News: Supreme Court Backs Church in Landmark Religious Liberty Case

[KC's wifey]

Supreme Court Backs Church in Landmark Religious Liberty Case

I understand that this gives potential for truly unfair situations, but I am still glad the court ruled this way. It would have had an immensely detrimental effect on religious freedom if they had voted the other way.

[Cosmosmom]

Hmmm, I disagree with the ruling. I agreed with it until I found out why she was fired. If the firing was about doctrine or beliefs or teaching, fine. But that was not why she was fired. It sounds like she was fired over a health issue and they just didn't want to deal.

[KC's wifey]

Right. And I'm not sure I agree with the church's handling on her specific situation either. However, the court had to take into consideration how their ruling would affect the bigger picture. If they had ruled in her favor, it would have significantly extinguished religious rights to hire and fire according to a church's beliefs and needs. The separation of church and state, as stated in the ruling, makes it clear that church is not under the same restrictions for employment as the state.

[Cosmosmom]

Right. And I'm not sure I agree with the church's handling on her specific situation either. However, the court had to take into consideration how their ruling would affect the bigger picture. If they had ruled in her favor, it would have significantly extinguished religious rights to hire and fire according to a church's beliefs and needs. The separation of church and state, as stated in the ruling, makes it clear that church is not under the same restrictions for employment as the state.

Except a LOT of private employers are not state and yet still have to abide by certain discrimination laws. I think that the court could have easily said that this case is about health and disablility and all employers have to follow those laws. That would not have opened a can of worms about what the church could do with its teachings and leadership as far as employment.

[KC's wifey]

Except a LOT of private employers are not state and yet still have to abide by certain discrimination laws. I think that the court could have easily said that this case is about health and disablility and all employers have to follow those laws. That would not have opened a can of worms about what the church could do with its teachings and leadership as far as employment.

When I say "state" I mean under government control when it comes to employment discrimination laws, which all private employers are. Its not just about teachings, its about how much control the government has in religion. Our country is set up to have a government that is free from a ruling religion, and to have religion free from government intrusion. If the government can make decisions about who a church employs and why, that effectively gives government a strong element of control that they were never meant to have.

As one of the justices said "The Establishment Clause prevents the government from appointing ministers,” Roberts said, and the “Free Exercise Clause prevents it from interfering with the freedom of religious groups to select their own. ”

[Cosmosmom]

As one of the justices said "The Establishment Clause prevents the government from appointing ministers,” Roberts said, and the “Free Exercise Clause prevents it from interfering with the freedom of religious groups to select their own. ”

Which is fine and I agree with it. Except when they pick someone and than ditch her because she has a health issue. not a teaching or doctrine issue. She was someone they selected.

course they will have to sleep at night knowing that they fired someone for being sick. Even I know that Jesus was into helping the sick and that it sounds like something he wouldn't have approved of.

[DucksLikeRain]

I think as long as a church is EMPLOYING people (ie-paying/compensating them) they should be fully culpable for any and all employment laws including the Disability act and any other discrimination laws. This woman was EMPLOYED by a religious institution. The religious institution's religious aspects should be protected under church and state but I do NOT agree with them being able to get around being discriminatory for something that was deemed a disability. If she had been appointed as a lay-clergy, that seems like something that the government shouldn't be able to get involved in. But as soon as you start compensating someone you have GOT to be held to the same standards as any other business.

[KC's wifey]

Then they would also have to abide by all the discrimination laws that would prevent a religious institution from hiring or firing people based on other things that conflict with their beliefs. I see it easily snowballing. I know it means that there will be abuses, but I think it is better to keep it completely separate than muddy the waters when it comes to separation of church and state.

Jennifer - You are right in that they will have God to answer to as far as how they apply their freedom.

[AbbeysMom]

Wow, they fired a women for a physical disability and there is no recourse? That's pathetic.

[KC's wifey]

Regardless of whether or not this specific church was "right or wrong" to fire this minister, there are bigger issues at play in the decision. The ruling has a lasting effect on religious organizations' rights to make decisions regarding their own clergy. I am reading the Court Decision and it is a fascinating read! Full of historical and legal context for the ruling.

Hmmm, I disagree with the ruling. I agreed with it until I found out why she was fired. If the firing was about doctrine or beliefs or teaching, fine. But that was not why she was fired. It sounds like she was fired over a health issue and they just didn't want to deal.

This quote is a response to that, even though it actually could be argued as a religious issue, since the Bible talks about resolving Christian disputes internally rather than taking them to secular court. But one of the Judges said,

The EEOC and Perich suggest that Hosanna-Tabor's asserted religious reason for firing Perich—that she violated the Synod's commitment to internal dispute resolution—was pretextual. That suggestion misses the point of the ministerial exception. The purpose of the exception is not to safeguard a church's decision to fire a minister only when it is made for a religious reason. The exception instead ensures that the authority to select and control who will minister to the faithful—a matter "strictly ecclesiastical," Kedroff, 344 U. S., at 119—is the church's alone.4

I don't mean to make this a huge long post, (too late! ) but here are some other quotes that stood out to me from the ruling. I really enjoyed reading it.

The members of a religious group put their faith in the hands of their ministers. Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs. By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group's right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments. According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.
The EEOC and Perich acknowledge that employment discrimination laws would be unconstitutional as applied to religious groups in certain circumstances. They grant, for example, that it would violate the First Amendment for courts to apply such laws to compel the ordination of women by the Catholic Church or by an Orthodox Jewish seminary. According to the EEOC and Perich, religious organizations could successfully defend against employment discrimination claims in those circumstances by invoking the constitutional right to freedom of association—a right "implicit" in the First Amendment.

The First Amendment protects the freedom of religious groups to engage in certain key religious activities, including the conducting of worship services and other religious ceremonies and rituals, as well as the critical process of communicating the faith. Accordingly, religious groups must be free to choose the personnel who are essential to the performance of these functions.
The "ministerial" exception should be tailored to this purpose. It should apply to any "employee" who leads a religious organization, conducts worship services or important religious ceremonies or rituals, or serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith. If a religious group believes that the ability of such an employee to perform these key functions has been compromised, then the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom protects the group's right to remove the employee from his or her position.

Throughout our Nation's history, religious bodies have been the preeminent example of private associations that have "act[ed] as critical buffers between the individual and the power of the State." Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 619 (1984). In a case like the one now before us—where the goal of the civil law in question, the elimination of discrimination against persons with disabilities, is so worthy—it is easy to forget that the autonomy of religious groups, both here in the United States and abroad, has often served as a shield against oppressive civil laws. To safeguard this crucial autonomy, we have long recognized that the Religion Clauses protect a private sphere within which religious bodies are free to govern themselves in accordance with their own beliefs. The Constitution guarantees religious bodies "independence from secular control or manipulation—in short, power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine." Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America, 344 U.S. 94, 116 (1952).