Merged Supreme Court's Newest Religion Case / Ministerial exception upheld

[pgwenthold]

No refusal to resign would be insubordination and appealing to the ADA would violate the tenets of her religion.

Once she has been fired, she is not bound to follow the church's rules for how employees deal with grievances.

How can "refusal to resign" be insubordination?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Once she has been fired, she is not bound to follow the church's rules for how employees deal with grievances.

How can "refusal to resign" be insubordination?

A religious view to abide by church rulings. She disagrees and it becomes a religious dispute.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I believe that ADA makes it more difficult (but not impossible) to fire someone with a disability. I'm guessing that if she had refused to resign, the church would have had to prove that they fired her for a valid reason other than her disability or that her disability prevented her from being able to do her job. Or they would have had to have fired her for violating some other tenet of the church.



But you're putting the cart ahead of the horse again. If she hadn't mentioned suing them, but had refused to resign, and they had fired her for some other reason (other than violating a tenet of the church), she could then have sued them and possibly won damages.

-Bri

And why wouldn't suing also violate the tenets and so justify her firing? That seem so remarkably stupid. I know religion is involved so I have to expect stupidity but that seems remarkably dumb.

 

[cwalner]

I think that this may be a short term gain for some churches, but a long term loss. Any church that abuses this ruling too aggressively will eventually have a hard time finding ministers.

 

[Bri]

And why wouldn't suing also violate the tenets and so justify her firing? That seem so remarkably stupid. I know religion is involved so I have to expect stupidity but that seems remarkably dumb.

It's a chicken-and-egg thing. Sure, suing would likely violate the tenets of the church, but in general you have to be fired before you can sue for being fired.

-Bri

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think that this may be a short term gain for some churches, but a long term loss. Any church that abuses this ruling too aggressively will eventually have a hard time finding ministers.

Depends on unemployment numbers.

 

[cwalner]

Depends on unemployment numbers.

Which is why it will be a short term gain. However, any employer that uses the weak economy to abuse its employees will have a much harder time getting good talent when it improves, and that is where the long term comes in, because it will recover eventually.

 

[applecorped]

Supreme Court Unanimous - Ministerial Exception Upheld

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...gious-workers-cant-sue-for-job-discrimination

"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. "The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important," Chief Justice John Roberts said in a unanimous opinion. "But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith and carry out their mission."


Do you agree or disagree with the court's ruling in this case?

 

[ponderingturtle]

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...gious-workers-cant-sue-for-job-discrimination

"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. "The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important," Chief Justice John Roberts said in a unanimous opinion. "But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith and carry out their mission."


Do you agree or disagree with the court's ruling in this case?

There is a long discussion on this already.

 

[Weak Kitten]

Separation of Church and State does go both ways. We may not like a religious group refusing to employ people because of their race but unless they accept government funds (such as a soup kitchen or social aid program) or are actively harming someone there isn't a lot that the government can do. The First Amendment also covers discrimination based on religion and lets face it, it would be silly to insist that a religious group cannot hire based on the candidate's religion.

 

[applecorped]

There is a long discussion on this already.

That was on the case. This is on the ruling.

 

[crimresearch]

That was on the case. This is on the ruling.

No, the ruling was well covered in the old thread.

It was unanimous, it cleared up apparently conflicting interpretations between two lower courts, it cited statute and precedent, and people have differing opinions in spite of all that.

 

[Beerina]

I agree that a church has a right to fire a minister that violates the rules on how a minister should act. I just don't see how a non-religious dispute falls under those rules. Were there "established" rules in this church regarding law suits? What is to now stop any church from avoiding employment discrimination laws by claiming anything a minister does that they don't like falls under church rules? The bible has prohibitions against just about everything.

She didn't turn the other cheek, so was fired.

What's the problem people have?