Supreme Court Issues Landmark Ruling for Religious Freedom, page 1

Supreme Court Issues Landmark Ruling for Religious Freedom, page

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times

Topic started on 12-1-2012 @ 04:40 PM by Daedal

I don't know if this is good or not. The ruling doesn't allow religious workers the right to sue for discrimination, somewhat putting religion above anti - descrimination laws and the Civil Right's acts of 1964.

Source / Alternative source

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Religious workers can't sue for job discrimination, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday, saying for the first time that churches - not courts - are the best judges of whether clergy and other religious employees should be fired or hired.

But the high court tempered its decision bolstering the constitutional separation of church and state by refusing to give a detailed description of what constitutes a religious employee, which left an untold number of workers at churches, synagogues and other religious organizations still in limbo over whether government antidiscrimination laws protect them in job bias disputes.

So regardless if you are discriminated against by the ministers or priests, you have no right to pursue legal action, the Church is shielded.

( Same source )

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.

This doesn't seem like a very good idea. I guess now the Church has been authorized to discriminate against whomever they wish, and be protected by the Law to do so.

edit on 12-1-2012 by Daedal because: Spelling

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 04:51 PM by Daedal

There sure have been a lot of decisions being made lately to protect religions...This law was passed after U.N. Resolution 16 / 18 which adopted religious intolerance and anti - discrimination doctrine. Now the Church is protected from claims of discrimination, falls right in line with UN mandate.

Wouldn't this be an assault on Free Speech...

edit on 12-1-2012 by Daedal because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 05:19 PM by brokedown

Of course this is a good idea in the United States.

The Right of Religious Freedom is written in to the Constitution.

The anti discrimination laws are just an act of Congress.

The Constitution always “trumps” any act of Congress.

This is exactly how America should work.

Now, if one finds that the concept of allowing the Church in America to decide who they want as employees, maybe Freedom is not for you.

No one will ever force you to become an employee of the Church, so if you find that you do not care to work under the rules of the Church, don’t even fill out an application, seek employment elsewhere.

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 05:28 PM by Aeons

But .... But .... But ..... I want to see a Baptist Church be taken to the Supreme Court for not allowing an Imam be a preacher!

Or vs. versa.

Come on.

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 05:28 PM by CaticusMaximus

Originally posted by Daedal
I don't know if this is good or not. The ruling doesn't allow religious workers the right to sue for discrimination, somewhat putting religion above anti - descrimination laws and the Civil Right's acts of 1964.

Source / Alternative source

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Religious workers can't sue for job discrimination, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday, saying for the first time that churches - not courts - are the best judges of whether clergy and other religious employees should be fired or hired.

But the high court tempered its decision bolstering the constitutional separation of church and state by refusing to give a detailed description of what constitutes a religious employee, which left an untold number of workers at churches, synagogues and other religious organizations still in limbo over whether government antidiscrimination laws protect them in job bias disputes.

So regardless if you are discriminated against by the ministers or priests, you have no right to pursue legal action, the Church is shielded.

( Same source )

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.

This doesn't seem like a very good idea. I guess now the Church has been authorized to discriminate against whomever they wish, and be protected by the Law to do so.

edit on 12-1-2012 by Daedal because: Spelling

Private organizations should be allowed to hire/fire whoever they please. That is not to say they have the right to abuse employees, blackmail them with firing, etc.

Besides, organizations already do discriminate; if they dont like you for whatever reason, theyll find some BS reason to fire you or say you broke some clause in the 40 page contract of legal mumbo jumbo they made you sign at hiring, putting you in breach of contract.

The only difference here is that now a church can actually come out and say "yeah we just dont like you, deal with it", without getting sued.

edit on 1/12/2012 by CaticusMaximus because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 05:30 PM by Daedal

What is this ruling really about...this might just be an effective measure to keep the LGBT community from reaching within the Church.

Source / Alternative source

Roman Catholic bishops in Illinois have shuttered most of the Catholic Charities affiliates in the state rather than comply with a new requirement that says they must consider same-sex couples as potential foster-care and adoptive parents if they want to receive state money. The charities have served for more than 40 years as a major link in the state’s social service network for poor and neglected children.

Related material:

What is Religious Freedom?

edit on 12-1-2012 by Daedal because: Edit

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 07:39 PM by Southern Guardian

reply to post by Daedal

I don't think a church should be forced to accept any particular person or group of people, these are private religious institutions, organisations, and the should feel free to decide whom they wish to join their organisation or establishment. At the same time though, if people are going to be so quick to defend the church's right and other religious institutions rights in discrimminating people, then that same respect should be given to the rights of people who criticize and speak out. I wrote a thread about a Kentucky church that initially banned an interracial couple from joining their congregation. While I recognized their right to do so, and that their rights should be protected, the responses from the public, the criticism, is well within right as well. Freedom is a two way street, if we're going to respect the rights of one side, we should be consistent in respecting the rights of the other side as well. At the same time as well I don't see how churches should get tax exceptions.

As a private organisation, what they purchase or do should not make them any more special than the average American. If these religious organisation want their rights and privacy protected, they should not expect special treatment from the goverment.

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 07:47 PM by Daedal

reply to post by Southern Guardian

So do you think this will give the church authority to disband any members of their clergy with whom they currently hold refutes with?

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 07:48 PM by blamethegreys

While there is the potential for abuse, the point of the law is to allow churches to release people from their service over religious issues. If you or I were cheating on our wives, it (should) have no bearing on our professional life. However should a minister or church accountant break a moral rule, it DOES specifically affect their employment. As a church employee part of the job description is to be a good member of that faith. Should you fall down publicly it undermines the employer (church) as well as the trust of your customers (congregation).

Because of this, entering into a working agreement with a religious organization is more than a 9-5 contract. The existing laws did not adequately protect the employer in such situations.

edit on 12-1-2012 by blamethegreys because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 07:52 PM by Daedal

reply to post by blamethegreys

How do you think this will this affect homosexuals within the Church clergy?

edit on 12-1-2012 by Daedal because: Edit

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 07:59 PM by BO XIAN

reply to post by Daedal

Evidently you believe that groups who assemble and meet around a common value, goal etc.

do NOT have the right to define themselves according to their own values and goals--RELIGIOUS, OR NOT.

Therefore, let's say that you have founded a group

to meet regularly to crochet afghans for homeless mothers or build cabinets for widows on welfare.

And someone comes along and insists on working for or joining the crochet group and changing it into a snakes-as-pets group. Evidently you think that should be OK.

Or someone coming along and insisting on joining the cabinet making group and changing it into a boat building group for hippies . . . evidently you think that would be cool. The group should be forced to change on the one bloke's demand.

Impressive.

reply posted on 12-1-2012 @ 08:03 PM by Daedal

reply to post by BO XIAN

Where did you come up with that? I didn't say anything about what you just said, I'm merely asking questions, geez, is that okay? I am allowed to try and understand, or is it forbidden.

edit on 12-1-2012 by Daedal because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 13-1-2012 @ 05:33 PM by blamethegreys

Originally posted by Daedal
reply to post by blamethegreys

How do you think this will this affect homosexuals within the Church clergy?

edit on 12-1-2012 by Daedal because: Edit

LOL got your head bit off there didn't ya?!

As to your question, the cold hard fact is that a clergyman is ineffective in his job if he is unrepentantly practicing something he is teaching against from the pulpit. How can he have any credibility, any impact as a teacher of moral principles if he himself doesn't practice what he preaches?

Don't get me wrong though: We are all human, and everyone stumbles and has their own flavor of imperfection. But in the religious arena there are tenets that are of greater importance than others. In religions that oppose homosexuality, it's generally one of those "major" sins, beyond just smoking or drinking or whatnot.

So pretty much if a faith does not condone homosexuality finds out it's clergy-person is gay, that clergy will be released from service. Let me restate this from my other post, accepting employment in a religious organization is more than a 9-5 job. To accept such a job you are inherently accepting a moral contract as well. The new law represents this, and provides the religion fair ground to enforce moral breachs.

Pages: ^^TOP^^