- Joined
- Nov 30, 2011
- Messages
- 5,586
- Reaction score
- 2,420
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
This unanimous decision was a huge slap in the face to the Obama administration and the EEOC.
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?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?
Yes. Based on the story (haven't seen the opinion) it seems like the same reasoning would apply.
I wonder if the Court would take the same approach to criminal rape and child abuse laws?
That's one of the more bizarre comments I've ever seen.... even for you.
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.
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?
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?
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.
I think there is a difference between civil law and criminal law.
Yes. Based on the story (haven't seen the opinion) it seems like the same reasoning would apply.
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?
i think i see your pointNo, 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
Yes. Based on the story (haven't seen the opinion) it seems like the same reasoning would apply.
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.