• 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 unanimous decision was a huge slap in the face to the Obama administration and the EEOC.

Really? You think this was a high priority for the administration?

I wonder if the Court would take the same approach to criminal rape and child abuse laws?
 
Really? You think this was a high priority for the administration?

I wonder if the Court would take the same approach to criminal rape and child abuse laws?
Just to be clear, you're saying that you wonder if the SCOTUS would consider rape and child abuse in the same light as this ruling?
 
Just to be clear, you're saying that you wonder if the SCOTUS would consider rape and child abuse in the same light as this ruling?

Yes. Based on the story (haven't seen the opinion) it seems like the same reasoning would apply.
 
Yes. Based on the story (haven't seen the opinion) it seems like the same reasoning would apply.

That's one of the more bizarre comments I've ever seen.... even for you.
 
I wonder if the Court would take the same approach to criminal rape and child abuse laws?

I don't think so. However, one interpretation of this could lead to say a religious teacher getting fired because they turned in another religious teacher for rape or child abuse which made the school look bad.
 

Makes sense to me. Separation of Church and state works in two directions.

I wonder how many people who support the 10 commandments being posted in courthouses would support this decision, though, since many of them make the claim that there is no such thing as separation of church and state in the constitution.

Seems to me that anti-discrimination laws applying to religious institutions wouldn't violate the first amendment as it is written in cases like this one (which had nothing to do with the free exercise of religion). Only the concept of separation of church and state would have the effect of allowing such a decision.
 
That's one of the more bizarre comments I've ever seen.... even for you.

Bizarre? It seems perfectly logical to me.

It was, nevertheless, the first time the high court has acknowledged the existence of a so-called "ministerial exception" to anti-discrimination laws - a doctrine developed in lower court rulings. This doctrine says the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion shields churches and their operations from the reach of such protective laws when the issue involves religious employees of these institutions.

If the law cannot reach ministerial employees on constitutional grounds, what is the basis for arguing that law can reach ministerial employees?
 
Bizarre? It seems perfectly logical to me.



If the law cannot reach ministerial employees on constitutional grounds, what is the basis for arguing that law can reach ministerial employees?

Want to borrow a shovel to dig that hole deeper. This is as bizarre as your absurd attacks on Santorum. Based on your posts in these two threads, I'm not surprised you think it's "perfectly logical".

Here's a hint: Criminal rape and child abuse are criminal acts. Firing someone from their job is NOT.
 
Bizarre? It seems perfectly logical to me.



If the law cannot reach ministerial employees on constitutional grounds, what is the basis for arguing that law can reach ministerial employees?

I think there is a difference between civil law and criminal law.
 
Makes sense to me. Separation of Church and state works in two directions.

I wonder how many people who support the 10 commandments being posted in courthouses would support this decision, though, since many of them make the claim that there is no such thing as separation of church and state in the constitution.

Seems to me that anti-discrimination laws applying to religious institutions wouldn't violate the first amendment as it is written in cases like this one (which had nothing to do with the free exercise of religion). Only the concept of separation of church and state would have the effect of allowing such a decision.

There is no explicit separation of church and state in the Constitution. It only prohibits the Federal government establishing, or promoting, a religion.
 
the plaintiff sued the employer because she was not permitted to work due to a medical condition beyond her control
the SC ruling opened the doors to religious organizations to deprive their employees of the protection afforded under EEOC law not to be terminated because of their medical disability
it effectively expands the right-to-work provisions for the narrow religious employment sector, to now tolerate terminations only because the employee became ill
while i do not believe this was the objective of the ruling
it is the unintentional outcome
 
I think there is a difference between civil law and criminal law.

A law either infringes on a constitutional right or it doesn't. But yeah, the constitutional strict scrutiny test does take into consideration the strength of the government's interest versus the importance of the right.
 
I'll be curious to know how many of those who cry out against "sharia law" -- which could only be implemented in America as a system of civil arbitration to which all parties agreed to be bound, and which could not violate anybody's basic human rights -- think that this is okay.

No doubt the irony will be missed by a country mile.
 
I'll be curious to know how many of those who cry out against "sharia law" -- which could only be implemented in America as a system of civil arbitration to which all parties agreed to be bound, and which could not violate anybody's basic human rights --

Actually, it violates basic tenets in regards to equal treatment before the law.

I guess what you don't know can't hurt you, though, huh?
 
Actually, it violates basic tenets in regards to equal treatment before the law.

I guess what you don't know can't hurt you, though, huh?

No, it doesn't. If you are an adult and you agree of your own free will to have a civil dispute settled according to a particular set of rules by a particular arbitrator, your rights have not been violated.
 
Actually, it violates basic tenets in regards to equal treatment before the law.

I guess what you don't know can't hurt you, though, huh?

No, no it doesn't. Disagreements are settled by arbitration all the time in this country...either as part of a contract's provisions or by mutual agreement. We most often hear about it as it relates to settling labor contract disputes.
 
No, it doesn't. If you are an adult and you agree of your own free will to have a civil dispute settled according to a particular set of rules by a particular arbitrator, your rights have not been violated.
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
 
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

That would depend entirely on whether or not they'd signed an agreement requiring settlement in a particular fashion. If not, they're free to insist on a courtroom with a judge.
 
Yes. Based on the story (haven't seen the opinion) it seems like the same reasoning would apply.

They've stated that (when the question was asked) technically someone could be fired for reporting a child abuse case by the church so there's no whistleblower protection. A church would still open for criminal proceedings though.
 
Back
Top Bottom