Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit T'omm J'Onzz's column >>

T'OMM J'ONZZ

"the people ... still have [1½] out of 3 branches of the government working for them, and that ain't bad."
Articles Posted: 8  Links Seeded: 90
Member Since: 6/2009  Last Seen: 4/20/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Supreme Court: Judges cannot get involved in church dispute

Seeded on Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:08 PM EST
Read ArticleArticle Source: Yahoo! News
scotus, discrimination, michigan, law, equal-employment-opportunity-commission, courts, us-news, first-amendment, employment, sexual-harassment, redford, u-s-supreme-court, americans-with-disabilities-act
Seeded by T'omm J'Onzz
Advertise | AdChoices

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.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Published to:

  • T'omm J'Onzz's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: Theocratic Life
  • Regions: Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (2)
T'omm J'Onzz

The court's decision will make it virtually impossible for ministers to take on their employers for being fired for complaining about issues like sexual harassment, said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United.

"Clergy who are fired for reasons unrelated to matters of theology — no matter how capricious or venal those reasons may be — have just had the courthouse door slammed in their faces," Lynn said.

But Douglass Laycock, who argued the case for Hosanna-Tabor, called it a "huge win for religious liberty."

uh-huh. would seem more like a huge win for religious carte blanche.

i could support a lot of things on ministerial exception grounds -- First Amendment subjects like speech and religion, maybe Second Amendment if a church doesn't want employees who own guns, smokers, drinkers, and yes, even GLBT; maybe even race and gender -- but i don't know if i could include the ADA in there.

i mean, really; Jesus constantly associated with those who were ill and infirm, so it certainly is hypocritical and contrary to their "Christian" message and calling. i would say 'how far they've drifted in 2000 years,' but i think it's been going on for quite a while.

i think i would have to uphold the 6th DCA ruling, that this is really not a infringement on their freedom of religion. as indicated in the excerpt above, what would now prevent not just sexual harassment, but the rape of a church employee?

    Reply#1 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:20 PM EST
    Future History

    "Clergy who are fired for reasons unrelated to matters of theology — no matter how capricious or venal those reasons may be — have just had the courthouse door slammed in their faces," Lynn said.

    And that is what you get when you make the mistake of choosing religion as your employer. Fairness and rationality are definitively not integral to the makeup of any religion, so why would one expect it to exist anywhere else under the umbrella of religion. I agree with any decision that isolates government from religion and visa versa. Let the publicity of situations like this one serve to stigmatize religion for what it truthfully is.

      Reply#2 - Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:41 AM EST
      Leave a Comment:
      You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
      You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
      (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
      Newsvine Privacy Statement
      As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
      FUN STUFF:
      • Leaderboard |
      • E-Mail Alerts |
      • Top of the Vine |
      • Newsvine Live |
      • Newsvine Archives |
      • The Greenhouse |
      COMPANY STUFF:
      • Code of Honor |
      • Company Info |
      • Contact Us |
      • Jobs |
      • User Agreement |
      • Privacy Policy |
      • About our ads
      LEGAL STUFF:
      • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
      • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
      • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com