those few cases you have named all rely on the same moronic "penumbral emanations" which prove their illegitimate nature. It isn't just Blackmun's clerk that admits the flaws in the Roe decision. Liberal law professors John Hart Ely (Yale) and Laurence Tribe (Harvard) both admitted that it has no Constitutional basis. Roe (McCorvey) herself later came forward and admitted that the basic issue of the case was a fraud, yet the decision remains standing as a testament to the "ends justifying the means" when it comes to leftist politics. The "progressive" argument is based on the "morality" of obtaining feminist votes by giving them whatever they want - that is the way of leftists. It isn't based on anything legal as it has no respect for the due process clause - hence the need to create new law within the courts and new rights from imagined penumbras. Your position is a clear illustration of your lack of respect for either the Constitution of the Declaration.

Abstinance works just fine when it is practiced - clearly Ms. Palin was not practicing abstinance. Tell me, which one has a higher chance to result in pregnancy: 100% practice of abstinance 100% practice of artificial birth control