From Rick Garnett, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame:
Today, the Supreme Court agreed to hear (what I think is) the most important religious-freedom case in 20 years. The Supreme Court this morning granted cert in Hosanna Tabor Church v. EEOC. (More here, at the Religion Clause blog.)
The case does not involve what’s become the usual stuff of the Court’s church-state caselaw: prayer at football games, war-memorial crosses in the desert, manger scenes and Ten Commandments monuments in public parks. Nevertheless, again, this case is huge, and it is about, at its heart, what really matters.
The question in the case is whether antidiscrimination laws – like, for example, the Americans with Disabilities Act – allow courts to review hiring-and-firing decisions involving “ministerial employees.” In this particular case, a lower federal court had ruled that parochial-school teachers who teach primarily secular subjects are not “ministerial employees”, and therefore are covered by the Act.
March 28th, 2011 | 1:57 pm
[...] Hat-tip: Joe Carter [...]
March 28th, 2011 | 3:16 pm
“that parochial-school teachers who teach primarily secular subjects”
It is not within the courts purview to decide what is secular and what is profane. In the parochial school where I teach, every subject is a religious subject, because every subject is governed by metaphysical foundations as well as ethical ones. (Not to mention that our understanding of each subject takes place within a context of history, and all history concerns God.) Teach a person about fire without teaching them morality and all you do is create an arsonist.
March 28th, 2011 | 4:29 pm
Just so you know, if SCOTUS doesn’t rule the right way on this, good luck with parochial schools making homosexuality a deal-breaker in hiring.
March 28th, 2011 | 5:08 pm
Is there ever going to be a limit or boundary to what is and is not “discrimination”?
Civil rights have become a parody of themselves. Civil rights law is being used, not to protect equal rights for all citizens, but to discriminate against those who are unfashionably conservative.
March 29th, 2011 | 12:12 am
Do you guys read, or do you just emote based on your paranoia?
Read the case (http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0065p-06.pdf).
Perich was a teacher who got sick and took disability leave. When she wanted to come back to work, she was fired, and she sued, claiming that the school discriminated against her because she was now disabled. The school wants to claim that she can’t sue because the disability act provides an exception for ministerial employees.
There’s nothing about the teacher’s religious beliefs or the school’s religious beliefs. But hey, it’s fun to go off half-cocked and decide the case is another attack on religious freedom just because some lawyer from Notre Dame wants to be a warrior for the faith. Maybe it’s time to start thinking for yourselves.
I especially love the idiocy of “What’s At Stake” who delivers a call-to-arms on a case he knows nothing about. Blake, of course, never bothers.
March 29th, 2011 | 9:03 am
Do you guys read, or do you just emote based on your paranoia?
What a silly thing to say.
It’s not at all paranoid to wonder where “the line” is.
When “enough is enough”.
Obviously some people want to just take and take and take til they’re sated, and it’s beginning to look like they’ll never be sated, like maybe they’re motivated by nothing higher than a mindless hatred of Christianity.
When gays are allowed to deliberately “troll” Christian organizations for the express purpose of being where they know they are not wanted, just so that they can cry the victim when they’re told to leave, that makes a parody of “civil rights”.
Equality would be if we showed you respect and you showed us respect. That’s not what you want, though, is it?
It’s not “paranoid” to ask, given how many secular humanists have said that their motives are mindless rage at the evil Christians. Apparently some people genuinely believe that when Christians are driven from the public square, Utopia will descend and people will all get along – err, “coexist”, I think it’s called.
March 29th, 2011 | 12:35 pm
“It’s not at all paranoid to wonder where “the line” is”
So you didn’t read the case. Not even given the link. The case isn’t about the limits of discrimination. It isn’t an attack on the “unfashionably conservative.” That’s your paranoia talking.
“maybe they’re motivated by nothing higher than a mindless hatred of Christianity”
I can’t have “a mindless hatred of Christianity” since I’m Christian.
“When gays are allowed to deliberately “troll” Christian organizations for the express purpose of being where they know they are not wanted, just so that they can cry the victim when they’re told to leave, that makes a parody of “civil rights””
I’m not gay, but would you even have questioned the article if I hadn’t questioned it? Maybe not, since you can’t be bothered to read the case.
“Equality would be if we showed you respect and you showed us respect.”
Earn my respect. Read and think.
I’m not against Christianity. I am against stupid and lazy. And before you decide someone is gay or a secular humanist, ask.
March 29th, 2011 | 12:50 pm
Lewis, you’re wrong. Perhaps the disabled employee was badly treated, and it certainly sounds like the religious organization for whom she worked behaved disgracefully. But that doesn’t change the legal principle here. If the High Court rules for the plaintiff — with whom I sympathize! — in this case, they implicitly open the door for civil employment claims against a religious organization on anti-discrimination grounds. The consequence may be unintended, but it is still a consequence.
March 29th, 2011 | 2:28 pm
The facts are indeed unattractive in this case (I’ve read it), but so is the appellate court’s reasoning about how to judge whether a position in a religious organization is “ministerial.”
March 29th, 2011 | 5:23 pm
“It’s not at all paranoid to wonder where “the line” is”
So you didn’t read the case. Not even given the link.
I don’t think it’s relevant.
My comment was clearly intended toward the general trend, and this case is absolutely linked to the general trend.
It isn’t an attack on the “unfashionably conservative.”
If you line all these cases up in a row, you will find that there’s a pattern.
Maybe you can’t see patterns. That doesn’t mean they’re not there, and not relevant.
“maybe they’re motivated by nothing higher than a mindless hatred of Christianity”
I can’t have “a mindless hatred of Christianity” since I’m Christian.
If you’re a Christian cut out the name-calling and use reason, instead of ad hominem personal attacks.
I’m not gay, but would you even have questioned the article if I hadn’t questioned it? Maybe not, since you can’t be bothered to read the case.
Sort of like you can’t be bothered to read what I actually expressed concern about, because you’re so hung up on what I should have expressed concern about?
“Equality would be if we showed you respect and you showed us respect.”
Earn my respect. Read and think.
There are two meanings to the word “respect”.
I don’t really care if you have respect for me. I am not all that impressed with what you believe to be “thinking”.
But I was referring to respect in the sense of the general behavior that we extend to each other so that we may all live without unnecessary conflict.
I’m not against Christianity. I am against stupid and lazy. And before you decide someone is gay or a secular humanist, ask.
I didn’t say anything about anyone being gay; I was responding to a previous commenter re: the gay.
If you hate stupid and lazy so much, stop doing it.
March 29th, 2011 | 8:42 pm
Gamesmith94134: Here we go! The Court grants cert. in the ministerial-exception case
I wondered why the supreme Court grant cert in ministerial exception case; and how did Supreme Court cross the fields in its legal stand to the labor law and dump itself in the wetland of the church and State? Did the Justices being too friendly with Vatican or Jerusalem? Therefore, I see the case of Hosanna Tabor Church v. EEOC is moot and it is how we entangled the liberalism of the law.
Mr. Roberts, are you sure you just smoke and did not inhale? Or, Should he ask whether Hosanna Tabor Church violated the labor law or EEOC must make its case under the labor law not secular religious rights? Separation of Church and states is constitutional law and not a toy, but Politician and Minister not included?
Here we go again? It is why I hate lawyers and sell oranges on the street. God bless America. What a waste.
May the Buddha Bless you?
March 30th, 2011 | 1:02 pm
“If the High Court rules for the plaintiff — with whom I sympathize! — in this case, they implicitly open the door for civil employment claims against a religious organization on anti-discrimination grounds. The consequence may be unintended, but it is still a consequence”
Maybe. Or it might prevent religious organizations from exaggerating ministerial exception so to cover for discrimination.
March 30th, 2011 | 1:05 pm
“The facts are indeed unattractive in this case (I’ve read it), but so is the appellate court’s reasoning about how to judge whether a position in a religious organization is “ministerial.”
Then say specifically what’s unattractive about their reasoning. Don’t just feed the “they’re out to get us” meme.
The key to the case is on page 10. Even if Perich falls under the ministerial exception, the school cannot fire her for being disabled.
March 30th, 2011 | 1:11 pm
“My comment was clearly intended toward the general trend, and this case is absolutely linked to the general trend”
How can you know the case fits a trend if you haven’t read the case?
“If you line all these cases up in a row, you will find that there’s a pattern”
The same objection applies (you’re making a pattern out of something you haven’t seen), but in addition, the pattern you’ve identified of attacks on the “unfashionably conservative” is flat wrong. Is firing the disabled a conservative value?
To be clear, the church is NOT alleging that Perich taught anything contrary to the church’s teaching or behaved immorally. They just don’t think they should be sued for firing an employee that became disabled.
What pattern does that fit?
“the general behavior that we extend to each other so that we may all live without unnecessary conflict”
Does that include not stoking ungrounded fears that a legal case is going destroy religious freedom?
Look. The real problem here is that you want to connect dots without bothering to find out whether there actually is a connection.
“I didn’t say anything about anyone being gay; I was responding to a previous commenter re: the gay”
You’re the first person to mention gay on this thread. Make up your mind.
March 31st, 2011 | 12:43 pm
Does that include not stoking ungrounded fears that a legal case is going destroy religious freedom?
I like that word “ungrounded”.
In order to make your case, you have to resort to presuming your case has already been made and accepted.
March 31st, 2011 | 1:05 pm
“In order to make your case, you have to resort to presuming your case has already been made and accepted”
This is hard for you, isn’t it? My argument is grounded because I actually read the case and came to a conclusion. That doesn’t mean my conclusion is correct but at least it isn’t made out of ignorance.
Come to your own conclusions, integrate the case into some malevolent web, but at least read the case. Think for yourself.
To repeat the question you can’t answer because it’s too hard to read a case, the church is NOT alleging that Perich taught anything contrary to the church’s teaching or behaved immorally. They just don’t think they should be sued for firing an employee that became disabled. What pattern does that fit?
April 1st, 2011 | 12:08 am
“In order to make your case, you have to resort to presuming your case has already been made and accepted”
This is hard for you, isn’t it? My argument is grounded because I actually read the case and came to a conclusion.
hahahaha yes, it is hard for me to take your argument seriously, because you’ve used your own conclusion as a premise.
You’ve argued that I’m paranoid because I’m paranoid.
What a clever fellow you are.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact