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.
It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.
I'm honestly surprised that the Obama administration held the opposing view. Well not really....
Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
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."
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - Religious Discrimination in the WorkplaceMinisterial 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.
Last edited by Connery; 01-13-12 at 07:33 AM.
Last edited by jamesrage; 01-13-12 at 10:51 AM.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
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 by misterman; 01-13-12 at 11:18 AM.
"Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage