• 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

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

Come ON, Bubba. Please show me a quote from anywhere that says she returned to work when her medical condition allowed. Besides that!! Employers are not required to hold up jobs for months and months because someone is sick. You say, "Yes they are!!" ?? I say, show me.

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?

She was a Minister by her job title. See the many other posts here who point out that if ministers (of any way/shape/form) are to be judged under EEOC, the Catholic Church would turn on its head.
 
The reason she was fired was she pursued resolution to a dispute through the court system instead of internal arbitration via church courts.

So suing the church is a sin.
 
So suing the church is a sin.

Personally, I am having trouble seeing this as any other than an employment issue, unless church courts are somehow in the doctrine, but I can't think of a major religion where they are.
 
Personally, I am having trouble seeing this as any other than an employment issue, unless church courts are somehow in the doctrine, but I can't think of a major religion where they are.

Yeah, the idea that suing for your legal rights is the legal justification for firing you is pretty messed up.
 
"11. Thou shalt not seek the advice of a Lawyer, for they are the spawn of Satan's own loins and wish for nothing beyond the prosecution of the faithful."
 
I am sure there are many topics worthy of debate in regard to the religious immunities.

I would ask the forum to excuse me if I am unable to muster enough concern to give a red rat's ass.

If someone wants to be a priest, minister, rabbi, or any other cog in the wheel of the religious industry, they are on their own as far as I am concerned. It ain't my battle.

It's hard for me to recognize a snake-oil salesman union or be concerned for their professional rights. The same goes for religion.

So I will now take my leave from this thread. Everyone have a very nice evening.
 
I'm honestly surprised that the Obama administration held the opposing view. Well not really....
 
She was a Minister by her job title. See the many other posts here who point out that if ministers (of any way/shape/form) are to be judged under EEOC, the Catholic Church would turn on its head.

I disagree. The Catholic Church (and orthodox Jewish church, and others) bases its discrimination on religious grounds.
 
I disagree. The Catholic Church (and orthodox Jewish church, and others) bases its discrimination on religious grounds.

I agree with that, Adam. I think you misread my post.
 
I disagree. The Catholic Church (and orthodox Jewish church, and others) bases its discrimination on religious grounds.


It does not matter this is clearly established the Constitution and in the practice of the Courts. As has been stated previously the person bring suit was considered clergy. Moreover, "the Justice Department argued that the same First Amendment analysis should apply to churches as to social clubs. The Court called that argument "hard to square with the text of the First Amendment itself, which gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations. 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."

Ministerial Exception: Courts have held that clergy members generally cannot bring claims under the federal employment discrimination laws, including Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Equal Pay Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. This “ministerial exception” comes not from the text of the statutes, but from the First Amendment principle that governmental regulation of church administration, including the appointment of clergy, impedes the free exercise of religion and constitutes impermissible government entanglement with church authority. The exception applies only to employees who perform essentially religious functions, namely those whose primary duties consist of engaging in church governance, supervising a religious order, or conducting religious ritual, worship, or instruction. Some courts have made an exception for harassment claims where they concluded that analysis of the case would not implicate these constitutional constraints.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - Religious Discrimination in the Workplace
 
Last edited:
I say keep the government out of my churches!

The true meaning of "separation of church and state."

The churches should be exempt from all laws then?
 

I see nothing wrong with this.Not all job discrimination is bad.If I go to a strip joint or hooters restaurant I do not I do not want to see women there that look like they could be cover girl for national geographic at the strip joint or flat chested chicks or dudes serving me chicken wings and a ice cold beer at Hooters restaurant. Just like I am sure women do not ever want to see Michael Moore working at a Chip and Dales as a dancer.
 
Last edited:
I see nothing wrong with this.Not all job discrimination is bad.If I go to a strip joint or hooters restaurant I do not I do not want to see women there that look like they could be cover girl for national geographic at the strip joint or flat chested chicks or dudes serving me chicken wings and a ice cold beer at Hooters restaurant. Just like I am sure women do not ever want to see Michael Moore working at a Chip and Dales as a dancer.

What does a disability have to do with teaching a class in a church though?

What you're describing is already an exemption in the law - it's called a bona fide occupational qualification. But that didn't exist in this case.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom