"In one of the clearest rulings for religious freedom in years, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided that courts may not intervene in church hiring decisions, protecting the “ministerial exception” that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sought to eliminate in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC." And it was a unanimous decision.
Further the Court declared the Obama Administration's position "that the church school should only have the protection of freedom of association, the same protection that a labor group has" is extreme and remarkable. The Court said that the Constitution outlines specific protections for religion beyond those for a labor organization. The EEOC was acting on the behalf of a woman who was suing her church for firing her which she said was wrong under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The EEOC was arguing that the church should only have the protection of freedom of association and not a "ministerial exception". The Marxists have been thwarted on this attempt at neutering religion. Hallelujah!
Best thing I have heard recently. Thanks.
Hooray! This surely is a victory against government attempts to control everything.
You based your inaccurate analysis of the decision on a quote included, but unattributed in your post.
The decision applies specifically to ministers.
There were no Marxists involved in the case, why do you chose to pollute the forums with such B.S. ?
Yes. The employee was a minister. In addition, Judge Alito in a separate opinion said that "the constitutional protection of religious teachers is not somehow diminished when they take on secular functions in addition to their religious ones."
I don't think religious liberty is BS.
I also think that a government that is becoming marxist should be spotlighted.
You wouldn't recognize a Marxist if they were sitting on top of you.
This case has nothing at all to do with religious liberty or freedom. It allows discrimination based on disability.
Those were MY Exact Words too... but You Nailed Them first!
Well you can interpret it that way but the Supreme Court begs to differ and they do have the final say.
Until we smarten up and stop putting these ugly conservatives on the court.
NOT From where the Rest of the World Come From!!! - Those Judges are Totally Irrelevant!
Well the rest of the world is totally irrelevant to the Supreme Court
As we move back to the Dark Ages and medieval times, did everyone remember to sharpen their pitchforks and grease their torches?
I don't get it.
Please explain me in a simple way, if possible.
Good deal! The Government keeping its heavy hand out of Christian-based Churches.
A church which does not want to employ a disabled person doesn't set a good example. And the ruling that the church should be exempt from the law which governs the rest of society, shows that the law and the church are not ready to move with the times.
Good Point - But I fear it may well be lost in this thread!
Actually the church thought that the employee wasn't ready to go back to work. Then the employee decided to threaten to sue instead of going through the church tribunals that handles those disputes. So there are two sides to the story. And the ruling reinforces the concept of religious freedom because it expressly forbade the government from interfering with church matters as in the First Amendment.
Your factual interpretation is a little off. The employee didn't 'threaten to sue instead of going through the church tribunals.' To quote the SCOTUS decision, "Perich responded that she had spoken with an attorney and intended to assert her legal rights." Asserting your legal rights doesn't automatically equate filing a lawsuit - depending on the law in a particular state, mediation or arbitration could be legal rights. And as a matter of fact, the EEOC isn't going to file a suit unless and until the employee has already attempted to resolve the matter through channels - a lawsuit is purely an effort of last resort.
And the church's letter terminating Perich's employment could hardly do more to confirm that the firing was retaliatory. They took the standpoint that simply by saying that she had an attorney and legal rights, that she was insubordinate and disruptive.
The employee had been medically cleared for a full return to work. If Perich had been employed by anyone *other* than a church facility, would anyone even think about saying that the employer is more capable of determining someone's medical condition than the treating doctor? This issue has absolutely nothing to do with religious beliefs or practices and everything to do with employment and contracts.
I actually think that the ruling was a good one. Total separation of Church and State. Total.
Yes, the church was bigoted, cruel, and extremely wrong. But that is not uncommon among the churches. The federal gvmt shouldn't get involved in religion in any way except to finally storm the compounds when their antisocial behavior finally crosses the line into criminal territory. (Not tort matters such as hiring practices)
I'll guess that the lesson is that this particular church will not protect or look after their own and trust me its intolerance will be noted by other members. The infighting will eat away from the church from the inside, while gvmt interference just gives the zealots a big bad guy to feel persecuted by. Let them destroy themselves and let the members know that not even the government can protect them when the vipers in their midst turn upon them.
It's obvious that you don't know the background of this case. You are making major assumptions and generalizing churches and have become what you hate. As with the others I leave you to your hate.
I don't hate anything so becoming what I hate would be difficult. Yes, I do know the background of this case, very well actually. As usual, I just don't see it the way you do.
You really don't have room for acknowledging different viewpoints do you? I guess it's easier to live in that kinda world. Empathy and imagination must be difficult for you though. I guess the sense of security that comes with always assuming that your view is the only one must make up for it though.
And I was agreeing with you. I think this is a wonderful verdict. I don't want my government associated with religion in any way shape or form. As a matter of fact, I may be involved in an upcoming ACLU suit because a local county commission was giving money to fund "jesusfest". Since I contributed to the fund they either cease and desist giving money to fund conversion attempts or I sue for violation of my constitutional right to freedom of religion.
Again, you've conducted whole conversations inside your head and made assumptions about me. But as I said I leave you to your hate and your imaginary conversations. And I do appreciate that for once we did agree on something.
I think this is great news.
Those churches that are bigoted will, within a generation or two, be exposed as being bigoted, and their memberships will drop. It will be an embarrassment to be a member of a church that was on record of not hiring certain classes of people.
If they're forced to hire people they currently consider undesirable, then in a few generations, they'll pretend that was their internal policy all the time anyway.
I hadn't thought of it that way.
I'd stil like to take way their tax free status when they do this!
I have to disagree - allowing churches to hire only people they "like" will not cause undesirable churches and their practices to fade away. One has only to look at the white supremacist groups around to know that if allowed to continue it does not fade, it grows.
Taking the decision just a bit farther that it actually went, can religious people now hire only select groups in their business? Not a church, just religious business owners that don't like certain races, religions or national origins? Is there a real difference if they claim their choice is religion based?
At the same time, my local paper reported the story, stating that the decision was ONLY for the hiring of ministers. That's a far cry from discrimination in the hiring of janitors, bookkeepers, gardeners, etc. Like Melissa, I could support such a disgusting policy under the guise of religious freedom, but only if it absolutely stops at the hiring of the "teacher" in the church.
Really? I don't know about numbers, but the KKK, for example, is now considered a fringe hate group that's reviled by just about everyone, when at one time a long time ago they were considered mainstream in some parts of the country. You have to be very deliberately against common social mores to be a member of the KKK.
Except for Fred Phelps's church, that's not the case for churches. They all want to be seen as decent and good. How many of them are proud of being against the civil rights movement today?
Well, I guess this should work both way. The government should stay out of Religion and... wait for it... Religion should stay out of the government.
by Dan Harmon2 years ago
Texas attorney general Ken Paxton has issued a statement that the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage is illegal. “Texas must speak with one voice against this lawlessness, and act on multiple levels to further...
by niall.tubbs7 years ago
I don't know anyone in America that doesn't support the freedom of religion. Why do you ask?
by Sooner284 years ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/21/us/re … odayspaperWhy is this still allowed? If the Catholic Church ever had a doctrine that said African Americans, Asian Americans, or Hispanic Americans could not be...
by Susan Reid6 years ago
Free speech is alive and well in America. The Supreme Court has ruled 8-1 (dissenter was Samuel Alito) that Westboro Baptist Church has a constitutional right to picket military funerals. The church contends military...
by Akriti Mattu2 years ago
Personally, i feel it's a huge leap forward. What are your views ?
by LiamBean7 years ago
The Supreme Court recently voted 5:4 to grant corporations unlimited rights toward funding political activities. Should this sort of right be limited to living breathing citizens of the United States or should any...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.