Gay Teacher fired

[Vox]

Correct, in that case the teacher was ministerial staff.


In the case of the OP the teacher was not ministerial staff, he was a lay teacher.



>>>>

Nope, he was. he even signed a specific contract with delineated terms.
You think schools did not learn from Diaz case?
and, btw, that case is being appealed as well - it is VERY far from being closed.

Well good, at least you recognize that it's not "case closed". Good show.

The fact is that the ministerial exception was applied to those that actually received a special ministerial designation, led students in prayer, and provided religious instruction. Unlike the teacher in the OP and Dias who had no religious instruction duties.


>>>>

it is case closed. the previous case is not.
and most likely the federal circuit ruling will be overturned, as it was in this case - by Supreme Court of Wisconsin ( it was way before Tabor case):

In Coulee Catholic Schools v. Labor and Industry Review Commission, 1
the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that a Catholic school teacher was
precluded from filing a discrimination claim because her position fell within
the ministerial exception under the freedom of religion clauses in the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 18 of the
Wisconsin Constitution. 2 The court used the primary duties test and held that
the Catholic school teacher’s position was important to the religious mission
of the church, and that she was therefore considered ministerial for the
purposes of the ministerial exception. 3

http://lawjournal.rutgers.edu/sites...ir Employees, 41 Rutgers L.J. 1121 (2010).pdf

 

[Vox]

and I was amazed that two opposites in SCOTUS joined their opinions:

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, wrote that the word “minister” “should apply to any ‘employee’ who leads a religious organization, conducts worship services or important religious ceremonies or rituals, or serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith.”Id. at 712.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nope, he was. he even signed a specific contract with delineated terms.
You think schools did not learn from Diaz case?
and, btw, that case is being appealed as well - it is VERY far from being closed.

Well good, at least you recognize that it's not "case closed". Good show.

The fact is that the ministerial exception was applied to those that actually received a special ministerial designation, led students in prayer, and provided religious instruction. Unlike the teacher in the OP and Dias who had no religious instruction duties.


>>>>

it is case closed. the previous case is not.
and most likely the federal circuit ruling will be overturned, as it was in this case - by Supreme Court of Wisconsin ( it was way before Tabor case):

In Coulee Catholic Schools v. Labor and Industry Review Commission, 1
the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that a Catholic school teacher was
precluded from filing a discrimination claim because her position fell within
the ministerial exception under the freedom of religion clauses in the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 18 of the
Wisconsin Constitution. 2 The court used the primary duties test and held that
the Catholic school teacher’s position was important to the religious mission
of the church, and that she was therefore considered ministerial for the
purposes of the ministerial exception. 3

http://lawjournal.rutgers.edu/sites...ir Employees, 41 Rutgers L.J. 1121 (2010).pdf

They can still fall under a state ministerial exception, never said they couldn't. You do realize that this a State Supreme Court decision correct? It only apply to EEOC claims under State jurisdiction and had zero impact on cases filed under federal EEOC laws.

The Wisconsin court has no federal jurisdiction and is not binding outside that state.

>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

and I was amazed that two opposites in SCOTUS joined their opinions:

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, wrote that the word “minister” “should apply to any ‘employee’ who leads a religious organization, conducts worship services or important religious ceremonies or rituals, or serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith.”Id. at 712.

Thank your confirming what I've been saying, as you point out Alito and Kagan not that to fall under the exception they must have ministerial duties (prayer and religious instruction).

Something not applicable to the teacher in the OP.



>>>>

 

[Vox]

Well good, at least you recognize that it's not "case closed". Good show.

The fact is that the ministerial exception was applied to those that actually received a special ministerial designation, led students in prayer, and provided religious instruction. Unlike the teacher in the OP and Dias who had no religious instruction duties.


>>>>

it is case closed. the previous case is not.
and most likely the federal circuit ruling will be overturned, as it was in this case - by Supreme Court of Wisconsin ( it was way before Tabor case):

In Coulee Catholic Schools v. Labor and Industry Review Commission, 1
the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that a Catholic school teacher was
precluded from filing a discrimination claim because her position fell within
the ministerial exception under the freedom of religion clauses in the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 18 of the
Wisconsin Constitution. 2 The court used the primary duties test and held that
the Catholic school teacher’s position was important to the religious mission
of the church, and that she was therefore considered ministerial for the
purposes of the ministerial exception. 3

http://lawjournal.rutgers.edu/sites...ir Employees, 41 Rutgers L.J. 1121 (2010).pdf

They can still fall under a state ministerial exception, never said they couldn't. You do realize that this a State Supreme Court decision correct? It only apply to EEOC claims under State jurisdiction and had zero impact on cases filed under federal EEOC laws.

The Wisconsin court has no federal jurisdiction and is not binding outside that state.

>>>>

yes, but it never proceeded anywhere beyond.
it stayed.
It is just an example that there iis a very wide interpretation of ministerial role, even BEFORE the SCOTUS decision - and it has been ever since.

 

[Vox]

and I was amazed that two opposites in SCOTUS joined their opinions:

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, wrote that the word “minister” “should apply to any ‘employee’ who leads a religious organization, conducts worship services or important religious ceremonies or rituals, or serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith.”Id. at 712.

Thank your confirming what I've been saying, as you point out Alito and Kagan not that to fall under the exception they must have ministerial duties (prayer and religious instruction).

Something not applicable to the teacher in the OP.



>>>>

so what? those are their OPINIONS, not the decision of the COURT.

Decision is very broad and will give an extreme varieties of interpretations - which it already has - a professor of Jewish studies could not sue under this exception.
read here:
Divining the Scope of the Ministerial Exception

 

[Wildman]

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. ....

The Church says that if you are gay, it is best to remain celibate. It is possible that Jesus was gay, but hid his sexuality by remaining celibate, as was requested by God.

i believe more strongly you are an atheist liberal lesbian hooker......, ...

 

[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.

Except the teacher in the case was ruled to be MINISTERIAL staff.
same as here.

Case closed.

The case was closed when PA had no workplace protections for gays and lesbians.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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. ....

The Church says that if you are gay, it is best to remain celibate. It is possible that Jesus was gay, but hid his sexuality by remaining celibate, as was requested by God.

like i said Noomi.....if you go by the bible Jesus was not here to have sex....and if he was the Son of "God".....why would an Alien being want to have sex with a Human?...

 

[Harry Dresden]

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

The Church says that if you are gay, it is best to remain celibate. It is possible that Jesus was gay, but hid his sexuality by remaining celibate, as was requested by God.

Or that Jesus plain old didn't exist....

can you prove that Joe?....because i have seen 3-4 pieces saying there is evidence that he did exist.....someone had to come up with the stuff he was supposed to have said and did.....

 

[WorldWatcher]

and I was amazed that two opposites in SCOTUS joined their opinions:

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, wrote that the word “minister” “should apply to any ‘employee’ who leads a religious organization, conducts worship services or important religious ceremonies or rituals, or serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith.”Id. at 712.

Thank your confirming what I've been saying, as you point out Alito and Kagan not that to fall under the exception they must have ministerial duties (prayer and religious instruction).

Something not applicable to the teacher in the OP.



>>>>

so what? those are their OPINIONS, not the decision of the COURT.

Decision is very broad and will give an extreme varieties of interpretations - which it already has - a professor of Jewish studies could not sue under this exception.
read here:
Divining the Scope of the Ministerial Exception

Your link doesn't support your position that all employees fall under teh mininstreal exception, as a matter of fact is contradicts that position:

"The Court’s fact-specific ruling left wide open the question of which future plaintiffs will be dismissed from court because they are “ministers.” Instead of providing a precise definition of minister, the Court emphasized the particulars that Perich had completed theological studies in a Lutheran colloquy to qualify as a “called” (not lay) teacher, that she claimed a minister’s housing allowance on her tax return, and that Hosanna-Tabor considered Perich to be a minister. Ministerial status was thus based on “the formal title given Perich by the Church, the substance reflected in that title, her own use of that title, and the important religious functions she performed for the Church.” Hosanna-Tabor, 132 S. Ct. at 708.​

Whether lay staff fall under a "ministerial exception" is not a "case closed" prospect as you claimed. Some cases have been dismissed under the Hosanna ruling, some have not. As pointed out in the article you provide, some since the ruling have succeeded and it even cites the Dias case where the plaintiff won in court and the Catholic Church decided not to pursue and appeal - thereby leaving the courts ruling in place.

I've not said the question is not still open, but by your own liniks you show it's not "case closed".

Thanks again for that.


>>>>

 

[JoeB131]

The Church says that if you are gay, it is best to remain celibate. It is possible that Jesus was gay, but hid his sexuality by remaining celibate, as was requested by God.

Or that Jesus plain old didn't exist....

can you prove that Joe?....because i have seen 3-4 pieces saying there is evidence that he did exist.....someone had to come up with the stuff he was supposed to have said and did.....

The problem is, all the "sources" of Jesus life were written decades after he supposedly died.

And, no, when you look at a gospel like Mark, which has very few miracles, and then the later versions have a lot more of them, you know this is a tall tale that is growing.

 

[OODA_Loop]

How does a sexual preference become your defining attribute in the workplace ?

 

[Seawytch]

How does a sexual preference become your defining attribute in the workplace ?

Where on earth did you get the idea that it is?

 

[The Rabbi]

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

The Church says that if you are gay, it is best to remain celibate. It is possible that Jesus was gay, but hid his sexuality by remaining celibate, as was requested by God.

like i said Noomi.....if you go by the bible Jesus was not here to have sex....and if he was the Son of "God".....why would an Alien being want to have sex with a Human?...

Irony alert.

 

[The Rabbi]

How does a sexual preference become your defining attribute in the workplace ?

Where on earth did you get the idea that it is?

Necause of all the suits by faggots and dykes claiming discrimination? Just a guess.

 

[kaz]

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).

Yes, lawyers pick the most winnable strategy.

 

[kaz]

Therefore the cases are not "identical", in the case before the SCOTUS the individual was functioning as ministerial staff, in the case of the OP the teacher functions only as lay staff.


>>>>

"lay" staff working for the church, nice try.

This is still as I have been pointing out dancing around the point. I didn't dispute that churches have more leeway with management and I haven't disputed that other hiring rules apply and I also supported the idea that even if they are going to enforce religious principles it has to be consistently applied.

However, the church told people in writing that they expected them to adhere to the principles of their church, and everyone knows the catholic church is against homosexuality, so the gay guy who worked for them HAD to know that too. And you still can't find direct support that they can't.

I haven't even said it's not there, I'm just saying as an employer I have seen a lot and none of it supports your argument. However, I'm not an employment attorney and it could be out there. But so far, you aren't finding it. You're arguing the case well, but it's still extrapolation.

 

[kaz]

“Lay” or “contract” teachers, by contrast, are not re-
quired to be trained by the Synod or even to be Lutheran.
At Hosanna-Tabor, they were appointed by the school
board, without a vote of the congregation, to one-year
renewable terms. Although teachers at the school general-
ly performed the same duties regardless of whether they
were lay or called, lay teachers were hired only when
called teachers were unavailable. [/indent][/indent]>>>>

In contradiction to the op where they were specifically, in writing, required to adhere to the teachings of the church, and everyone knows that homosexuality is in violation of the teachings of the catholic church. You just undid your own case, counselor.

 

[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.

Except the teacher in the case was ruled to be MINISTERIAL staff.
same as here.

Case closed.

The case was closed when PA had no workplace protections for gays and lesbians.

You're a one trick pony. Gay, gay, gay. I got it, you're gay. And you want government to compensate you, validate you and fight your battles for you. Government forcing the catholic church to contradict their own views is what would be immoral, unethical and illegal as it's a direct violation of the First Amendment. He has the right to be gay and be left alone, he does not have the right to tread on other people. Liberalism is the quest to ensure that no one pays any price for their own decisions, and you trample endless rights in your attempt to get there.