Supreme Court Recent Religious Freedom Case

[guido911]

The Supreme Court has sided unanimously with a church sued for firing an employee on religious grounds, issuing an opinion on Wednesday that religious employers can keep the government out of hiring and firing decisions.

In the case of Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, Cheryl Perich, a "called" teacher, argued that the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School of Redford, Mich., had discriminated against her under the Americans With Disabilities Act by refusing to reinstate her to her job after she took leave for narcolepsy.

But the high court found that Perich's was properly classified as a "minister," meaning she falls within the "ministerial exemption" from man

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/11/supreme-court-sides-with-church-on-decision-to-fire-employee-on-religious/?intcmp=related#ixzz1jC7YbHUw

This analysis of this decision is quite similar to an Oklahoma opinion re: Oklahoma church/state law.

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?id=15765&hits=

Why did the government go to the mat on this?

[we vs us]

This analysis of this decision is quite similar to an Oklahoma opinion re: Oklahoma church/state law.

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?id=15765&hits=

Why did the government go to the mat on this?

Why shouldn't it?  It seems that it wasn't clear whether the teacher was in fact a "teacher" or a "minister," both of which have specific but separate statuses under employment law.  If the woman was in fact a "teacher," then the EEOC had a responsibility to enforce the law as it's been written -- as, you know, the executive branch is supposed to. The SC made a final ruling putting her in another category ("minister") entirely, and thus limiting the EEOC's influence (and responsibility). 

It also would seem that it's in the government's interest to pursue this case in order to limit the number of "ministers" who teach and increase those who are counted as "teachers" who teach.  This is because -- as the case proves -- "ministers" are exempted from EEOC protection in many ways and thus are more vulnerable to adverse treatment.  Roberts said as much (per the article) by saying that their ruling did not limit other forms of challenges to the status or to recompense for employment related damages.

And so this is controversial (or awful for the Future of the Republic) how?

[guido911]

The govt got smacked 9-0 by the Court.  Seems that the definition of "teacher" and "minister" was clear to these folks. The fact is that this was the EEOC, which is notoriously super busy and the fact they dedicated resources to this issue is quite telling, way overreaching into church business. And before you go all Clavin, I spent a lion share of time working with that agency so I know of what I speak.

[Townsend]

So this means that the faithful can constitutionally trash their own?

Seems like a bunch of deacons' wives at the church social then.

[Teatownclown]

The govt got smacked 9-0 by the Court.  Seems that the definition of "teacher" and "minister" was clear to these folks. The fact is that this was the EEOC, which is notoriously super busy and the fact they dedicated resources to this issue is quite telling, way overreaching into church business. And before you go all Clavin, I spent a lion share of time working with that agency so I know of what I speak.

What about administrators.....secretarial staff and bookkeepers....maintenance workers? Security?

Will this effect hospitals affiliated with the church?

[guido911]

What about administrators.....secretarial staff and bookkeepers....maintenance workers? Security?

Will this effect hospitals affiliated with the church?

In my opinion its limited to religious officials roles in the church, not the workers you stated. Here is an article with some analysis.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/11/supreme-court-delivers-knockout-punch-to-white-house/

[heironymouspasparagus]

The govt got smacked 9-0 by the Court.  Seems that the definition of "teacher" and "minister" was clear to these folks. The fact is that this was the EEOC, which is notoriously super busy and the fact they dedicated resources to this issue is quite telling, way overreaching into church business. And before you go all Clavin, I spent a lion share of time working with that agency so I know of what I speak.

Seems like there are cases where one might want to pursue the point just to get the clarification.  Don't know if this rises to that level of intensity.  Could be just some mid-level bureaucrat looking to make a name for him/her self.

[Conan71]

Seems like there are cases where one might want to pursue the point just to get the clarification.  Don't know if this rises to that level of intensity.  Could be just some mid-level bureaucrat looking to make a name an a$$ for out of him/her self.

[heironymouspasparagus]

That too.

[Townsend]

This may keep some people from joining the clergy to keep their civil rights.

Something else I heard on NPR is this may keep some of the clergy from reporting wrongs done by the church.  This'll make it easier to cover up clergy bad touch.

[we vs us]

The govt got smacked 9-0 by the Court.  Seems that the definition of "teacher" and "minister" was clear to these folks. The fact is that this was the EEOC, which is notoriously super busy and the fact they dedicated resources to this issue is quite telling, way overreaching into church business. And before you go all Clavin, I spent a lion share of time working with that agency so I know of what I speak.

It's not a WWE match. There's nothing punitive here for "losing."  No one loses their job, no one gets 50 lashes, no one gets ridiculed in the public square.  They clarified a point of law which was to what degree the "ministerial exemption" should be applied by the government in a very narrow avenue of employment law.  Yay.  Our divided government functioning exactly as it's supposed to.

As a lawyer, certainly you understand that the SC can choose what cases to take and not to take. Regardless of how slam-dunky it was, they obviously took it to help clarify the law.  Which is what they do.  Which is, as a lawyer, something you should know and hopefully venerate. 

And the "analysis" from Fox News is pure-d horse smile.  The entire article is about trying to link this to Obamacare and in general how godless and socialistic Obama is.  Completely fact free, logic free, and built entirely as propaganda.  I have to say, if that's the kind of crap that Fox is regularly pushing -- and I suspect it is -- our country's in deep doo-doo.

[Townsend]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/12/new-supreme-court-ruling-should-end-hysteria-over-religious-liberty.html

New Supreme Court Ruling Should End Hysteria Over Religious Liberty

If you'd only been listening to the religious right for the past three years, this decision—especially the fact that it was unanimous—would come as a shock. During the 2008 campaign, the political arm of Focus on the Family published a "Letter from 2012," predicting that the Supreme Court under Obama would "set about to quickly expedite cases by which they would enact the full agenda of the far Left." In 2009, the Family Research Council sent out a fundraising letter warning that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would prohibit discrimination in hiring based on sexual orientation, would "impose homosexuality and silence Christianity in workplaces," adding explicitly that the law represented a "radical assault" on the freedom of churches to hire and fire whom they pleased. Conservative Christian groups attacked both justices appointed by Obama, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, as radical leftists eager to exploit laws like ENDA to force conservative believers into submission. In the theoconservative imagination, almost everything the government does to ensure equal rights, especially for LGBT Americans, is a threat to religious liberty. Non-discrimination statutes could force churches or Christian businesses to hire gay employees. Legalized gay marriage could lead to churches being forced to conduct gay weddings. The end of Don't Ask Don't Tell could force chaplains not to preach against homosexuality.

But the Supreme Court's decision in the Hosanna-Tabor case illustrates how overheated this alarmism has been. Most of the laws that potentially pose religious conflicts, like ENDA and New York's gay marriage law, come pre-loaded with broad exemptions that conservatives uniformly and unconvincingly dismiss as insufficient. When internal church matters do make it to the high court, the answer is always the same: churches get to discriminate in ways businesses do not with regard to who they hire and what the people they hire are allowed to say. The court cites a 1952 decision in which it held that churches have "power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine." And all nine justices, including Obama's two "radical leftists," agreed.

[guido911]

This may keep some people from joining the clergy to keep their civil rights.

Something else I heard on NPR is this may keep some of the clergy from reporting wrongs done by the church.  This'll make it easier to cover up clergy bad touch.

That's what you get for listening to NPR. I have been neck deep in clergy abuse cases and I cannot fathom how this ruling will impact any of those cases.

[Townsend]

That's what you get for listening to NPR. I have been neck deep in clergy abuse cases and I cannot fathom how this ruling will impact any of those cases.

Because they may be afraid they'll be fired for turning someone in.

[guido911]

Because they may be afraid they'll be fired for turning someone in.

Non-starter. Believe me.