Support NeoGAF

[happyfunball]

Discrimination against employees for disability is now a religious right? And that discrimination stops where? Good job Supremes.

It seems like it's about time we start looking for the reset button for this country.

 

[jman2050]

The ultimate problem is that the application of Seperation of Church and State from the government is selective and arbitrary.

 

[WedgeX]

The Church of Moneybags.

And this shall be their god.

 

[StrikerObi]

Curious then how you explain such a diverse range of minds on the SC being unanimous on this one?

That's actually the scariest part of this ruling to me. The fact that not ONE of them stood up for civil rights is very frightening, especially considering it's not a totally conservative court. I suppose a few of them probably realized this, but I guess they were too scared to dissent? That's also fucked up.

 

[Devolution]

Curious then how you explain such a diverse range of minds on the SC being unanimous on this one?

They're a bunch of corporate shills?

 

[Cat Party]

You heard it on GAF: The Supreme Court are all corporate shills who are too scared to dissent.

 

[Dude Abides]

Based on the description (haven't read the opinion yet), the decision is too broad. Religious institutions should obviously be allowed to discriminate against non-adherents when the position involves actually spreading or teaching the religion. That's the only time. They should not be permitted to discriminate against such people for reasons completely unrelated to their religion, as here, or permitted to discriminate against non-adherents who are simply doing normal administrative work.

Edit: another dumb thing about it is that under Oregon Dept. of Human Resources v. Smith, the rule is that religious practices cannot be exempt from general criminal laws simply because they are religious. That's why rastafarians can't smoke weed with impunity or Santerians can't conduct animal sacrifice. It's hard to see why the employment relationship should receive a blanket exemption. If anything, the ability to practice one's religion freely seems more important and core to the nature of religion than a church's freedom to have a whites-only hiring policy.

 

[el retorno]

Good decision. The government shouldn't be able to interfer with the selection of religious leaders.

Discrimination against employees for disability is now a religious right? And that discrimination stops where? Good job Supremes.

It seems like it's about time we start looking for the reset button for this country.

So a church should be forced to hire that person?

 

[Gadfly]

So it's cool to discriminate if god tells you to.

Religion is all about discrimination anyway. Many of these discriminations used to be based on factors that you have no choice in (gender, race, ethnicity, etc.). Then some came and created branches and interpretations where the discriminations were less based on things you could not change and more on what you believed in (note: religion believes homosexuality is a choice). But (for example) you can’t ask a religious organization to allow women to lead men if inferiority of women in leadership is part of the religion itself.

So yes.

 

[Chuck (Old)]

Thank you Supreme Court for being sensible for once. This is a very good decision.

 

[Stinkles]

I have no issue with the decision, my issue is with the fact that I fund these scams and cults with my taxes.

 

[WedgeX]

So a church should be forced to hire that person?

................They already hired her. And then she got narcolepsy.

 

[GhaleonQ]

Hey, my denomination's in the news! Seriously, guys, we're the isolationists of church-state affairs, so don't be afraid. The LCMS basically minds its business.

Based on the description (haven't read the opinion yet), the decision is too broad. Religious institutions should obviously be allowed to discriminate against non-adherents when the position involves actually spreading or teaching the religion. That's the only time. They should not be permitted to discriminate against such people for reasons completely unrelated to their religion, as here, or permitted to discriminate against non-adherents who are simply doing normal administrative work.

As Alito wrote, "internal dispute resolution" is part of the calling. They traditionally even make that vow in the associated church (if there is one) at the beginning of the school year. I GUESS I understand the resistance on that last point of the major points validated, but this specific case is totally straightforward.

 

[Alucrid]

Thank you Supreme Court for being sensible for once. This is a very good decision.

Great tag. That was a very good decision. This decision certainly seems to have weakened future cases that might be more messy than this.

 

[Dude Abides]

Hey, my denomination's in the news! Seriously, guys, we're the isolationists of church-state affairs, so don't be afraid. The LCMS basically minds its business.



As Alito wrote, "internal dispute resolution" is part of the calling. They traditionally even make that vow in the associated church (if there is one) at the beginning of the school year. I GUESS I understand the resistance on that last point of the major points validated, but this specific case is totally straightforward.

I don't see your point. What about dispute resolution implies that churches should be able to discriminate on the basis of disability?

The legal realist in me suspects they don't like the implication that male-only ministries would have to end.

Edit: though even that's a phantom as Congress would surely amend Title VII tomorrow if the case had come out the other way.

 

[Zhengi]

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.

How are they being above the law in this case? What has a higher precedence? A federal law or the Constitution of the United States?

 

[Count Dookkake]

Religion is all about discrimination anyway. Many of these discriminations used to be based on factors that you have no choice in (gender, race, ethnicity, etc.). Then some came and created branches and interpretations where the discriminations were less based on things you could not change and more on what you believed in (note: religion believes homosexuality is a choice). But (for example) you can’t ask a religious organization to allow women to lead men if inferiority of women in leadership is part of the religion itself.

So yes.

I wasn't asking.

 

[The Technomancer]

How are they being above the law in this case? What has a higher precedence? A federal law or the Constitution of the United States?

The Constitution doesn't explicitly lay out this situation though, hence why its the Supreme Court's job to interpret what it means in this case. And some of us disagree with their interpretation.

 

[happyfunball]

Good decision. The government shouldn't be able to interfer with the selection of religious leaders.



So a church should be forced to hire that person?

They should not be forced to hire a disabled person but they should not be allowed to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information (EEOC).

This church admits to firing their employee due to a disability. That should be wrong in anybody's book unless you're big into social darwinism.

 

[Zhengi]

That's actually the scariest part of this ruling to me. The fact that not ONE of them stood up for civil rights is very frightening, especially considering it's not a totally conservative court. I suppose a few of them probably realized this, but I guess they were too scared to dissent? That's also fucked up.

Or maybe they understood the issue better than any of us in this thread and made a decision based upon the law as they are supposed to. And what is this about being too scared to dissent? That's stupid.

The Constitution doesn't explicitly lay out this situation though, hence why its the Supreme Court's job to interpret what it means in this case. And some of us disagree with their interpretation.

Which is fine with me since it was a unanimous vote in favor of the church. You rarely get a unanimous vote from the Supreme Court and that must mean that they strongly side with the religious organization. You can disagree all you want, but it doesn't mean that the decision has no merit or is a "dumb" decision.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

Religious organizations shouldn't be exempt from labor laws.

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

I agree with you about tax exemptions but not on labor laws. They should have the right to select only people with the same religious beliefs simply because of how much conflict it would cause having people you completely disagree with running your church. Especially if your religious beliefs bar you from hiring or associating with those people.

 

[CF_Fighter]

This certainly throws a wrench in my friend's father's case that he was wrongly fired because a woman made allegations he sexually harassed and groped her. After he was fired she finally admitted to lying. Not to mention she made advances on my friend at an event and tried to get him to come back to her hotel room, even though he refused cause she is a married woman, and this was before she went after his dad.

 

[Freezie KO]

Tax religions for being huge money-making businesses, and I won't care what they do within their walls to anyone irrational enough to work for them

 

[GhaleonQ]

I don't see your point. What about dispute resolution implies that churches should be able to discriminate on the basis of disability?

The legal realist in me suspects they don't like the implication that male-only ministries would have to end.

I guess my counterquestion is, "Why not let people freely associate with denominations that more narrowly define divine office?" If the LCMS and all who they employ specifically claim that bringing secular law into religious process is a firable offence, why is the solution to diminish the 1st Amendment?

I understand that hypothetical Father Dude Abides would not run his Blessed Mosque Of NeoGAF this way. I understand that this policy might influence behavior in the religion free market. I don't understand why you would purposely subjugate freedom of religion as your optimal policy decision.

The legal realist in me suspects they don't like the implication that male-only ministries would have to end.

Edit: though even that's a phantom as Congress would surely amend Title VII tomorrow if the case had come out the other way.

That would make for absolutely fascinating (also: dispiriting, horrifying) news if it happened. No joke: I bet a good 1/5 of this specific Church (and others, like conservative Catholics) would emigrate or start an underground church. The Missouri Synod came to the country specifically to avoid Friedrich Wilhelm III's meddling. Even a century on, I'm sure some would take drastic measures.

 

[happyfunball]

I agree with you about tax exemptions but not on labor laws. They should have the right to select only people with the same religious beliefs simply because of how much conflict it would cause having people you completely disagree with running your church. Especially if your religious beliefs bar you from hiring or associating with those people.

Why not? They should be treated like the business that they are.

Also, if a religious school is receiving public funding (our tax dollars), how is there any defense that we should allow discrimination or at least continue to fund them? There should be a decision by the religious schools: be discriminatory scumbags and receive no public funding or act like a decent institution and receive public funding.

 

[Zzoram]

I agree with you about tax exemptions but not on labor laws. They should have the right to select only people with the same religious beliefs simply because of how much conflict it would cause having people you completely disagree with running your church. Especially if your religious beliefs bar you from hiring or associating with those people.

Except this isn't about that at all.

This woman was a believer, she just developed a health condition that they didn't like and fired her for being sick.

 

[Phoenix]

This is an EPIC failure of the Supreme Court and opens a slippery slope to all sorts of foolishness. The Establishment Clause is called the establishment clause for a reason - to prevent state established religions or preferential treatment of any religions. Outside of that the establishment clause does not apply. A church can't legally do whatever it wants because it is a religion and this interpretation gives churches absurd authority to do exactly that because what the SC just did is set a precedent that makes religious organizations above a variety of laws and statues that secular institutions have to follow.

All of this just shat on the Hugo Black interpretation:

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

While I am believer, what just happened is a wrong and unfair expansion of the Establishment Clause into areas that were never intended by the framers NOR supported by the language of the act. While religious organizations were able to choose their leaders however they chose - that didn't mean that they could violate other laws. You couldn't, for example, haze a minister or require him to sit in a pit of snakes for a preaching position.

This whole decision is dangerous... VERY dangerous.

 

[Zzoram]

Does this decision mean Sharia Law is in if you're an employee of a Mosque?

 

[remnant]

They're free to choose based on religious reasons, but they fired for non-religious reasons. That's the problem.

Separation of church and state makes no mention of "only in deals of religion."

it clearly relates to the church as an organization. People are letting their hate of the church cloud their logic.

 

[ElectricThunder]

I really can't see any demonstrable good coming from this ruling, rampant abuse on the other hand...

Look I know we've had bad SC's before...but really....this past decade or so----they've GOT to be up there with the worst right?

 

[MetatronM]

I find some of the assertions puzzling, particularly these:

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.”

...Why? Why is it in the interest of society that religious groups don't have to follow the same principles in how they hire and fire people that all other groups do? Why "MUST" the church be free to make thoroughly immoral, unjust, and unfair decisions about who they employ?

The Constitutional arguments I get. Don't agree with, but get, and as a result I do understand the basis of the ruling itself. These arguments, however, I completely do not. Surely there is some explanation in the full opinion about why it is in the interest of society?

 

[The Technomancer]

Separation of church and state makes no mention of "only in deals of religion."

it clearly relates to the church as an organization. People are letting their hate of the church cloud their logic.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Seems to me that its explicitly talking about matters of religion and belief, and not talking about the Chuch as an organization at all

 

[GhaleonQ]

Except this isn't about that at all.

This woman was a believer, she just developed a health condition that they didn't like and fired her for being sick.

You totally got the order wrong.

http://www.pewforum.org/Church-Stat...Disputes-and-the-“Ministerial-Exception”.aspx

This is something I genuinely don't know, though. How has the Disabilities Act been defined with relation to specific positions within a business? I don't mean higher or lower on the payscale, but the same "tier" of positions? A proper denominational church functions, basically, as a business with franchises. She threatened to sue after she was removed from this teaching job but BEFORE her "call" was rescinded. (So, yes, again, she got fired for religious reasons.) Until the vote took place, she's still a part of the church's hiring apparatus; they'd find a job for her, but she would just have to move. Is "moving an undetermined distance" a significant barrier to the disabled/narcoleptic according to the Supreme Court?

Why "MUST" the church be free to make thoroughly immoral, unjust, and unfair decisions about who they employ?

Presumably so they can live as morally, justly, and fairly as they can according to their own understanding, as you do with yours?

 

[lenovox1]

Why not? They should be treated like the business that they are.

Also, if a religious school is receiving public funding (our tax dollars), how is there any defense that we should allow discrimination or at least continue to fund them? There should be a decision by the religious schools: be discriminatory scumbags and receive no public funding or act like a decent institution and receive public funding.

Then you'd have to start making all NPOs like churches pay an income tax, stuff like private schools or community theatres. That's silly, and the majority of protestant churches couldn't handle it.

And this ruling doesn't prevent the federal, state, or local government from pulling funding from this school.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

Why not? They should be treated like the business that they are.

Also, if a religious school is receiving public funding (our tax dollars), how is there any defense that we should allow discrimination or at least continue to fund them? There should be a decision by the religious schools: be discriminatory scumbags and receive no public funding or act like a decent institution and receive public funding.

Don't give religious schools public money then.

And regarding firing her due to her health rather than her faith, that kind of sounds like an extreme case regarding a religious institution's discrimination practices as no religion I know of promotes discrimination for that reason. I can understand plugging that loophole though in case anybody the church tries doing that again.

 

[remnant]

Seems to me that its explicitly talking about matters of religion and belief, and not talking about the Chuch as an organization at all

prohibiting who a church can employ/release is clearly prohibiting their exercises.

people making the argument that they should be treated like some type of social club, while still clinging to the separation of church and state are asking for their cake and eating it too. The government can't interfere in some things the church does, whatever the hell that is but can do whatever they want with everything else. The Constitution makes no such difference. Everything the church does is a free exercise of their religion.

 

[Korey]

Separation of church and state makes no mention of "only in deals of religion."

it clearly relates to the church as an organization. People are letting their hate of the church cloud their logic.

That's like saying churches don't have to obey zoning laws, or that they're allowed to blast music at 29823 decibals at 2am, or that they're allowed to launder money.

Or does the Constitution say churches being exempt from the law of the land only applies to employment?

 

[GhaleonQ]

That's like saying churches don't have to obey zoning laws, or that they're allowed to blast music at 29823 decibals at 2am, or that they're allowed to launder money.

Or does the Constitution say churches being exempt from the law of the land only applies to employment?

No, it's not like that at all. It's more like saying that ministerial positions aren't required to have the Fair Labor Standards Act's minimum wage law protection.

Now, THAT would be an interesting wrinkle. Unlike churches, parochial schools are exchanging goods for services. FOLLOW-UP, FOLLOW-UP.

 

[Dude Abides]

I guess my counterquestion is, "Why not let people freely associate with denominations that more narrowly define divine office?" If the LCMS and all who they employ specifically claim that bringing secular law into religious process is a firable offence, why is the solution to diminish the 1st Amendment?

Before today, the 1st Amendment did not stand for the principle that one could claim exemption from generally applicable laws based on religious belief. Just as practitioners of some Native American religions cannot claim an exemption from laws against the possession of peyote on the basis of their religious practice, I see no reason that the employment relationship should be exempt from generally applicable laws that govern that relationship simply because the institution in which the relationship exists is religious (except, as noted, with the narrow exception of that such institutions should be able to exclude non-adherents from positions charged with teaching the religion).

That would make for absolutely fascinating (also: dispiriting, horrifying) news if it happened. No joke: I bet a good 1/5 of this specific Church (and others, like conservative Catholics) would emigrate or start an underground church. The Missouri Synod came to the country specifically to avoid Friedrich Wilhelm III's meddling. Even a century on, I'm sure some would take drastic measures.

They wouldn't have time, as Title VII's proscription on gender discrimination would be amended to provide an exception before most of them had even learned of the decision, policy-making positions and lower, subordinate positions. All it cares about is whether you can do the required tasks with reasonable accommodation.

 

[SIRF]

prohibiting who a church can employ/release is clearly prohibiting their exercises.

people making the argument that they should be treated like some type of social club, while still clinging to the separation of church and state are asking for their cake and eating it too. The government can't interfere in some things the church does, whatever the hell that is but can do whatever they want with everything else. The Constitution makes no such difference. Everything the church does is a free exercise of their religion.

But this simply not true, there are obviously restrictions that are put on the church from doing certain things that would be religiously condoned. The question here is where does the state draw the line between what they will allow the church to do and not to do in terms of violating civil rights.

I'm a little hesitant to make any judgement on this case without reading the full case decision but at least at first glance, this is a pretty straightforward case of discrimination based on disability status. Just out of curiosity, are SC decisions reversible?

 

[Phoenix]

Based on the description (haven't read the opinion yet), the decision is too broad. Religious institutions should obviously be allowed to discriminate against non-adherents when the position involves actually spreading or teaching the religion. That's the only time. They should not be permitted to discriminate against such people for reasons completely unrelated to their religion, as here, or permitted to discriminate against non-adherents who are simply doing normal administrative work.

Edit: another dumb thing about it is that under Oregon Dept. of Human Resources v. Smith, the rule is that religious practices cannot be exempt from general criminal laws simply because they are religious. That's why rastafarians can't smoke weed with impunity or Santerians can't conduct animal sacrifice. It's hard to see why the employment relationship should receive a blanket exemption. If anything, the ability to practice one's religion freely seems more important and core to the nature of religion than a church's freedom to have a whites-only hiring policy.

Absolutely agree.

 

[remnant]

That's like saying churches don't have to obey zoning laws, or that they're allowed to blast music at 29823 decibals at 2am, or that they're allowed to launder money.

Or does the Constitution say churches being exempt from the law of the land only applies to employment?

In those cases the problems would fall on who owns the church. You don't bill the pope if someone plays loud music.

Even then in this case the SC used ministerial exception to make this ruling. Those would have nothing to do that precedent.

 

[Korey]

No, it's not like that at all. It's more like saying that ministerial positions aren't required to have the Fair Labor Standards Act's minimum wage law protection.

Now, THAT would be an interesting wrinkle. Unlike churches, parochial schools are exchanging goods for services. FOLLOW-UP, FOLLOW-UP.

That's employment. What other parts of the law are they exempt from due to the Constitution? I'm super interested.

In those cases the problems would fall on who owns the church. You don't bill the pope if someone plays loud music.

Even then in this case the SC used ministerial exception to make this ruling. Those would have nothing to do that precedent.

"That's the building!!" lol

 

[GhaleonQ]

Before today, the 1st Amendment did not stand for the principle that one could claim exemption from generally applicable laws based on religious belief. Just as practitioners of some Native American religions cannot claim an exemption from laws against the possession of peyote on the basis of their religious practice, I see no reason that the employment relationship should be exempt from generally applicable laws that govern that relationship simply because the institution in which the relationship exists is religious (except, as noted, with the narrow exception of that such institutions should be able to exclude non-adherents from positions charged with teaching the religion).

Before I continue, *points up to previous question about the church "franchising"*.

That's employment. What other parts of the law are they exempt from due to the Constitution? I'm super interested.

Neither this denomination nor I am interested in the larger war, frankly. There's no gradual bounds-testing, just resistance to constraining practices inherent to religious organizations with every piddling law that comes around. Churches can adjust to active harrassment from the government, but I'd rather have that be the last resort. Constantly adjusting internal affairs tends to diminish the character and ability of religious groups, don't you know?

 

[Phoenix]

Just out of curiosity, are SC decisions reversible?

No. They can be reinterpreted and refined later if another case comes up, but they cannot be reversed. It is the highest court in the land - nowhere to get a reversal from.

 

[Zhengi]

I think this is the opinion for this case:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/10-553#writing-10-553_OPINION_1

 

[Phoenix]

Before today, the 1st Amendment did not stand for the principle that one could claim exemption from generally applicable laws based on religious belief. Just as practitioners of some Native American religions cannot claim an exemption from laws against the possession of peyote on the basis of their religious practice, I see no reason that the employment relationship should be exempt from generally applicable laws that govern that relationship simply because the institution in which the relationship exists is religious (except, as noted, with the narrow exception of that such institutions should be able to exclude non-adherents from positions charged with teaching the religion).

I certainly see the issue from the church perspective. If it "hires" a minister and then you find he pulls an Eddie Long with young boys, you should be able to oust him without fear of a discrimination lawsuit. The fact that this opens the door for someone to be disabled and then replaced or go on maternity leave and get replaced or one of a billion other employment issues is a huge issue for me. The rub is in how one would decide who is a non adherent and I can see where the church wouldn't want that to be dictated to them by the state. The other baggage that comes along for the ride via precedent is far far worse though IMO.

 

[remnant]

Based on the description (haven't read the opinion yet), the decision is too broad. Religious institutions should obviously be allowed to discriminate against non-adherents when the position involves actually spreading or teaching the religion. That's the only time. They should not be permitted to discriminate against such people for reasons completely unrelated to their religion, as here, or permitted to discriminate against non-adherents who are simply doing normal administrative work.

Edit: another dumb thing about it is that under Oregon Dept. of Human Resources v. Smith, the rule is that religious practices cannot be exempt from general criminal laws simply because they are religious. That's why rastafarians can't smoke weed with impunity or Santerians can't conduct animal sacrifice. It's hard to see why the employment relationship should receive a blanket exemption. If anything, the ability to practice one's religion freely seems more important and core to the nature of religion than a church's freedom to have a whites-only hiring policy.

If the court had favored for the government. it would create a precedent that grants lower courts more ability to overstep the church views on what an employee has to do to have ministerial exception. if you really believe that church should have the right to be allowed to discriminate when it comes to teaching their religion, then the supreme court made the right call.

ministerial exception has nothing to do with breaking general laws.

 

[Fantomex]

I think this is the opinion for this case:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/10-553#writing-10-553_OPINION_1

I read that earlier. What makes sense or might not make to people of the Christian faith is that in general, Christians are not to sue each other.

1 Corinthians 6:7
Now, therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated? (NKJV)

Which kind of makes both parties look quite silly. But I agree with the Supreme Courts decision in this case.

 

[Kettch]

My only concern here is that she was apparently employed not by the church, but by the school being run by the church. It would be nice to know if there's a limit to what a religious organization can be. Is it just churches and religious schools? Would a religious fast food joint being run by the church need to follow employment laws, or would they have a similar freedom to fire any one they want?