Supreme Court: Churches need not follow anti-discrimination laws

[memphis]

Horrible Court
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-discrimination-laws-do-not-protect-certain-employees-of-religious-groups/2012/01/11/gIQAIbO4qP_story.html

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Horrible Court
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-discrimination-laws-do-not-protect-certain-employees-of-religious-groups/2012/01/11/gIQAIbO4qP_story.html

Good decision. The fact she took her dispute outside the church violated the church's policy. Do I think the church was a bit harsh, yes it was a medical situation and more compassion should have been shown her given the situation but also the church had certain polices in place that were violated by her taking it outside.

[I'm JewCon in name only.]

Horrible Court
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-discrimination-laws-do-not-protect-certain-employees-of-religious-groups/2012/01/11/gIQAIbO4qP_story.html

Good decision. The fact she took her dispute outside the church violated the church's policy. Do I think the church was a bit harsh, yes it was a medical situation and more compassion should have been shown her given the situation but also the church had certain polices in place that were violated by her taking it outside.

This ^^^^

[TJ in Oregon]

The underlying concept behind the desicion was very important: that religious institutions get to decide for themselves who should be hired to fill roles relating to the practice of religion. For instance the Catholic Church needs to be allowed to engage in religious discrimination when it hires a priest (that ought to go without saying, but it doesn't anymore). Likewise, religious institutions must also be permitted to discriminate based on actions that go contrary to their teachings. Without these safegaurds, there can be no free practice of religion since the government would have the power to control hiring practices.

In this case, the plaintiff is someone who really got screwed over by the LCMS since her firing had nothing to do with the free practice of religion. But the Supreme Court's also has to take into consideration how their ruling might be applied in other cases in the future and in that context I think the decision was the right one. I was a bit surprised to see it 9-0 though. I guess no one would want to go down as opposing the freedom of religious institutions to hire whoever they want.

Edit: BRTD is correct it was the LCMS not the ELCA. Those Protestant denominations' names all sound the same

[RI]

I could understand allowing discrimination by religious organizations on religious grounds, but allowing discrimination solely on account of disability seems a bit much to me.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

In this case, the plaintiff is someone who really got screwed over by the ELCA since her firing had nothing to do with the free practice of religion.

This was NOT an ELCA school. It was a Missouri Synod school that just happened to use the words "Evangelical Lutheran" in their name. I'd be pretty disappointed if this was an ELCA school to say the least even though the decision has some reasoning behind it, not as much in this case though.

[BigSkyBob]

The Constitution does not permit the government to regulate religion in any manner whatsoever.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Separation of church and state is supposed to be a two way street.  We're always so busy fighting the fundies who want their narrow view of Christianity forced down our throats... that we often forget it goes the other way.  Without separation of church and state, churches can begin to be taxed and regulated... and laws they don't like, like anti-discrimination laws... are applied to them.

I applaud this decision.  The government has no business in the church just as the church should stay the hell out of government.

[J. J.]

As someone covered by ADA, I agree with this decision.  This was clearly a ministry position, a religious one.

[John Dibble]

...though I wonder (having not read the ruling) if their ruling applies to choosing members as well as leaders.

That's already been established in precedent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[lowtech redneck]

Good decision, and I'm pleasantly surprised that it was 9-0.

I'm also surprised that I AM surprised at the Obama administration's opposition to it; I was never a fan to say the least, but even I thought he at least respected the religious freedom aspects of the First Amendment.

[John Dibble]

That's already been established in precedent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale

You must be logged in to read this quote.

that was a 5-4 decision...so the SCOTUS is just one vote away to forcing private clubs to accept homosexuals?  wonder if that would include churches.

Part of the dissenting side's argument seems to be based on them not finding anything in the BSA's founding principles being against homosexuality, so I imagine that would factor in since the Bible has some passages against homosexuality that could be considered 'founding principles' in a sense. Also, there's the addition of the church/state separation factor would probably have made an exception for churches anyways even if the decision had swung the other way.

[Dr. Cynic]

Separation of church and state is supposed to be a two way street.  We're always so busy fighting the fundies who want their narrow view of Christianity forced down our throats... that we often forget it goes the other way.  Without separation of church and state, churches can begin to be taxed and regulated... and laws they don't like, like anti-discrimination laws... are applied to them.

I applaud this decision.  The government has no business in the church just as the church should stay the hell out of government.

Then churches better shut the hell up about whether or not members of a congregation can support say abortion or gay marriage or not, or like the church I attended did, outright endorse a candidate for President. Like you say, it's a two way street.

[memphis]

Separation of church and state is supposed to be a two way street.  We're always so busy fighting the fundies who want their narrow view of Christianity forced down our throats... that we often forget it goes the other way.  Without separation of church and state, churches can begin to be taxed and regulated... and laws they don't like, like anti-discrimination laws... are applied to them.

I applaud this decision.  The government has no business in the church just as the church should stay the hell out of government.

Then churches better shut the hell up about whether or not members of a congregation can support say abortion or gay marriage or not, or like the church I attended did, outright endorse a candidate for President. Like you say, it's a two way street.

If true, yolu should have reported them to the IRS, or even CNN. That'd be big news.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Part of the dissenting side's argument seems to be based on them not finding anything in the BSA's founding principles being against homosexuality, so I imagine that would factor in since the Bible has some passages against homosexuality that could be considered 'founding principles' in a sense. Also, there's the addition of the church/state separation factor would probably have made an exception for churches anyways even if the decision had swung the other way.

so, if the BSA had been founded specifically as a Christian organization (it currently caters to many different religions), then the ruling would have been 9-0?

[John Dibble]

Part of the dissenting side's argument seems to be based on them not finding anything in the BSA's founding principles being against homosexuality, so I imagine that would factor in since the Bible has some passages against homosexuality that could be considered 'founding principles' in a sense. Also, there's the addition of the church/state separation factor would probably have made an exception for churches anyways even if the decision had swung the other way.

so, if the BSA had been founded specifically as a Christian organization (it currently caters to many different religions), then the ruling would have been 9-0?

Possibly, or at least it may not have been as close, depending on how the wording of the founding principles might have been different based on that, though I doubt the organization would have been considered a church so it's hard to say for sure. Also keep in mind a couple of the judges have been replaced since 2000, so if that case was held today the results would likely be somewhat different.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

The government has no business telling churches who to "hire", good decision.

Of course religion and it's institutions inherently suck... so anything that exposes them as the intolerant douchebags that they are is all gravy in my book.