The Supreme Court Upheld Religious Freedom!

1. 61

   Cassie Smithposted 12 years ago

   "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!

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Bible Studiesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Best thing I have heard recently. Thanks.

      replyreport
   2. 78

      Ms Deeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hooray!  This surely is a victory against government attempts to control everything.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      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. ?

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Cassie Smithposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         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.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            replyreport
            1. 68

               Pearldiverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               OMG!!!!
               
               Those were MY Exact Words too... but You Nailed Them first!

               replyreport
            2. 61

               Cassie Smithposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Well you can interpret it that way but the Supreme Court begs to differ and they do have the final say.

               replyreport
               1. 84

                  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Until we smarten up and stop putting these ugly conservatives on the court.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     Cassie Smithposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     It was a unanimous decision so it wasn't only the conservative judges who came to that conclusion.

                     replyreport
               2. 68

                  Pearldiverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  NOT From where the Rest of the World Come From!!! - Those Judges are Totally Irrelevant!

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     Cassie Smithposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Well the rest of the world is totally irrelevant to the Supreme Court

                     replyreport
                     1. 68

                        Pearldiverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        How Prudent... I rest my case! 

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           Cassie Smithposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Well of course, why the rest of the world thinks it should be subject to the US Supreme Court is beyond me.

                           replyreport
   4. 58

      A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      As we move back to the Dark Ages and medieval times, did everyone remember to sharpen their pitchforks and grease their torches?

      replyreport
   5. 50

      paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I don't get it.
      
      Please explain me in a simple way, if possible.

      replyreport
   6. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Good deal!  The Government keeping its heavy hand out of Christian-based Churches. 

      replyreport
2. 84

   Pcunixposted 12 years ago

   Worst thing I have heard recently.

   replyreport
3. 68

   Pearldiverposted 12 years ago

   I suppose this was also celebrated in Iran!

   replyreport
4. 0

   Muldaniaposted 12 years ago

   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.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      Pearldiverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Good Point - But I fear it may well be lost in this thread!

      replyreport
   2. 61

      Cassie Smithposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Angie497posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         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.

         replyreport
5. 58

   MelissaBarrettposted 12 years ago

   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.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Excellent point, Melissa.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      Cassie Smithposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         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.
         
         Carry on.
         
         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.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Cassie Smithposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            replyreport
            1. 58

               MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               kk!  Bye!

               replyreport
            2. 58

               A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Gee Melissa, sorry to hear you're not considered a hater, too. Perhaps, we need to make an official club? Anyone got any good names we could use?

               replyreport
6. 91

   livelongerposted 12 years ago

   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.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      What he said.

      replyreport
   2. 84

      Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I hadn't thought of it that way.
      
      I'd stil like to take way their tax free status when they do this!

      replyreport
   3. 94

      wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to 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.

      replyreport
      1. 91

         livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         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?

         replyreport
7. 0

   Rad Manposted 12 years ago

   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.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      mischeviousmeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It should be illegal for our future leaders to use religious groups as a crutch...

      replyreport