Gay Teacher fired

[Seawytch]

Once again you demonstrate what it's like posting with you. You chastise me for a point I agreed with you on. Yo do it all the time. It's the affect of having a chip on your shoulder. It's why you have a hard time engaging me and probably a lot of other people. You're a sanctimonious gay extremist, and it kills your ability to convince anyone of anything. Though you do a great job with people who already agree with you...

Do you have any proof that the exemption only applies to management and they can't put it in employment contracts? I haven't seen that.

Yes, it was a SCOTUS case already cited.

Justices Rule Ministers Exempt From Anti-Bias Laws

Ministers are exempt, not anyone else. Churches cannot fire their secretary because she's Muslim, black, a woman, from Iceland, in a wheelchair, etc. They CAN fire her if she's gay.

That article regards the ADA. The discussion is whether they have an exemption for religious issues. Everything you wrote was irrelevant except the red one. And gay is a "religious": issue to the catholic church. You said it only applies to management, I asked for support for that. I never argued churches are exempt from all federal laws. Got a link related to the actual discussion?

They aren't exempt from workplace hiring laws either...except in the case of their clergy. Yes, the Catholic Church does not have to hire women as clergy, but they can't fire the secretary for being Muslim. Get it?

 

[The Rabbi]

I do know. Look at Pope Frank...he's already paving the way. Membership is down here in the good old US of A and one of the primary reasons given is the that organized religion is seen as intolerant.

"Kids these days" still want that old time religion, they just don't like hanging on to the old time bigotries.

Historically, the percentage of Americans who said they had no religious affiliation (pollsters refer to this group as the "nones") has been very small -- hovering between 5 percent and 10 percent.

However, Putnam says the percentage of "nones" has now skyrocketed to between 30 percent and 40 percent among younger Americans.

Putnam calls this a "stunning development." He gave reporters a first glimpse of his data Tuesday at a conference on religion organized by the Pew Forum on Faith in Public Life.[...]
"Many of them are people who would otherwise be in church," Putnam said. "They have the same attitidues and values as people who are in church, but they grew up in a period in which being religious meant being politically conservative, especially on social issues."

Putnam says that in the past two decades, many young people began to view organized religion as a source of "intolerance and rigidity and doctrinaire political views," and therefore stopped going to church.

Young Americans Losing Their Religion

The Pope is not reversing millenia old strictures on homosexuality. Not if he expects to live a long time, or be head of a church. The faggots are none too popular in South America and Africa, which are core constituencies in the church.
Young people seldom have religious ties. However ask how many consider themselves "religious" and the number goes way up.
Wishful thinking on your part. Just lke the 10% meme gays are constantly spouting.

It's really not wishful thinking when I don't give a shit. It is a fact however that the church will adapt or die. People are not going to church as much these days and one of the biggest reasons is their intolerance. The churches don't exist without money and people not attending their bigoted church loses money. That will win out in the end, just watch.

You're posting on it, so obviously you give a shit. Lie #1
The Church will adapt. But its adaptation will not be to accomodate 3% of the Western population. The Church is international and its base is increasingly Africa and South America.
Churches are a source of moral teaching. No one will go to a church that merely echoes the PC crap they can watch on TV for free.

 

[kaz]

Yes, it was a SCOTUS case already cited.

Justices Rule Ministers Exempt From Anti-Bias Laws

Ministers are exempt, not anyone else. Churches cannot fire their secretary because she's Muslim, black, a woman, from Iceland, in a wheelchair, etc. They CAN fire her if she's gay.

That article regards the ADA. The discussion is whether they have an exemption for religious issues. Everything you wrote was irrelevant except the red one. And gay is a "religious": issue to the catholic church. You said it only applies to management, I asked for support for that. I never argued churches are exempt from all federal laws. Got a link related to the actual discussion?

They aren't exempt from workplace hiring laws either...except in the case of their clergy. Yes, the Catholic Church does not have to hire women as clergy, but they can't fire the secretary for being Muslim. Get it?

I asked for a link proving that. Get it? You provided one that argued they are be subject to the ADA, which isn't the point in contention. Get it?

BTW, the fallacy you are committing now is "argument by repetition."

 

[Katzndogz]

The Church did not fire the man for being gay. That would be discrimination. The man was fired for his behavior.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Once again you demonstrate what it's like posting with you. You chastise me for a point I agreed with you on. Yo do it all the time. It's the affect of having a chip on your shoulder. It's why you have a hard time engaging me and probably a lot of other people. You're a sanctimonious gay extremist, and it kills your ability to convince anyone of anything. Though you do a great job with people who already agree with you...

Do you have any proof that the exemption only applies to management and they can't put it in employment contracts? I haven't seen that.

Yes, it was a SCOTUS case already cited.

Justices Rule Ministers Exempt From Anti-Bias Laws

Ministers are exempt, not anyone else. Churches cannot fire their secretary because she's Muslim, black, a woman, from Iceland, in a wheelchair, etc. They CAN fire her if she's gay.

That article regards the ADA. The discussion is whether they have an exemption for religious issues. Everything you wrote was irrelevant except the red one. And gay is a "religious": issue to the catholic church. You said it only applies to management, I asked for support for that. I never argued churches are exempt from all federal laws. Got a link related to the actual discussion?

Sorry Kaz, the question before the court was not an ADA issue. The question was a ministerial issue in that are Churches subject to secular employment law in cases pertaining to ministers.

The case was HOSANNA-TABOR EVAN GELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL, PETITIONER v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ET AL (Caps in the link and I'm to lazy to retype it. ).

"The question presented is whether the Establishment and Free
Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar such an
action when the employer is a religious group and the
employee is one of the group’s ministers. "​

The decision wasn't about ADA, it was about Church ministers not being the same as lay employees.

The interest of society in the enforcement of employ-
ment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important.
But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing
who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry
out their mission. When a minister who has been fired
sues her church alleging that her termination was dis-
riminatory, the First Amendment has struck the balance
for us. The church must be free to choose those who will
guide it on its way.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered​

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf


>>>>

 

[kaz]

Yes, it was a SCOTUS case already cited.

Justices Rule Ministers Exempt From Anti-Bias Laws

Ministers are exempt, not anyone else. Churches cannot fire their secretary because she's Muslim, black, a woman, from Iceland, in a wheelchair, etc. They CAN fire her if she's gay.

That article regards the ADA. The discussion is whether they have an exemption for religious issues. Everything you wrote was irrelevant except the red one. And gay is a "religious": issue to the catholic church. You said it only applies to management, I asked for support for that. I never argued churches are exempt from all federal laws. Got a link related to the actual discussion?

Sorry Kaz, the question before the court was not an ADA issue. The question was a ministerial issue in that are Churches subject to secular employment law in cases pertaining to ministers.

The case was HOSANNA-TABOR EVAN GELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL, PETITIONER v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ET AL (Caps in the link and I'm to lazy to retype it. ).

"The question presented is whether the Establishment and Free
Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar such an
action when the employer is a religious group and the
employee is one of the group’s ministers. "​

The decision wasn't about ADA, it was about Church ministers not being the same as lay employees.

The interest of society in the enforcement of employ-
ment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important.
But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing
who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry
out their mission. When a minister who has been fired
sues her church alleging that her termination was dis-
riminatory, the First Amendment has struck the balance
for us. The church must be free to choose those who will
guide it on its way.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered​

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf


>>>>

I have endlessly read that churches have an exemption for religion. I never have read that that they have an exemption from the entire civil rights bill or other federal regulations.

So seriously, you consider it persuasive that your parsing the words of the decision and extrapolating them to religion makes up for the fact that in the entire Internet you can't find clear documentation that churches can't only hire people who in their view adhere to their own religion?

What I am pointing out is completely consistent with the first amendment, which says congress cannot pass laws restricting freedom of religion. And that is the basis of why government has stayed out of church religions hiring. The first amendment on the other hand does not cover the ada, skin color or other factors, so you not only are word parsing and extrapolating a decision on an entirely different case, your extrapolation isn't consistent with the basis for allowing churches to hire and fire people based on religion, as is protected in the first amendment.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That article regards the ADA. The discussion is whether they have an exemption for religious issues. Everything you wrote was irrelevant except the red one. And gay is a "religious": issue to the catholic church. You said it only applies to management, I asked for support for that. I never argued churches are exempt from all federal laws. Got a link related to the actual discussion?

Sorry Kaz, the question before the court was not an ADA issue. The question was a ministerial issue in that are Churches subject to secular employment law in cases pertaining to ministers.

The case was HOSANNA-TABOR EVAN GELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL, PETITIONER v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ET AL (Caps in the link and I'm to lazy to retype it. ).

"The question presented is whether the Establishment and Free
Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar such an
action when the employer is a religious group and the
employee is one of the group’s ministers. "​

The decision wasn't about ADA, it was about Church ministers not being the same as lay employees.

The interest of society in the enforcement of employ-
ment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important.
But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing
who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry
out their mission. When a minister who has been fired
sues her church alleging that her termination was dis-
riminatory, the First Amendment has struck the balance
for us. The church must be free to choose those who will
guide it on its way.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered​

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf


>>>>

I have endlessly read that churches have an exemption for religion. I never have read that that they have an exemption from the entire civil rights bill or other federal regulations.

So seriously, you consider it persuasive that your parsing the words of the decision and extrapolating them to religion makes up for the fact that in the entire Internet you can't find clear documentation that churches can't only hire people who in their view adhere to their own religion?

What I am pointing out is completely consistent with the first amendment, which says congress cannot pass laws restricting freedom of religion. And that is the basis of why government has stayed out of church religions hiring. The first amendment on the other hand does not cover the ada, skin color or other factors, so you not only are word parsing and extrapolating a decision on an entirely different case, your extrapolation isn't consistent with the basis for allowing churches to hire and fire people based on religion, as is protected in the first amendment.

No, what I'm pointing out is that you said the case was an "ADA" (American with Disabiliities Act) case which is not true. The case before the court, and the issue addressed as noted by the court in both the core question defined and the ruling it made was whether "ministerial" staff were subject to secular employment laws, the court ruled on that very narrow question that (to paraphrase) "No, they are not".

That case DOES NOT say that non-minsterial staff are not subject to general employment law which is what the original poster who brought up the case tired to claim it said.

The Hossanna-Tabor case decision was issued in January 2012, yet just this summer a court found for the claimant in a similar "morals clause" case for wrongful termination.

Personally I don't know if Churches hold the same type of exemption for employment law purposes. They may or may not at the federal level, I can't call or find a case that defines it. They may or may not at the State level because that can very from state-to-state.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jury-fi...ired-after-artificial-insemination-pregnancy/


>>>>

 

[kaz]

Personally I don't know if Churches hold the same type of exemption for employment law purposes. They may or may not at the federal level, I can't call or find a case that defines it. They may or may not at the State level because that can very from state-to-state.

It's a good point on the article, but there's a big problem with it. They didn't argue (according to the article) that it was religious discrimination, they argued that the church was not consistently following their own rules.

Ironically, I'm in the middle of this now. My business is now 4 years old, we've grown and I realized it was time to write our own employee manual instead of using the boilerplate one we used to start out. One point my employment attorney keeps making as we go through the process is not to include any rule that we don't plan to uniformly enforce, because if we don't when we try to apply it, what happened in the article will happen to us.

Maybe there's more if you dig into the case, but the article still doesn't show that churches are restricted in religion based hiring and firing, it only supports that like all businesses they must uniformly enforce their rules.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Personally I don't know if Churches hold the same type of exemption for employment law purposes. They may or may not at the federal level, I can't call or find a case that defines it. They may or may not at the State level because that can very from state-to-state.

It's a good point on the article, but there's a big problem with it. They didn't argue (according to the article) that it was religious discrimination, they argued that the church was not consistently following their own rules.

Ironically, I'm in the middle of this now. My business is now 4 years old, we've grown and I realized it was time to write our own employee manual instead of using the boilerplate one we used to start out. One point my employment attorney keeps making as we go through the process is not to include any rule that we don't plan to uniformly enforce, because if we don't when we try to apply it, what happened in the article will happen to us.

Maybe there's more if you dig into the case, but the article still doesn't show that churches are restricted in religion based hiring and firing, it only supports that like all businesses they must uniformly enforce their rules.

Just FYI, I wasn't referencing the "article", I was basing my individual comments on the actual case and the SCOTUS decision.



>>>>

 

[kaz]

Personally I don't know if Churches hold the same type of exemption for employment law purposes. They may or may not at the federal level, I can't call or find a case that defines it. They may or may not at the State level because that can very from state-to-state.

It's a good point on the article, but there's a big problem with it. They didn't argue (according to the article) that it was religious discrimination, they argued that the church was not consistently following their own rules.

Ironically, I'm in the middle of this now. My business is now 4 years old, we've grown and I realized it was time to write our own employee manual instead of using the boilerplate one we used to start out. One point my employment attorney keeps making as we go through the process is not to include any rule that we don't plan to uniformly enforce, because if we don't when we try to apply it, what happened in the article will happen to us.

Maybe there's more if you dig into the case, but the article still doesn't show that churches are restricted in religion based hiring and firing, it only supports that like all businesses they must uniformly enforce their rules.

Just FYI, I wasn't referencing the "article", I was basing my individual comments on the actual case and the SCOTUS decision.



>>>>

OK, but that doesn't change the point

 

[Harry Dresden]

It is my opinion that Jesus was gay. He was in his 30s and surrounded himself with other men. He was kind to women, but did not pursue marriage or any kind of sexual relationship with them. If that isn't the definition of gay, what is???

Jesus loves me, this I know.

He was celibate for a reason. I believe he was gay, too.

if you go by the Bible Noomi he had a reason for being here.....Fucking wasnt one of them....

 

[Harry Dresden]

They weren't "proclaiming sexual exploits", they just got a marriage license.

The church will change or die, just watch.

i dont know Wytch....its been around for a few thousand years and what saw there are still billions on the planet who follow it....

I do know. Look at Pope Frank...he's already paving the way. Membership is down here in the good old US of A and one of the primary reasons given is the that organized religion is seen as intolerant.

"Kids these days" still want that old time religion, they just don't like hanging on to the old time bigotries.

Historically, the percentage of Americans who said they had no religious affiliation (pollsters refer to this group as the "nones") has been very small -- hovering between 5 percent and 10 percent.

However, Putnam says the percentage of "nones" has now skyrocketed to between 30 percent and 40 percent among younger Americans.

Putnam calls this a "stunning development." He gave reporters a first glimpse of his data Tuesday at a conference on religion organized by the Pew Forum on Faith in Public Life.[...]
"Many of them are people who would otherwise be in church," Putnam said. "They have the same attitidues and values as people who are in church, but they grew up in a period in which being religious meant being politically conservative, especially on social issues."

Putnam says that in the past two decades, many young people began to view organized religion as a source of "intolerance and rigidity and doctrinaire political views," and therefore stopped going to church.

Young Americans Losing Their Religion

we will see.....maybe by 2100 we will have a better idea....

 

[Harry Dresden]

I don't for a moment challenge your right to feel that way but I would be sincerely interested to know whether Jesus expressed - or was ever alleged by a contemporary - to have expressed that thought. If so, under what circumstances?

Jesus would have looked at 2 gay guys and just shook his head and said...."fascinating".....

Jesus would have bitch-slapped you for your ignorance and stupidity. The Bible condemns gay sex as a stoning offense. Jesus said he was not there to replace it and that nothing would change.

sure he would have Rabbi....but yet he let people who hated him beat the holy shit out of him....but he would bitch slap me for that.....Christ had a sense of humor.... im sure if you were around him he would definitely need one for the shit you throw out around here....

 

[longknife]

I have seen some rather disgusting comments on this forum but calling Jesus gay has to be lower than whale excrement.

The bible, especially the New Testament, is a selected compilation of documents translated and then assembled by a group of men seeking to increase their power several hundred years AFTER the events. There are NO records of events written at the time of Jesus' life that have ever come to light - not even Roman documents which were fairly expansive and accurate.

There are no writings about the majority of Jesus' life so we know little more than that his father was a carpenter and so was he. But, to call his "gay" - which is probably the stupidest misnomer in the English language - goes against all customs and moors of the time.

Just another attempt to justify a lifestyle that has been equated with amorality from time immemorial.

 

[Sunni Man]

He was celibate for a reason. I believe he was gay, too.

Come on Noomi.....you are a better person than to make such a low class statement. ....

 

[Destroyer2]

I have seen some rather disgusting comments on this forum but calling Jesus gay has to be lower than whale excrement.

The bible, especially the New Testament, is a selected compilation of documents translated and then assembled by a group of men seeking to increase their power several hundred years AFTER the events. There are NO records of events written at the time of Jesus' life that have ever come to light - not even Roman documents which were fairly expansive and accurate.

There are no writings about the majority of Jesus' life so we know little more than that his father was a carpenter and so was he. But, to call his "gay" - which is probably the stupidest misnomer in the English language - goes against all customs and moors of the time.

Just another attempt to justify a lifestyle that has been equated with amorality from time immemorial.

It really hasn't always been equated with immorality.

It was common in Africa until Christians came along. Wasn't considered immoral.
Native Americans said it gave them "special powers" that enabled them to be a shaman. Definitely wasn't considered immoral.
China had it, Japan celebrated it, Thailand calls it "the third gender" and accepts it. None of the three considered it immoral.
Greece had it, Rome had it until Christianity was a thing. And some parts of Europe even kept practicing it after that. Wasn't considered immoral (EDIT: To clarify, it was considered immoral in those parts of Europe with Christianity, it was still fairly common though).
Assyria and Persia both accepted it, neither considered it immoral. This ended when Islam came along.
There's minor evidence India had the "third gender" thing as well. Evidence not solid enough.
Melanesians (South Pacific islands) actually celebrated homosexuality until -- shock -- Christianity was introduced.

So basically, this statement is bullshit. The only times homosexuality was actually considered immoral was under Judeo-Christian religions (and Judaism itself really never had much influence in terms of law, so really just Christianity and Islam).

 

[Seawytch]

I have seen some rather disgusting comments on this forum but calling Jesus gay has to be lower than whale excrement.

The bible, especially the New Testament, is a selected compilation of documents translated and then assembled by a group of men seeking to increase their power several hundred years AFTER the events. There are NO records of events written at the time of Jesus' life that have ever come to light - not even Roman documents which were fairly expansive and accurate.

There are no writings about the majority of Jesus' life so we know little more than that his father was a carpenter and so was he. But, to call his "gay" - which is probably the stupidest misnomer in the English language - goes against all customs and moors of the time.

Just another attempt to justify a lifestyle that has been equated with amorality from time immemorial.

You don't know if Jesus was gay or straight, nobody does. Does it change his message?

 

[Katzndogz]

I have seen some rather disgusting comments on this forum but calling Jesus gay has to be lower than whale excrement.

The bible, especially the New Testament, is a selected compilation of documents translated and then assembled by a group of men seeking to increase their power several hundred years AFTER the events. There are NO records of events written at the time of Jesus' life that have ever come to light - not even Roman documents which were fairly expansive and accurate.

There are no writings about the majority of Jesus' life so we know little more than that his father was a carpenter and so was he. But, to call his "gay" - which is probably the stupidest misnomer in the English language - goes against all customs and moors of the time.

Just another attempt to justify a lifestyle that has been equated with amorality from time immemorial.

It really hasn't always been equated with immorality.

It was common in Africa until Christians came along. Wasn't considered immoral.
Native Americans said it gave them "special powers" that enabled them to be a shaman. Definitely wasn't considered immoral.
China had it, Japan celebrated it, Thailand calls it "the third gender" and accepts it. None of the three considered it immoral.
Greece had it, Rome had it until Christianity was a thing. And some parts of Europe even kept practicing it after that. Wasn't considered immoral (EDIT: To clarify, it was considered immoral in those parts of Europe with Christianity, it was still fairly common though).
Assyria and Persia both accepted it, neither considered it immoral. This ended when Islam came along.
There's minor evidence India had the "third gender" thing as well. Evidence not solid enough.
Melanesians (South Pacific islands) actually celebrated homosexuality until -- shock -- Christianity was introduced.

So basically, this statement is bullshit. The only times homosexuality was actually considered immoral was under Judeo-Christian religions (and Judaism itself really never had much influence in terms of law, so really just Christianity and Islam).

Basically, all failed civilizations accepted the normalcy of homosexuality. Absolutely true. And every one of them were overcome by a culture that did not accept homosexuality, as this one will certainly be.

 

[Destroyer2]

I have seen some rather disgusting comments on this forum but calling Jesus gay has to be lower than whale excrement.

The bible, especially the New Testament, is a selected compilation of documents translated and then assembled by a group of men seeking to increase their power several hundred years AFTER the events. There are NO records of events written at the time of Jesus' life that have ever come to light - not even Roman documents which were fairly expansive and accurate.

There are no writings about the majority of Jesus' life so we know little more than that his father was a carpenter and so was he. But, to call his "gay" - which is probably the stupidest misnomer in the English language - goes against all customs and moors of the time.

Just another attempt to justify a lifestyle that has been equated with amorality from time immemorial.

It really hasn't always been equated with immorality.

It was common in Africa until Christians came along. Wasn't considered immoral.
Native Americans said it gave them "special powers" that enabled them to be a shaman. Definitely wasn't considered immoral.
China had it, Japan celebrated it, Thailand calls it "the third gender" and accepts it. None of the three considered it immoral.
Greece had it, Rome had it until Christianity was a thing. And some parts of Europe even kept practicing it after that. Wasn't considered immoral (EDIT: To clarify, it was considered immoral in those parts of Europe with Christianity, it was still fairly common though).
Assyria and Persia both accepted it, neither considered it immoral. This ended when Islam came along.
There's minor evidence India had the "third gender" thing as well. Evidence not solid enough.
Melanesians (South Pacific islands) actually celebrated homosexuality until -- shock -- Christianity was introduced.

So basically, this statement is bullshit. The only times homosexuality was actually considered immoral was under Judeo-Christian religions (and Judaism itself really never had much influence in terms of law, so really just Christianity and Islam).

Basically, all failed civilizations accepted the normalcy of homosexuality. Absolutely true. And every one of them were overcome by a culture that did not accept homosexuality, as this one will certainly be.

Yes. The fact that they accepted homosexuality caused their decline. Absolutely.

Let's completely neglect the fact that some still exist (China, Japan, Thailand, India), Assyria was conquered by Persia (which accepted homosexuality), and Rome wasn't conquered until AFTER it banned homosexuality.

See, now if you could provide some non-bullshit evidence that homosexuality was actually some sort of causation for declining, let us know.

 

[Vox]

Sorry Kaz, the question before the court was not an ADA issue. The question was a ministerial issue in that are Churches subject to secular employment law in cases pertaining to ministers.

The case was HOSANNA-TABOR EVAN GELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL, PETITIONER v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ET AL (Caps in the link and I'm to lazy to retype it. ).

"The question presented is whether the Establishment and Free
Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar such an
action when the employer is a religious group and the
employee is one of the group’s ministers. "​

The decision wasn't about ADA, it was about Church ministers not being the same as lay employees.

The interest of society in the enforcement of employ-
ment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important.
But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing
who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry
out their mission. When a minister who has been fired
sues her church alleging that her termination was dis-
riminatory, the First Amendment has struck the balance
for us. The church must be free to choose those who will
guide it on its way.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered​

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf


>>>>

I have endlessly read that churches have an exemption for religion. I never have read that that they have an exemption from the entire civil rights bill or other federal regulations.

So seriously, you consider it persuasive that your parsing the words of the decision and extrapolating them to religion makes up for the fact that in the entire Internet you can't find clear documentation that churches can't only hire people who in their view adhere to their own religion?

What I am pointing out is completely consistent with the first amendment, which says congress cannot pass laws restricting freedom of religion. And that is the basis of why government has stayed out of church religions hiring. The first amendment on the other hand does not cover the ada, skin color or other factors, so you not only are word parsing and extrapolating a decision on an entirely different case, your extrapolation isn't consistent with the basis for allowing churches to hire and fire people based on religion, as is protected in the first amendment.

No, what I'm pointing out is that you said the case was an "ADA" (American with Disabiliities Act) case which is not true. The case before the court, and the issue addressed as noted by the court in both the core question defined and the ruling it made was whether "ministerial" staff were subject to secular employment laws, the court ruled on that very narrow question that (to paraphrase) "No, they are not".

That case DOES NOT say that non-minsterial staff are not subject to general employment law which is what the original poster who brought up the case tired to claim it said.

The Hossanna-Tabor case decision was issued in January 2012, yet just this summer a court found for the claimant in a similar "morals clause" case for wrongful termination.

Personally I don't know if Churches hold the same type of exemption for employment law purposes. They may or may not at the federal level, I can't call or find a case that defines it. They may or may not at the State level because that can very from state-to-state.


Jury finds for Catholic school teacher fired after artificial insemination pregnancy - CBS News


>>>>

except the teacher is a ministerial staff and that is what the case was about - the Hosanna Tabor case was about firing a TEACHER.
And the TEACHER was ruled to be MINISTERIAL staff.

and this situation is IDENTICAL.
Opinions on the case did not change the SCOTUS ruling and that is that is important - and they ruled that the Lutheran Church has the right to fire the TEACHER despite ADA( which I would assume is much stronger case, than a clear violation of moral principals of the Church you work for).