Court: Judges cannot get involved in church dispute

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

  1. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    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
     
  2. Ruiz

    Ruiz
    Expand Collapse
    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.
     
  3. Walter

    Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,285
    Likes Received:
    2
    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.
     
  4. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  5. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,129
    Likes Received:
    221
    I contend that an employer should be able to fire any person for any reason
     
  6. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    >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.
     
  7. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    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.
     
  8. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    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?
     
  9. Oldtimer

    Oldtimer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,934
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  10. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,129
    Likes Received:
    221
    not totally correct -

    there are some categories you cannot legally fire someone

    For example, a pregnant women, race, ect....
     
  11. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    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>.

    That is why union contracts also have protections for employers . . . but you knew that.
     

Share This Page

Loading...