Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 92

Thread: Supreme court sides with church on firing

  1. #31
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Supreme court sides with church on firing

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    And accordingly, I can only respond by saying, gee willikers.
    Another strange response from someone who never returned from lunch.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  2. #32
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Supreme court sides with church on firing

    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    There is no explicit separation of church and state in the Constitution. It only prohibits the Federal government establishing, or promoting, a religion.
    So you oppose this ruling, then, on the grounds that it cited that so-called separation as the basis for the exemption of religious institutions?

  3. #33
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    06-28-17 @ 10:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,909

    Re: Supreme court sides with church on firing

    This aspect of the case was of importance to me regarding the court's decision. I needed so see some reasoning behind this; an expanded perspective as well. I agree with the decision.

    ALITO, J., concurring

    The ministerial exception applies to respondent because,as the Court notes, she played a substantial role in “conveying the Church’s message and carrying out its mission.” Ante, at 17. She taught religion to her students four days a week and took them to chapel on the fifth day. She led them in daily devotional exercises, and led them in prayer three times a day. She also alternated with the other teachers in planning and leading worship services at

    the school chapel, choosing liturgies, hymns, and readings, and composing and delivering a message based on Scripture.
    It makes no difference that respondent also taught secular subjects. While a purely secular teacher would not qualify for the “ministerial” exception, the constitutional protection of religious teachers is not somehow diminished when they take on secular functions in addition to their religious ones. What matters is that respondent played an important role as an instrument of her church’s religious message and as a leader of its worship activities. Because of these important religious functions, Hosanna-Tabor had the right to decide for itself whether respondent was religiously qualified to remain in her office
    .

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf

  4. #34
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme court sides with church on firing

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    Another strange response from someone who never returned from lunch.
    Presumably if we keep trading meaningless sentences you will eventually stumble upon something that might actually pass for an argument.

    Your turn.

  5. #35
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme court sides with church on firing

    Quote Originally Posted by Connery View Post
    This aspect of the case was of importance to me regarding the court's decision. I needed so see some reasoning behind this; an expanded perspective as well. I agree with the decision.

    .

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf
    I would support the decision if the firing had something to do with the woman's ministerial duties. That would clearly be protected activity. But as far as I can tell the firing had nothing to do with that. The church ****canned her because she got sick, and then threatened to sue over her firing. Maybe there are facts that I'm missing, but it appears that the church's decision had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the woman was "religiously qualified".

  6. #36
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Supreme court sides with church on firing

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Presumably if we keep trading meaningless sentences you will eventually stumble upon something that might actually pass for an argument.

    Your turn.
    Nah, no argument. I was simply stating your post is out to lunch, makes no sense, and is irrelevant to the debate. Nothing meaningless about that.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  7. #37
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme court sides with church on firing

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    Nah, no argument. I was simply stating your post is out to lunch, makes no sense, and is irrelevant to the debate. Nothing meaningless about that.
    Yeah, it is pretty much meaningless unless you back it up with some kind of argument.

  8. #38
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Supreme court sides with church on firing

    Did anyone not notice the medical problem she had? Narcolepsy. Yeah, I want a narcoleptic working with my kids. For that matter, even working period. Also, I wouldn't doubt (this is just my opinion) that something else was happening there that resulted in her firing. Maybe, maybe not. Just adding to the debate.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  9. #39
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme court sides with church on firing

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    Did anyone not notice the medical problem she had? Narcolepsy. Yeah, I want a narcoleptic working with my kids. For that matter, even working period. Also, I wouldn't doubt (this is just my opinion) that something else was happening there that resulted in her firing. Maybe, maybe not. Just adding to the debate.
    Or rather, just adding nothing of value to the debate.

  10. #40
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    06-28-17 @ 10:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,909

    Re: Supreme court sides with church on firing

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    I would support the decision if the firing had something to do with the woman's ministerial duties. That would clearly be protected activity. But as far as I can tell the firing had nothing to do with that. The church ****canned her because she got sick, and then threatened to sue over her firing. Maybe there are facts that I'm missing, but it appears that the church's decision had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the woman was "religiously qualified".
    It is my understanding that an employer can terminate someone for any reason or no reason as long as it is not discriminatory. However, here there is a more narrow window such as the "ministerial” exception. She should could have chosen to "teach" religion at a secular institution hence she would not have the "ministerial” exception hurdle to overcome.

Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •