Support NeoGAF

[antonz]

I think case wise its a tough one but I can see where the justices are coming from.

If they ruled otherwise it could hypothetically open the door to state influence where the constitution forbids it.

It is really a case of the definition being so broad that it causes problems though that is nothing new as the seperation of church and state and what it means varies wildly by person anyways.

 

[entremet]

Remove the tax exemption. I say this as a Christian.

 

[remnant]

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?

She would need to be teaching religious studies and doing religious duties for lack of a better word i guess. Which is what she was doing. She wasn't like a cross guard for the school or whatever.

 

[Phoenix]

Hosanna-Tabor moved for summary judgment. Invoking what is known as the “ministerial exception,” the Church argued that the suit was barred by the First Amendment because the claims at issue concerned the employment relationship between a religious institution and one of its ministers. According to the Church, Perich was a minister, and she had been fired for a religious reason—namely, that her threat to sue the Church vio-lated the Synod’s belief that Christians should resolve their disputes internally.

Now that is just a steaming hot pile of shit. You'd have to have never stepped in a church to accept that.

The EEOC and Perich suggest that Hosanna-Tabor’s asserted religious reason for firing Perich—that she violated the Synod’s commitment to internal dispute resolution—was pretextual. That suggestion misses the point of the ministerial exception. The purpose of the exception is not to safeguard a church’s decision to fire a minister only when it is made for a religious reason. The exception instead ensures that the authority to select and control who will minister to the faithful—a matter “strictly ecclesiastical,” Kedroff, 344 U. S., at 119—is the church’s alone.

And this is where the problem really is, right here.

The case before us is an employment discrimination suit brought on behalf of a minister, challenging her church’s decision to fire her. Today we hold only that the ministerial exception bars such a suit. We express no view on whether the exception bars other types of suits, including actions by employees alleging breach of contract or tortious conduct by their religious employers. There will be time enough to address the applicability of the exception to other circumstances if and when they arise.

The only silver lining that I see.

 

[Phoenix]

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?

No they would not. They have to actually be churches for any of this to apply and more specifically even if it did, the ministral exception likely wouldn't apply since a guy doing fries wouldn't be considered a minister.

 

[GhaleonQ]

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?

Even if there wasn't a centuries-old respected parochial tradition binding specific churches and schools (and this was a church-and-school), it would be pretty clear IN THIS CASE. They don't make the people who work at Concordia Publishing House take vows, and they own that.

Using the Alito standard, any self-definition of "religious instruction" would be a valid one, and this denomination would rightly say that you can't work in a Lutheran religious school and not take part in religious instruction. They just don't write the curriculum that way.

It would also be really hard for them to interfere with schools, specifically, without controversy because there are mounds of official government documents supporting the tradition. I remember doing a thesis on Lutheran parochial schools during the World Wars, and every 3rd what-would-be-the-Education-Department document talked about how they're brilliant and high-performing and essential to acclimating immigrants to their new society and a good economic model and blah blah blah. That extends to the present day.

 

[DR2K]

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

Because they lack the backbone to do anything that uphold the constitution and do their jobs. This SC has been pretty consistent.

 

[JGS]

Remove the tax exemption. I say this as a Christian.

This does nothing revenue wise and allows churches to be officially political. It's a horrible idea.

 

[Korey]

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.

Can they employ 12 year olds to do labor for them?

 

[elrechazado]

They're a bunch of corporate shills?

8/10, you almost got me

 

[remnant]

Can they employ 12 year olds to do labor for them?

What church has 12 year old ministers?

 

[ronito]

This does nothing revenue wise and allows churches to be officially political. It's a horrible idea.

How is taxing a billion dollar industry do nothing revenue wise?

I say play hardball.

Churches stay out of the political process, they get to pay half the taxes.
Churches decide to be political? Full tax rate.

 

[Korey]

What church has 12 year old ministers?

I don't know. Theoretically though, are they exempt from child labor laws? Or does this apply only to certain parts of employment law?

 

[Zhengi]

I don't know. Theoretically though, are they exempt from child labor laws? Or does this apply only to certain parts of employment law?

According to the opinion, they are not exempt from this. The opinion only applies to those who are ministers. That's why remnant asked if any church has 12 year old ministers.

 

[JGS]

How is taxing a billion dollar industry do nothing revenue wise?

As soon as taxes are implemented, you will find that the vast bulk of religious organization are running on financial fumes and the ones that are raking in money will reorganize to show that they don't.

I say play hardball.

Churches stay out of the political process, they get to pay half the taxes.
Churches decide to be political? Full tax rate.

They are out of the political process already so why on earth would you want them to pay taxes considering the case has nothing at all to do with politics?

This would not change the correct decision at all unless you literally want to remove a very important amendment.

 

[Zhengi]

From Justice Alito, with whom Justice Kagan joins, concurring.

The First Amendment protects the freedom of religious groups to engage in certain key religious activities, including the conducting of worship services and other religious ceremonies and rituals, as well as the critical process of communicating the faith. Accordingly, religious groups must be free to choose the personnel who are essential to the performance of these functions.

The “ministerial” exception should be tailored to this purpose. It should apply to any “employee” who leads a religious organization, conducts worship services or im-portant religious ceremonies or rituals, or serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith. If a religious group believes that the ability of such an employee to perform these key functions has been compromised, then the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom protects the group’s right to remove the employee from his or her position.

Throughout our Nation’s history, religious bodies have been the preeminent example of private associations that have “act[ed] as critical buffers between the individual and the power of the State.” Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U. S. 609, 619 (1984) . In a case like the one now before us—where the goal of the civil law in question, the elimination of discrimination against persons with disabilities, is so worthy—it is easy to forget that the autonomy of religious groups, both here in the United States and abroad, has often served as a shield against oppressive civil laws. To safeguard this crucial autonomy, we have long recognized that the Religion Clauses protect a private sphere within which religious bodies are free to govern themselves in accordance with their own beliefs. The Constitution guarantees religious bodies “independence from secular control or manipulation—in short, power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine.” Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America, 344 U. S. 94, 116 (1952) .

Pretty interesting read of her opinion so far.

 

[ronito]

As soon as taxes are implemented, you will find that the vast bulk of religious organization are running on financial fumes and the ones that are raking in money will reorganize to show that they don't.

True but then you could say that about corporations or the rich. You saying we shouldn't tax them?

They are out of the political process already so why on earth would you want them to pay taxes considering the case has nothing at all to do with politics?

This would not change the correct decision at all unless you literally want to remove a very important amendment.

Are they really? See Prop. 8. Hell, need something more recent? Look here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...block-romney/2012/01/10/gIQAVFATpP_story.html

 

[Pristine_Condition]

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.

It would be a more interesting debate if not for the fact that most of the "some" who disagree with the decision also routinely express contempt for just about everything that has to do with religion or Christianity.

GAF is almost entirely predictably boring in these matters.

When you actually read the decision, the decision is very narrow, and takes pains not to be anything but. It's a good decision, and one even such a diverse Court could agree on unanimously.

 

[Dead Man]

Having thought about this a bit, I don't like it. If she was being fired for religious issues, that would be one thing, and maybe I can see the government should not interfere with that, but to say employees don't deserve protection just because they are employed by a church is rubbish. This firing is not about exercising their religion, at all.

 

[Dude Abides]

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

Do you mean whether moving is a significant barrier to narcoleptic job performance under the ADA? Courts don't do that type of analysis under the ADA. In any event, the court here didn't have to do the normal reasonable accommodation analysis, because once it determined she performed a ministerial function, and held that there's a blanket exception to discrimination laws for those performing such functions, there was no need to reach any other questions.

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.

But this has nothing to do with that. The issue is whether they can fire him because he's disabled, not because he's diddling boys.

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.

This is completely wrong. The question of who is "ministerial" and who is not is now the only questions courts will have to answer.

ministerial exception has nothing to do with breaking general laws.

It has everything to do with it. There is a general law against terminating employees due to their disability without first attempting to reasonably accommodate the disability. Now, that generally applicable law does not apply when the employer is a church and the employee is one the court deems "ministerial."

 

[Unhandled Exception]

Fuck this shit, until that tax exemption is gone this is absolute horseshit. I'm sure Ron Paul is thrilled, however.

 

[remnant]

I don't know. Theoretically though, are they exempt from child labor laws? Or does this apply only to certain parts of employment law?

No. Ministerial exemption or ME because i hate typing that doesn't excuse you from criminal law. All it does is allow certain hiring guidelines to not apply to the church. Before it was religious or sex discrimination. Now it's this.

 

[The Faceless Master]

looks like it's time for some corporate persons to convert to christianity and start ordaining employees!

 

[Dude Abides]

It would be a more interesting debate if not for the fact that most of the "some" who disagree with the decision also routinely express contempt for just about everything that has to do with religion or Christianity.

GAF is almost entirely predictably boring in these matters.

When you actually read the decision, the decision is very narrow, and takes pains not to be anything but. It's a good decision, and one even such a diverse Court could agree on unanimously.

Your grudge against the GAF atheist hivemind aside, the decision is not very narrow and belies your claim to have actually read, or perhaps understood, it. It is quite broad. Employment discrimination laws do not apply to a situation where a church or church schools terminates a "ministerial" employee. The only thing "narrow" about it is that the court limited itself to suits for employment discrimination for terminations, although there's no reason its "accept or retain an unwanted minister" reasoning would not apply to other adverse employment actions taken for any reason whatsoever, including, say, for reporting child abuse.

Also, the claim that this Court is "diverse" is laughable. There's not a Brennan or a Douglas among them.

 

[remnant]

This is completely wrong. The question of who is "ministerial" and who is not is now the only questions courts will have to answer.

If the SC favored the government here, they would be acknowledging that in future cases the lower courts have the freedom to more narrowly define what these roles are. They could for example say the church has to prove to the court that so and so employee doesn't interfere with the religious teachings, or has done enough religious duties to claim a ministerial exception.

It has everything to do with it. There is a general law against terminating employees due to their disability without first attempting to reasonably accommodate the disability. Now, that generally applicable law does not apply when the employer is a church and the employee is one the court deems "ministerial."

I should have said criminal law. Sacrificing animals and drug abuse, breaking the law. This decision doesn't relate to those at all.

The church exception isn't new. All this rulings does is give the church more leeway to proclaim who has the exception, which is totally inline with the constitution.

 

[Dude Abides]

If the SC favored the government here, they would be acknowledging that in future cases the lower courts have the freedom to more narrowly define what these roles are.

No they wouldn't. Now the crucial question will be who is ministerial, because if s/he is, case over. So church organizations will be claiming everyone down to the janitor is somehow ministerial, and courts will be focusing all their inquiry on that.

I should have said criminal law. Sacrificing animals and drug abuse, breaking the law. This decision doesn't relate to those at all.

The church exception isn't new. All this rulings does is give the church more leeway to proclaim who has the exception, which is totally inline with the constitution.

Dude, read the opinion. The one thing it does not do is allow the church to decide who has the exception. It says that if the court finds the person is a "minister," then the exception applies, and employment discrimination suits should be dismissed.

You're correct that it does not directly apply to criminal behavior, except insofar as the principle that religion is not sufficient to exempt an organization from a generally applicable law has been eroded. More troubling is that this will probably be extended to other types of suits, such as where a church organization terminates someone for reporting criminal behavior. That would normally violate whistleblower statutes, but since the First Amendment now prohibits the state from "imposing an unwanted minister," such actions may well be held subject to the ME as well.

 

[poppabk]

It would be a more interesting debate if not for the fact that most of the "some" who disagree with the decision also routinely express contempt for just about everything that has to do with religion or Christianity.

GAF is almost entirely predictably boring in these matters.

When you actually read the decision, the decision is very narrow, and takes pains not to be anything but. It's a good decision, and one even such a diverse Court could agree on unanimously.

Its narrow in this case but it seems completely open to abuse. She was a 'called' teacher and thus not protected from being fired, but if she had been in the exact same position as a 'lay' teacher then she would have been protected.
Any religious organization could easily abuse this by 'promoting' someone to ministerial status and then firing them, or requiring all employees to have ministerial status.
They should have been able to 'fire' her as a minister but not as a teacher.

PS the church in this case seem to be showing more contempt for religion and Christianity than anyone in this thread.

 

[Gaborn]

I think if they had said that churches were in fact bound by non-discrimination laws it would have opened the door too much to blurring the line between church and state. I think a more interesting question is if, in light of this decision laws that make religious institutions tax exempt are constitutional. It seems like at the moment churches have it both ways. Churches don't want outside interference in their firing and hiring (an understandable concern in cases of non-adherents of course) but they also want the state to give them a special status in tax laws. I don't know that there should be a bright line distinction between a church and, say, the boy scouts. I think a constitutional challenge on the question of a church's tax exempt status (which may be difficult to bring) while discriminating would be interesting.

I've maintained that I find private discrimination disgusting, but in a free society I would accept that as long as no public funds were used for that. In this case that would include churches so in light of this decision I think Churches ability to discriminate should be put against their tax exempt status.

 

[Evlar]

During my teens my parents worked, and one of them still works, at a surpassingly noxious religious institution that had vile employment practices before this ruling. Who knows what monstrous shit they'll get up to now.

Good going, SC! Turning the evangelical doctrine of "thou shalt not sue the people who abuse you in the name of Christ" into an actual legal loophole...

 

[onadesertedisland]

Perhaps it would be beneficial to not allow the tax exempt, government free arm of religion to be able to hire workers. If there was a sort of llc etc that churches would use for compliance that would allow them to fire for standard reasons, but not illegal ones?

 

[krypt0nian]

Time to revoke the church's tax exempt status.

 

[Evlar]

Perhaps if the Supreme Court didn't write the legal equivalent of blank checks then pen consenting opinions filled with "We couldn't possibly suggest an upper limit on these blank checks! Surely no one would write in more than a reasonable number, say $4.25" and "Who are we to judge how much bling a religious institution needs to perform their religiousy functions?"

 

[Volimar]

I'm not really upset at this. Gotta blame the language in the amendment, not the judges.