Supreme Court unanimously Backs Church in Landmark Religious Liberty Case

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Ripclawe

Banned
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ks-church-in-landmark-religious-liberty-case/

The government must stay out of hiring and firing decisions by a religious organization, even if a minister sues for employment discrimination, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday.

Religious freedom groups praised the decision, and especially the fact that it came from a unanimous court.

“The fact that the court was unanimous underlines how essential a part of religious liberty is the principle that churches and synagogues get to select their religion teachers,” said Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice. “Government has no business deciding who should or should not carry out religious ministry, and we’re delighted the high court reached that conclusion.”

The case stemmed from the firing of Cheryl Perich, a Michigan teacher who had been employed by a school run by the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church.

Perich had completed training to become a commissioned minister at the school. In 2004 she became ill with narcolepsy and went on disability. School officials expressed concern that Perich would not be able to return to the school for several months.

The congregation voted to pay a portion of her health insurance premiums in exchange for her resignation. Perich refused to step down and returned to work, only to be told she must leave and that she would likely be fired.

Perich told the school that she had consulted a lawyer and intended to assert her legal rights. She contacted the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which filed suit arguing Perich’s termination was in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

But the court ruled today the case could not go forward.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, said that the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment –”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”–bar the government from interfering with the decision of a religious group to fire one of its ministers.

Roberts gave a history lesson in his opinion, noting that “controversy between church and state over religious offices is hardly new.” He noted that the founders sought to foreclose the possibility of a national church.

“The Establishment Clause prevents the government from appointing ministers,” Roberts said, and the “Free Exercise Clause prevents it from interfering with the freedom of religious groups to select their own. ”

“The Supreme Court made clear today that religion is special, ” said Luke Goodrich of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a group that defended the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church in court.

“A religious school under the Constitution is not the same as a secular school. When a religious school chooses who is going to teach the faith to the next generation, it doesn’t have to look over its shoulder to see if the government is going to second-guess that choice, ” said Goodrich.

The court had harsh criticism for the government’s argument that a church should be treated no differently from a labor union or a social club when it came to the organization’s freedom to choose its leaders.

“We cannot accept the remarkable view that the Religion Clauses have nothing to say about a religious organization’s freedom to select its own ministers, ” Roberts wrote.

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said he thought in today’s ruling the Court had gone too far.

“If you are declared a minister by a religious organization, you are out of luck if you have a claim for discrimination even if it’s based on race, gender or any other non religious factor,” Lynn said. “This effectively blocks almost any kind of serious challenge to an adverse employment decision. ”

Roberts said that while the interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is important, “so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission.”

He said, “When a minister who has been fired sues her church alleging that her termination was discriminatory, the First Amendment has struck the balance for us. The church must be free to choose those who will guide it on its way.”
Click to expand...
 
Religious organizations shouldn't be exempt from labor laws.

They also shouldn't be exempt from property- and other taxes.
 
This seems legit.

“We cannot accept the remarkable view that the Religion Clauses have nothing to say about a religious organization’s freedom to select its own ministers, ” Roberts wrote.
Click to expand...

This....seems shady.

The case stemmed from the firing of Cheryl Perich, a Michigan teacher who had been employed by a school run by the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church.

Perich had completed training to become a commissioned minister at the school. In 2004 she became ill with narcolepsy and went on disability. School officials expressed concern that Perich would not be able to return to the school for several months.

The congregation voted to pay a portion of her health insurance premiums in exchange for her resignation. Perich refused to step down and returned to work, only to be told she must leave and that she would likely be fired.

Perich told the school that she had consulted a lawyer and intended to assert her legal rights. She contacted the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which filed suit arguing Perich’s termination was in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Click to expand...
 
iKpwz5KcCWf0j.png
 
I love it when the principles of the establishment clause and the free exercise clause are in accordance with each other instead of in conflict with each other as they often are.
 
Way to reinforce the concept that religion is a place where you can shelter terrible behavior.

It should come to no surprise that pedophile priests and manipulative scientologists have been able to get away with so much by hiding under the moniker of religion.
 
speculawyer said:
Way to reinforce the concept that religion is a place where you can shelter terrible behavior.

It should come to no surprise that pedophile priests and manipulative scientologists have been able to get away with so much by hiding under the moniker of religion.
Click to expand...

way to not support the separation of church and state
 
Duki said:
way to not support the separation of church and state
Click to expand...


the church cannot infringe upon the state.


The state can tell the church how to not murder/molest children. Unless you want to argue that the church can do such illegal activities.


Also, why is everything bad political coming out of Michigan...
 
The two clauses do seem to agree with each other, but she was fired for being a narcoleptic. That has nothing to do with religion. She should be covered by the ADA.

What about this situation:

You work as a minister in a church and your office is on the 2nd floor. There are no elevators in the church. You are in a horrible car crash and are paralyzed from the waist down. You can now no longer get to your office. You file a claim stating that the church is required to add an elevator under the ADA. The church says they are exempt from that law because of precedent set in this case. You are fucked. That's nice.
 
The case stemmed from the firing of Cheryl Perich, a Michigan teacher who had been employed by a school run by the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church.

Perich had completed training to become a commissioned minister at the school. In 2004 she became ill with narcolepsy and went on disability. School officials expressed concern that Perich would not be able to return to the school for several months.

The congregation voted to pay a portion of her health insurance premiums in exchange for her resignation. Perich refused to step down and returned to work, only to be told she must leave and that she would likely be fired.

Perich told the school that she had consulted a lawyer and intended to assert her legal rights. She contacted the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which filed suit arguing Perich’s termination was in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Click to expand...

Wait...what?

How can anyone be for this?
 
Aylinato said:
the church cannot infringe upon the state.


The state can tell the church how to not murder/molest children. Unless you want to argue that the church can do such illegal activities.
Click to expand...

yeah thats the part i was talking about, not the one where he's criticising the decision

child molestation isnt a religious activity, why the fuck are you comparing it to choosing ministers who will be administering religious teaching

separation of church and state means the church does not influence state practice and the state does not interfere with anyone's religious practice

you cant adore one side of that and then ignore the other. bet you're all huge fans of separation when idiots are trying to get creationism taught in schools
 
If religious organizations are exempt from labor laws, why are they able to secure government funding and grants? If government money is paying for employees, they should have the same rights as any other worker.
 
Zzoram said:
If religious organizations are exempt from labor laws, why are they able to secure government funding and grants? If government money is paying for employees, they should have the same rights as any other worker.
Click to expand...

And they get to do all that without paying taxes.

They also get to engage in political speech.
 
lenovox1 said:
It is an open and shut case based on the wording of the constitution, according to ABC News. It's okay to be upset about it, but there's not much that can be done by being upset.
Click to expand...

She wasn't fired for not adhering to religious principles set down by the congregation. She was fired for developing narcolepsy, a medical condition. This ruling makes it so religious organizations don't have to account for the Americans with Disabilities Act with (some?) employees.
 
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, said that the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment –”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”–bar the government from interfering with the decision of a religious group to fire one of its ministers.
Click to expand...

What about sharia? Wouldn't that also fall under this clause? Honest question...

Edit: Or am I misunderstanding the word "establishment" in that context?
 
Duki said:
yeah thats the part i was talking about, not the one where he's criticising the decision

child molestation isnt a religious activity, why the fuck are you comparing it to choosing ministers who will be administering religious teaching

separation of church and state means the church does not influence state practice and the state does not interfere with anyone's religious practice

you cant adore one side of that and then ignore the other. bet you're all huge fans of separation when idiots are trying to get creationism taught in schools
Click to expand...

I did no such thing.
 
Zzoram said:
If religious organizations are exempt from labor laws, why are they able to secure government funding and grants? If government money is paying for employees, they should have the same rights as any other worker.
Click to expand...

Yup. Honestly do people expect anything but a corporate/rich favored decision from the current court? These Churches/religious orgs get subsidies and are also major contributors to campaigns.
 
lenovox1 said:
It is an open and shut case based on the wording of the constitution, according to ABC News. It's okay to be upset about it, but there's not much that can be done by being upset.
Click to expand...

I thought the point of separation of church and state was so that people are free to practice their religion, not so that churches are legally free to do literally whatever they want, and above the laws of the United States of America.

Or am I missing something? Sounds crazy to me.
 
Duki said:
yeah thats the part i was talking about, not the one where he's criticising the decision

child molestation isnt a religious activity, why the fuck are you comparing it to choosing ministers who will be administering religious teaching

separation of church and state means the church does not influence state practice and the state does not interfere with anyone's religious practice

you cant adore one side of that and then ignore the other. bet you're all huge fans of separation when idiots are trying to get creationism taught in schools
Click to expand...



Except the "church" fired her for developing a medical issue, not a religious issue, so by your own argument the "church" cannot fire her for that reason. Thanks for siding with us unintentionally!
 
Korey said:
I thought the point of separation of church and state was so that people are free to practice their religion, not so that churches are legally free to do literally whatever they want, and above the laws of the United States of America.

Or am I missing something? Sounds crazy to me.
Click to expand...

in what sense is being able to freely choose who administers your religion not a crucial aspect of religious freedom
 
If you were a Christian Scientist and you vaccinated your kid and got fired for that, sure that makes sense (at least legally).

Or if you're any sort of Christian (or almost any religion really) and you're fired when you come out of the closet.

Those area both religious reasons to fire you and they should be allowed since the church needs to make sure their ministers are in lock-step with their beliefs.

But what about this one:

You are a minister in a church. Your boss, sexually harasses you. You threaten to go to the police. Your boss fires you. You sue because this is obviously some illegal bullshit that's going on.

Under this ruling, because the "church has the right to choose their ministers" you are fucked. This ruling allows churches to act in bad faith and get away with it, as The Atlantic article points out. They are making the separation of church and state an absolute. It makes no sense. You weren't fired for any religion-based reason, so you should be able to sue.

Even more fucked up. If you work for a church and they just don't like you, they can make you a minister and just kick you out the door with impunity.
 
The church is a bunch of scumbags. I'm ashamed it was here in Michigan. I've never heard of a church so heartless.
 
Duki said:
in what sense is being able to freely choose who administers your religion not a crucial aspect of religious freedom
Click to expand...

They're free to choose based on religious reasons, but they fired for non-religious reasons. That's the problem.
 
Well this is fucked. I went to christian schooling from Kindergarten through senior year of high school, and this is just all sorts of fucked.
 
In 5 years, corporations will have found a loophole that allows them t declare themselves as religious institutions, thus excluding them from labor laws.

Suddenly, we have a bunch of "ministers" working for $2 an hour. They better not complain, or they get fired on the spot.
 
jamesinclair said:
In 5 years, corporations will have found a loophole that allows them t declare themselves as religious institutions, thus excluding them from labor laws.

Suddenly, we have a bunch of "ministers" working for $2 an hour. They better not complain, or they get fired on the spot.
Click to expand...

The Church of Moneybags.
 
Duki said:
in what sense is being able to freely choose who administers your religion not a crucial aspect of religious freedom
Click to expand...

The problem is that with this decision, the courts have now explicitly stated that federal anti-discrimination laws don't apply to church employees.

I guess it's just saying, "Hey, we have these great new laws that are important for an advanced society to protect the rights of all citizens. But you guys in the church don't need to follow them, go ahead and keep being backward and hateful." Which is fine, I suppose. But, ugh.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex
2
62
2K
jason10mm replied
Jussie Smollet’s conviction overturned by Illinois supreme court
38
2K
Drake replied
UK Woman convicted in first known case of cyber farting
47
3K
MayauMiao replied
  • Locked
Elon Musk vs Brazil’s Federal Supreme Court
Social Opinion News 
12
3K
AJUMP23 replied
Deez Nuts Appears in Court
5
876
feynoob replied
Top Bottom