• 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

Arbitration is a sham.
i disagree with that
legitimate arbitration by objective arbitrators is an effective path to resolution

what is a sham is the pretense that those who have expressed their willingness to opt for arbitration instead of the court, when such agreement is signed under duress, is a legitimate alternative to having their matter heard before the court
 
i think i see your point

but what of the person who opts to instead want an objective arbitrator who is not bound by a biased set of rules in order to resolve a dispute

is their free will to opt for that objective hearing discounted

Generally, the guidelines for arbitration are set forth prior to a party accepting such as a means to resolve a dispute. Moreover, arbitration usually has a greater latitude regarding the rules of evidence. It is significant that the arbitrators may be a number of individuals that each side picks individually then one or more chosen jointly. This is meant to insure fairness in the process.
 
i disagree with that
legitimate arbitration by objective arbitrators is an effective path to resolution

what is a sham is the pretense that those who have expressed their willingness to opt for arbitration instead of the court, when such agreement is signed under duress, is a legitimate alternative to having their matter heard before the court

You hit on part of why I think it's a sham. The idea that you need a job, and the only way to get that job is to sign an arbitration agreement isn't exactly kosher.

As for the actual arbitration portion. I've read criticism that an arbitrator is paid by the companies so they've found that arbitrators do tend to side with employers much more often. I wouldn't be suprised. I don't think there's collusion but I wouldn't be surpised that if you side with the company more often you have a better chance of being hired by that company.
 
Yes. Based on the story (haven't seen the opinion) it seems like the same reasoning would apply.
Wow. Thats all I can say to that reasoning.
 
And accordingly, I can only respond by saying, gee willikers.
Another strange response from someone who never returned from lunch.
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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".
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

But the whole point of the ministerial exception, as I understand it, is that the government cannot interfere with the church's religious practices. In this case the woman's firing had nothing to do with religion. It was based on her medical decision and the church's decision to hire a replacement.
 
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.

We don't know the severity of the Narcolepsy she had and how it was being controlled. There are treatments that help and will prvent something like that from happening during work time.

Were there other factors? I don't know, but just becuase someone is diagnosed with an illness doesn't automatically disqualify them from working.
 
We don't know the severity of the Narcolepsy she had and how it was being controlled. There are treatments that help and will prvent something like that from happening during work time.

Were there other factors? I don't know, but just becuase someone is diagnosed with an illness doesn't automatically disqualify them from working.
Agree with the last portion. However, like you said, we don't know the severity. I wouldn't want a narco working with my child. Would you? In addition, we don't know what belief this church has about it. Maybe they think narcolepsy is some sort of evidence she wasn't living a Godly life. Maybe someone who is Lutheran on here could provide an opinion on that.
 
But the whole point of the ministerial exception, as I understand it, is that the government cannot interfere with the church's religious practices. In this case the woman's firing had nothing to do with religion. It was based on her medical decision and the church's decision to hire a replacement.

The following is from the opinion I provided previously:

"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"

As an aside, it is hard enough to stay awake during any religious teaching or service the church needed the teacher to fall asleep?...:lol::lol::lol:
 
Last edited:
The following is from the opinion I provided:

"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"

As an aside, it is hard enough to stay awake during any religious teaching or service the church needed the teacher to fall asleep?...:lol::lol::lol:

Yeah, I read it the first time. What I'm saying is that, while she did perform some ministerial duties, the employment matter wasn't related to them.

When I was a kid this situation would have worked itself out. The lady would have gotten tired of scrubbing off her El-Marko mustache every day. :D
 
Yeah, I read it the first time.

It is this very cavalier attitude that has compelled you to ignore the obvious.


What I'm saying is that, while she did perform some ministerial duties, the employment matter wasn't related to them.

When I was a kid this situation would have worked itself out. The lady would have gotten tired of scrubbing off her El-Marko mustache every day. :D

The Court stated that they will not differentiate and split hairs regarding the amount of time spent on her ministerial duties. Moreover, she was hired in her role a a religious educator her title was a "called" teacher in 2000 by a vote of the church's congregation and was hired as a commissioned minister."
 
It is this very cavalier attitude that has compelled you to ignore the obvious.

The Court stated that they will not differentiate and split hairs regarding the amount of time spent on her ministerial duties. Moreover, she was hired in her role a a religious educator her title was a "called" teacher in 2000 by a vote of the church's congregation and was hired as a commissioned minister."

Not sure how else to say this. I don't dispute that she had ministerial duties. Even if that was 100% of her job, she wasn't fired BECAUSE of her ministerial qualifications. She was fired because of a health problem and ensuing employment dispute concerning her leave of absence.
 
Not sure how else to say this. I don't dispute that she had ministerial duties. Even if that was 100% of her job, she wasn't fired BECAUSE of her ministerial qualifications. She was fired because of a health problem and ensuing employment dispute concerning her leave of absence.

this
she had a health problem thru no fault of her own
if she worked anywhere else they could not have terminated her because of her health problem
but because she worked for the church doing some portion of ministerial duties, whether 1% or 100%, it does not matter, she was able to be terminated because she had a medical issue ... again one beyond her control
 
Not sure how else to say this. I don't dispute that she had ministerial duties. Even if that was 100% of her job, she wasn't fired BECAUSE of her ministerial qualifications. She was fired because of a health problem and ensuing employment dispute concerning her leave of absence.


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.
 
Back
Top Bottom