"This Is News from WORLD Magazine": Afghan war end date set, NAACP comes out for gay marriage - black pastors push back 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Supreme Court unanimously protects church hiring decisions
WASHINGTON—In one of the clearest rulings for religious freedom in years, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided that courts may not intervene in church hiring decisions, protecting the “ministerial exception” that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sought to eliminate in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC.
“[T]he authority to select and control who will minister to the faithful is the church’s alone,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the court’s opinion. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Elena Kagan wrote separate concurring opinions that said the ministerial exception should be even broader than Roberts allowed in his opinion.
“It was a strong rebuke to the extreme position taken by the Obama administration,” said Luke Goodrich of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, who served as counsel to the church in the case. “One of the biggest things is it’s unanimously decided, which nobody was predicting and is a really big deal. … It’s a great day for religious liberty.” … MORE >>
back to top26 Comments to “Supreme Court unanimously protects church hiring decisions”
The left is not going to be happy.
Report comment to moderator
“It was a strong rebuke to the extreme position taken by the Obama administration,”
We clearly need a new and different administration leading the executive branch of our gov’t.
Report comment to moderator
Unanimous? Wow. FYI this was about a Teaching position in a Lutheran School. The teacher threatened to sue the Church rather than use the established resolution process. Ultimately she was let go.
Report comment to moderator
All they did was reaffirm the ministerial exception — they have said they cannot get involved in religion. The 6th Circuit got bench slapped. Hooray!
It was a unanimous decision, though it had separate concurrences. Imagine — Alito and Kagan agreeing on something, she joined his concurrence. Gotta read that one!
Report comment to moderator
Boy, has anybody read the facts of this case? Hardly a victory for the “Christian spirit”.
The lady got sick, was out for four months, then they wouldn’t take her back that year and when she said she would go to see a lawyer they fired her for insubordination.
Good Christian folks, those.
Report comment to moderator
NJL: All they did was reaffirm the ministerial exception — they have said they cannot get involved in religion. Yep, the David Koreshes and Osama bin Ladens of the world are free to go on about their business as long as it is in the name of some deity.
Report comment to moderator
Boy, have all the justices really read all the facts of the case? “Lets wait for the horrors!”
Report comment to moderator
So is the RCC, the Baptists, etc., etc. I’m not prepared to destroy the First Amendment because of the few wackos. Congress shall make no law, kiddo. Remember?
Report comment to moderator
Remembered, confirmed and affirmed. Amen.
Report comment to moderator
ARCADIA wrote, Yep, the David Koreshes and Osama bin Ladens of the world are free to go on about their business as long as it is in the name of some deity.”
Huh? Strange comment. Last time I checked, neither David Koresh or Osama bin Laden are not going about any business these days. Besides, they broke laws and defied the rights of others. Dealing with them had nothing to do with the names of dieties, but with the fact that they violated the legal and essential rights of others.
Report comment to moderator
As to Arcadia’s comments…
I wonder what would have been the outcome had she pursued the church’s tribunal. I would like to read some historical cases of such tribunals. I know that God mandated them. I pray they work. But Arcadia is a prime example of the fallen world not understanding Christians that can’t solve their legal problems amongst ourselves. This case did not need to go public.
I do, however, rejoice that the Supremes got it right.
Report comment to moderator
Look, they don’t like free speech, they don’t like the religion clauses, soon they’ll want to control the press (oh, they already do!). The only one Arcadia seems to have embraced is the freedom to petition the govt. to redress grievances. Just observin’.
Report comment to moderator
If we’re talking about a privately operated school functioning under the aegis of any denomination or creed, perhaps the court felt it best to err on the side of caution. Part of me says if it is non-ministerial work (ie bus driver, custodian or football coach) whether or not the employee accepts and endorses the doctrine of the church should not matter.
But let’s be honest here and take off the blinders. This has to do with forcing Biblically-based organizations for the most part to hire homosexuals. Sex offenders are routinely outted and exposed as bus drivers, band or choir directors. I suppose if you were a homo or hetero pedophile you might leap at the chance to trod the hallways and enter the gym dressing rooms or bathrooms where innocent victims are likely to be found.
Hanging over this entire case is the figure of Coach Sandusky.
Report comment to moderator
A teacher in a Christian school has far more influence on whether a child will embrace the faith of the Church than the pastor seen once a week from across the nave. If one of the purposes of the school is to lead children into an acceptance and acting-out of this faith, then indeed the teachers instructing the children are ministers of that Church.
Report comment to moderator
The WSJ nails it in their concluding paragraph:
“Hosanna-Tabor is an important reminder that the core religious freedoms guarded by the First Amendment were not to protect the public from religion, but to protect religion from government. The case is arguably among the most important religious liberty cases in a half century, and the concurrence of Justices across the ideological spectrum will be felt for years. Hallelujah.”
Right on – it is about protecting religious freedom and speech from the government!
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner, those other employees still have contact with, and conversations with, the children; and the children are observing them and probably assuming they are Christians. If a school decides they don’t need to have all their employees be Christians, that is within their right, but it is also within their right to determine all employees need to hold the faith they teach.
Report comment to moderator
Agreed Cheryl. I can’t help but think about kids who may have at one time loved the church and seen it as a happy secure place with folks who cared about them and for them. And all it takes is one staffer/employee with sinister carnal motives to muck it all up forever!
Report comment to moderator
#14 Kathy,
You are quite right. I had a teacher who would tell us “Today I’m giving two tests. One is a test in Algebra. Not everyone can pass it. The other is a test in Honesty. Everyone should be able to pass the honesty test.” As others have noted, being a teacher is being a role model. Teachers and coaches and even the first line supervisors for our troops are always out front, always in the fishbowl etc.
Report comment to moderator
A teacher in a Christian school has far more influence on whether a child will embrace the faith of the Church than the pastor seen once a week from across the nave.
The dispute in this case had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with church doctrine, theology or any other religious subject. The lady developed a disease, was out for 4 months, got a medical clearance and was refused re-employment.
The church’s claim of exemption from the ADA, which applies to all manner of other employers was simply a matter of convenience and niggardly penuriousness on its part.
The lessons learned by the kids; well we can only guess about that. But it certainly had nothing to do with any message from any Lord and Saviour.
Revoking somebody’s call to “ministry” because they got sick and then got better and wanted to go back to work is just plain perverse.
Report comment to moderator
ARCADIA @19 – “Revoking somebody’s call to “ministry” because they got sick and then got better and wanted to go back to work is just plain perverse.”
We all know there is more to it than that.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/12/my-take-huge-win-for-religious-liberty-at-the-supreme-court/
Report comment to moderator
Yes, it does have to do with church doctrine. They want a like-minded person teaching. This person is not a like-minded person.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia: If my memory serves correctly, it also has to do with church doctrine in that this particular denomination requires that its members agree to handle disputes through its internal structure rather than through the courts. This employee violated that agreement.
Report comment to moderator
Not by actually going to an attorney, but by saying she might???? After it certainly seemed to her that they were violating the ADA?
Wow, The German Army would have been proud of the “discipline” of this “church”.
Everybody’s a heretic…
Especially after a church reveals its true nature.
Report comment to moderator
Leo,
Thanks for the link. That posting hit the nail on the head. Arcadia, if you haven’t read it you should. It clearly defines the case.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with #24. Laycock has a good argument. The last thing anyone wants is to give judges and juries the final say in who is and who is not a good minister.
Report comment to moderator
“The dispute in this case had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with church doctrine, theology or any other religious subject. The lady developed a disease, was out for 4 months, got a medical clearance and was refused re-employment. ”
*Because* she refused to abide by the provision she agreed to upon hire, that disputes were to be kept out of the courts. And that is based upon a religious principle.
Arcadia, the problem is that whether or not you think this school acted wisely, and I have my questions about that also, freedom of religion means *just that.* Having the court decide what is, and is not true religious doctrine and practice, is EXACTLY the establishment of religion that you always see everywhere that isn’t happening, only in this case, it would actually BE that.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!