1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Court: Judges cannot get involved in church dispute

Discussion in 'News & Current Events' started by OldRegular, Jan 11, 2012.

Top Posters
  1. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    WASHINGTON (AP) — In a groundbreaking case, the Supreme Court on Wednesday held for the first time that religious employees of a church cannot sue for employment discrimination.

    But the court's unanimous decision in a case from Michigan did not specify the distinction between a secular employee, who can take advantage of the government's protection from discrimination and retaliation, and a religious employee, who can't.

    It was, nevertheless, the first time the high court has acknowledged the existence of a "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 employees of these institutions.

    The case came before the court because the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School of Redford, Mich., on behalf of employee Cheryl Perich, over her firing, which happened after she complained of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

    Writing the court's opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said allowing anti-discrimination lawsuits against religious organizations could end up forcing churches to take religious leaders they no longer want.

    http://news.yahoo.com/court-judges-cannot-involved-church-dispute-152559467.html
     
    #1 OldRegular, Jan 11, 2012
  2. Ruiz

    Ruiz New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for the update! I reported on this months ago, and I believe this is the right decisions. Having read the lower court decision on this situation, it was tremendously flawed. While the church was immoral in how they interacted with the person involved, the issue is clearly a case of religious and ministerial exemption. If it went the other way, churches could be required to keep on staff anyone, including homosexuals.

    Mohler has said this could be the most important religious liberty case in 50 years.
     
    #2 Ruiz, Jan 11, 2012
  3. Walter

    Walter Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    142
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Years ago in San Fransico an Orthodox Presbyterian Church refused to hire a homosexual either music director or organist. John Whithead of the Rutherford Foundation was the churches lawyer and they won hands down. Quite a feat considering the location.
     
    #3 Walter, Jan 13, 2012
  4. billwald

    billwald New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    2
    The right decision IN THIS CASE for the wrong reason. No organization should be required to hire a disabled person if it will bankrupt the organization.
     
    #4 billwald, Jan 13, 2012
  5. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    38,982
    Likes Received:
    2,615
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I contend that an employer should be able to fire any person for any reason
     
    #5 Salty, Jan 13, 2012
  6. billwald

    billwald New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    2
    >I contend that an employer should be able to fire any person for any reason

    That's why I contend people should work to organize scab shops.
     
    #6 billwald, Jan 13, 2012
  7. freeatlast

    freeatlast New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes this was the right decision. However I would point out that it only applies to that situation and ones like it. They left open the possibility of different rulings in other cases.
     
    #7 freeatlast, Jan 13, 2012
  8. targus

    targus New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    But an organization should be forced to keep a union worker who will only do the minimum even if it will bankrupt the organization <g>.

    Did I get the smug grin thing right?
     
    #8 targus, Jan 14, 2012
  9. Oldtimer

    Oldtimer New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,934
    Likes Received:
    2
    Right to work state... wonder how many of the 50 remain "right to work"?

    An employer can fire any person for any reason.
    An employee can quit any job for any reason.
     
    #9 Oldtimer, Jan 14, 2012
  10. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    38,982
    Likes Received:
    2,615
    Faith:
    Baptist
    not totally correct -

    there are some categories you cannot legally fire someone

    For example, a pregnant women, race, ect....
     
    #10 Salty, Jan 14, 2012
  11. billwald

    billwald New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    2
    >But an organization should be forced to keep a union worker who will only do the minimum even if it will bankrupt the organization <g>.

    That is why union contracts also have protections for employers . . . but you knew that.
     
    #11 billwald, Jan 14, 2012
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...