• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme court sides with church on firing

This is the Court's holding: "The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar suits brought on behalf of ministers against theirchurches, claiming termination in violation of employment discrimination laws." She could not bring suit to begin with.

Yes, that was their holding.
 
I question their reasoning.

Specifically, which aspect, how would you circumvent that and preserve those Constitutional guarantees which speak to this situation?
 
Specifically, which aspect, how would you circumvent that and preserve those Constitutional guarantees which speak to this situation?

I don't think there is a way right now. Only an extreme situation (like a religious teacher getting fired for reporting a child being sexual abused by another religious teacher) would there even be an insentive to re-evaluate those guarantees.
 
Specifically, which aspect, how would you circumvent that and preserve those Constitutional guarantees which speak to this situation?

As I've mentioned (like four times), the constitution guarantees that the government will not pass laws interfering with the practice of religion. This was an employment dispute that had nothing to do with the employee's religious qualifications or practices. Now, if she'd been fired because they didn't like the way she taught religion, or because they didn't like the way she performed other religious duties, that would be a completely different situation. Under those circumstances the EEOC would be out of bounds trying to interfere.
 
As I've mentioned (like four times)

I suggest you read the opinion I provided.



the constitution guarantees that the government will not pass laws interfering with the practice of religion. This was an employment dispute that had nothing to do with the employee's religious qualifications or practices. Now, if she'd been fired because they didn't like the way she taught religion, or because they didn't like the way she performed other religious duties, that would be a completely different situation. Under those circumstances the EEOC would be out of bounds trying to interfere.




"By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments."
 
I suggest you read the opinion I provided.


"By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments."

Yes, I read it, and I know what the Court held. The holding is a legal conclusion. I disagree with their reasoning. Capiche?

Perhaps, instead of repeating the same thing over and over again, you can explain why you think an employment dispute over a medical condition implicates freedom of religion?
 
Yes, I read it, and I know what the Court held. The holding is a legal conclusion. I disagree with their reasoning. Capiche?

Perhaps, instead of repeating the same thing over and over again, you can explain why you think an employment dispute over a medical condition implicates freedom of religion?

She wasn't fired because of her medical condition. She was fired when, after having been told she could return at the beginning of the next school year, she returned to the school, demanded her job back immediately, and threatened to sue if that didn't happen.
 
She wasn't fired because of her medical condition. She was fired when, after having been told she could return at the beginning of the next school year, she returned to the school, demanded her job back immediately, and threatened to sue if that didn't happen.

which points to the employer denying her return to her position only because of the health problems she experienced, which problems were beyond her control
 
which points to the employer denying her return to her position only because of the health problems she experienced, which problems were beyond her control

First of all, just because someone's problems are beyond their control does not mean an employer does anything wrong by firing her.

Next, they told her she would have to wait until their contract with her substitute expired, which is quite reasonable on its face -- and buttressed by the fact that narcolepsy has no cure.
 
Yes, I read it, and I know what the Court held. The holding is a legal conclusion. I disagree with their reasoning. Capiche?

Perhaps, instead of repeating the same thing over and over again, you can explain why you think an employment dispute over a medical condition implicates freedom of religion?

I asked you what you would do to remedy the situation which you obviously disdain. I agree with the court they should stay out of the affairs of the church.


BTW being sarcastic, rude and quite frankly, a dullard, does not make your point whatsoever. You got a beef, then propose a solution as I have previously requested.
 
First of all, just because someone's problems are beyond their control does not mean an employer does anything wrong by firing her.
actually, if the basis for terminating her was due to one of the EEOC bases, as was evident in this case, then the employer commits an EEOC violation by its actions
... unless, thanks to this SC court decision, that employer is a religious organization and the employee engages in some degree of ministerial work

Next, they told her she would have to wait until their contract with her substitute expired, which is quite reasonable on its face -- and buttressed by the fact that narcolepsy has no cure.
they have to allow the employee to work when her medical condition allows it. otherwise the employer engages in an EEOC violation. see the exception above
 
actually, if the basis for terminating her was due to one of the EEOC bases, as was evident in this case, then the employer commits an EEOC violation by its actions
... unless, thanks to this SC court decision, that employer is a religious organization and the employee engages in some degree of ministerial work


they have to allow the employee to work when her medical condition allows it. otherwise the employer engages in an EEOC violation. see the exception above

We really don't have enough information. But here's what we do have:

The religious school in Redford, Mich., had fired teacher Cheryl Perich for insubordination after she reported for work even though administrators said they would not rehire her in the middle of the school year. Roberts said Perich qualified as a “minister” and the Constitution barred the state from influencing a church’s selection of such personnel.

In another link, they went on to say that when she reported for work and insisted she be able to report, she then threatened to sue the school. By the way, her title was Minister of Religion. Basically, this is what SCOTUS was ruling on. "The State" should not interfere with what ministers are hired/fired. Big ruling...since the Catholic Church would be scrood any other way.

Supreme Court Bars Narcoleptic Lutheran Teacher's Suit Against Church School - News - ABA Journal
 
We really don't have enough information. But here's what we do have:



In another link, they went on to say that when she reported for work and insisted she be able to report, she then threatened to sue the school. By the way, her title was Minister of Religion. Basically, this is what SCOTUS was ruling on. "The State" should not interfere with what ministers are hired/fired. Big ruling...since the Catholic Church would be scrood any other way.

Supreme Court Bars Narcoleptic Lutheran Teacher's Suit Against Church School - News - ABA Journal

but it is obvious from the information you provided that the employee returned to work when her medical condition allowed. like we expect employees to do
 
We really don't have enough information. But here's what we do have:



In another link, they went on to say that when she reported for work and insisted she be able to report, she then threatened to sue the school. By the way, her title was Minister of Religion. Basically, this is what SCOTUS was ruling on. "The State" should not interfere with what ministers are hired/fired. Big ruling...since the Catholic Church would be scrood any other way.

Supreme Court Bars Narcoleptic Lutheran Teacher's Suit Against Church School - News - ABA Journal

But these are all aspects of a traditionsl employment law matter. Where in all this did the EEOC infringe on the church's RELIGIOUS freedom?
 
But these are all aspects of a traditionsl employment law matter. Where in all this did the EEOC infringe on the church's RELIGIOUS freedom?

i so hope someone will answer that question
 
But these are all aspects of a traditionsl employment law matter. Where in all this did the EEOC infringe on the church's RELIGIOUS freedom?

This was my issue as well. I'm fine with a religious organization choosing to hire or not hire someone to function as clergy (but only for that position) based on whether that person represents their religious ideals. But being a religious organization does not exempt someone from normal hiring rules. Any church is welcome to fire a priest who converts to Judaism, but cannot violate employment law.

Are we really suggesting that religious institutions are above the law? Because that's basically what this ruling means.
 
But these are all aspects of a traditionsl employment law matter. Where in all this did the EEOC infringe on the church's RELIGIOUS freedom?

i so hope someone will answer that question


It would open the flood gates on litigation regarding matters that are considered religious in nature. For example, sex discrimination in allowing females to hold certain positions such as priests in the Catholic Church or women Rabbis. Additionally, there would circumstances where ethnic discrimination would be tried such as: Orthodox Jews only consider someone Jewish if their mother was Jewish even if the person considers himself Jewish and has practiced as such their entire life.

The First Amendment provides protects Religion from being State controlled. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." (see 1st Amendment) The EEOC was created by Congress in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
 
It would open the flood gates on litigation regarding matters that are considered religious in nature. For example, sex discrimination in allowing females to hold certain positions such as priests in the Catholic Church or women Rabbis. Additionally, there would circumstances where ethnic discrimination would be tried such as: Orthodox Jews only consider someone Jewish if their mother was Jewish even if the person considers himself Jewish and has practiced as such their entire life.

The First Amendment provides protects Religion from being State controlled. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." (see 1st Amendment) The EEOC was created by Congress in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

All of the examples you listed implicate religious beliefs and would thus clearly be protected. That's not this case.

This case is more akin to a minister refusing to pay rent on the church building and being declared immune from suit because he's a minister.
 
All of the examples you listed implicate religious beliefs and would thus clearly be protected. That's not this case.

Sexual and ethnic discrimination? They are legal fictions created by legislature.

This case is more akin to a minister refusing to pay rent on the church building and being declared immune from suit because he's a minister.



I said it would open the flood gates for such litigation further it would lead to charges of selective prosecution. Besides I do not see where your example speaks to this matter.
 
I can see how a church could be exempt from laws that relate to its teachings. But this lady had narcolepsy. Is that a sin or something? Lame.
 
I can see how a church could be exempt from laws that relate to its teachings. But this lady had narcolepsy. Is that a sin or something? Lame.

The reason she was fired was she pursued resolution to a dispute through the court system instead of internal arbitration via church courts.
 
Back
Top Bottom