kind of funny god fearing people can do a immoral firing and its legal. ironic
This could have had a deep impact on the LDS church and its employees. We have
strict guidelines around eligibility to perform certain jobs, and had the courts
sided with the EEOC on this, it would have caused all kinds of heart ache inside
the church. A good ruling.
"We are reluctant ... to adopt a rigid formula for deciding when an
employee qualifies as a minister,"---This really
appears to only apply to those in "ministerial" type positions and
wouldn't affect Secretaries, Janitors, IT, or other non-ministerial positions;
at least that is how I read the ruling.@UtahBlueDevil;I
don't think it will change anything for the LDS Church. Seminary teachers, yes,
I'm thrilled with with decision! Way to go Supreme Court. Religious institutions
need to be allowed freedom to chose their employees or ministers. I have had
some of my faith restored in this country.
Obama Administration got the blame for this one. Funny, he gets blamed for
UtahBlueDevil | 12:39 p.m. Jan. 11, 2012 Durham, NC This could have
had a deep impact on the LDS church and its employees. We have strict guidelines
around eligibility to perform certain jobs, and had the courts sided with the
EEOC on this, it would have caused all kinds of heart ache inside the church.
Clarissa | 2:41 p.m. Jan. 11, 2012 Layton, UT I'm
thrilled with with decision! Way to go Supreme Court. Religious institutions
need to be allowed freedom to chose their employees or ministers. I have had
some of my faith restored in this country. Did either of you even
bother to read the article? The decision was limited to the facts of this case
and the court focused on the facts that she was hired as a minister with perhaps
a minor role in also teaching some secular classes. How either of you think
that this case will allow a religious instituion to discriminate against any and
all of its employees is beyond me....
A big win for the free-exercise of religion.
@ eagle651O'Bama was blmed for this one because it was his
administration that was suing the church. He also refuses to defend the
Definition of Marriage Act. It is a case of "As ye
sow..." If he wants to quit being blamed he needs to start making better
Kami, the question is not did you read the article, but rather did you read the
decision. This unanimous decision reaches much further than just the case that
was presented before the court. You should read the decision.
Theocracy, here we come.
Big O - get used to this.Only in a dictatorship can a goventment mandate
things that has nothing to do with the government itself.Next stop: health
care: public option. Good luck.
For those that are against this ruling...Imagine President Thomas S.
Monson having to hire two gay body guards after prop 8. While you may think my
analogy is extreme, it's certainly a valid example of someone automatically
having a conflict of interest solely based on what we normally prevent as
discriminatory. And while you may not like how this ruling plays out in the end-
I have a feeling that no one would be disagreeing with the religious side of
this ruling had they been the guy those body guards are supposed to protect.This example may not represent the views of everyone from any group- but
it at least reveals the potential conflict of interest.Even more,
this ruling wasn't about typical jobs- but minsters. Would the Utah Symphony be
discriminating for not hiring a person without hands to play the piano? Law was
never meant to be uninterpretable and set in stone. Law is in many ways set in
stone, but equally it is puddy in our hands. We the people form our laws.If you still disagree, I challenge this- If America can force who can be
a minister, then how does freedom still exist?
@Kami"The decision was limited to the facts of this case and the
court focused on the facts that she was hired as a minister with perhaps a minor
role in also teaching some secular classes"Other way around,
her major role was the teaching aspect. That's why the "does the
ministerial exception apply to her?" question and basis of this trial even
@A voice of Reason"Imagine President Thomas S. Monson having to hire
two gay body guards after prop 8. While you may think my analogy is
extreme"It wouldn't be a matter of HAVING to hire them, it'd be
a matter of not discriminating against gay people in the hiring process which is
somewhat different since the former suggests no choice in hiring. Granted, the
court didn't touch on this matter because as you note..."Even
more, this ruling wasn't about typical jobs- but minsters""If
America can force who can be a minister, then how does freedom still exist?
"In this case the question was not about getting rid of the
ministerial exemption. The question was about whether or not this particular
employee qualified as a minister since she spent most of her time teaching. So
it's a matter of how far the ministerial exemption covers, not whether or not it
should be gotten rid of. Now don't get the wrong impression, I agree
with the lawsuit and find myself peculiarly even more conservative on the issue
than the result was.
@A Voice of ReasonEh... I mean that I agree with the ruling... not the
It is discussing state influence on religious matters that reminds me of
"the thin edge of the wedge" from "Yes Prime Minister". Same
with gun control but that's another subject. Actually the thin end is already
far in when a church, any church has to change it's religious practices because
of political threat. (D&C Pg. 291-3) Unfortunately instead of when the
President of the Church speaks, it has long been when the President of the U.S.
speaks ...I'm not perfect but in my humble opinion, neither was (or
is?) the POTUS. Another subject.
The article fails to point out that it was the Bush Administration (the EEOC)
that started the lawsuit against the church that the Supreme Court just ruled
on. While the EEOC under current administration did continue the lawsuit that
the Bush administrated initiated, the headline would lay the blame entirely on
the Obama administration is misleading and unfair. Painting the Obama
administration as actively waging a war against religion may be popular in some
circles, but it is simply not accurate.
Religion. It divides us like nothing else can.
atl134,I have read into the lawsuit as well. But the specific case
has less interest to me than the single principle I've addressed, thus why I
only addressed the one idea. All I really care about is that religions can hire
how they see fit. I'm not in favor of suppressing the income of one group in
favor of another. I only think that in attempting to be anti-discriminating,
many groups have gone so far as to prevent some choices which would have been
better left alone.Not everyone shares the same moral values. The
main principle is that we are free. When someone tells me how I can spend my
money I have a problem. My company's money or my religion's money are extensions
of myself. I believe in something, I support it. Religion works the same way.
After all, no religions or companies can do anything without the people behind
them. My main focus in debating is only to promote freedom how I think it will
be best protected.-------Hutterite, religion can't
divide anyone. People divide. I find that statement ironic though, being that
most criticize LDS ideas of being one in purpose, etc.
I don't see what this has to do with Obama at all, but as a Liberal Democrat I
feel that this was the right decision. Excellent points made by the Justices in
this decision. A very well thought out judgement. Good Job.
Pagan, you have it all wrong. No theocracy here. This is what sort
of really irritates me. In order for you to enjoy the rights and freedoms you
enjoy, others have to be allowed to practice their choices without government
interference. This means those that we disagree with need to be able to live as
they will, regardless if we agree with them or not, in order to protect
everyones rights.My wife was offered a job at a local christian
school, but had to honestly answer their pledge to a belief in an all in one
trinity. She withdrew her application because she was not able to conform to
their requirements. This had nothing to do with preaching religion, but having
a standard within their school. While my wife would have loved to work at this
school as she had good friends who taught there, we fully understood and
respected their right to hire as the please.
Yes Hutterite, if no one had any convictions, preferences, standards or codes of
conduct there would be no divisions. Brilliant conclusion.
This is the greatest victory for religious liberty in the country since at least
Wisconsin v. Yoder, the case that allowed the Amish to not go to high school.Justice Roberts was wise to avoid trying to set down any contours for
the ministerial exemption. With no establishment of religion who is a minister
is the decision and right of the religious organization involved, not the
decision of the government. In this case the teacher clearly had a
special status that made her a minister distint from other teachers at the
school. I especially like Justice Roberts stopwatch quote.
While I concur this is a good ruling, it has very limited impact on the LDS
Church. Most LDS church employees do not fall under the ministerial exemption.
The right of the Church to condition their employ on being temple worthy is
actually a direct result of the religious organizations exemption from the
religious non-discrimination provisions of the Civil Rights Act. The Supreme
Court upheld the application of these provisions specifically in relation to the
LDS Church in Corporation of the Presiding Bishopric of The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos.This ruling will allow the
Church to maintain rules for employment in full time seminary positions that are
not clearly religious at all. This would not have been the case if the EEOC
actually won its argument, but it would have been the case if the 6th circuit's
ruling had prevailed.This ruling will allow religious groups to
maintain adequate control over the schools they sponsor. However there are many
teachers whose falling under the ministerial exemption is even less clear, and
so I suspect the court will soon have to rule on a case where the facts are less
This was a unanimous decision by the Court. That's significant considering the
range of philosophical and political viewpoints of the members of the Supreme
The part I like most about this decision was it was unanimous. This is a good
sign, although it was probably a direct result of Justice Roberts not trying to
delineate any clear limit to the ministerial exemption.While it is
true that this ruling will not have much effect if any on LDS Church policy, a
negative ruling could well have had negative effect. However I am
not sure any court has ruled on the really tricky result of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 and following legislation. At least in some states you can not
discriminate in employment on marital status. How does this effect the firing
of a women who is pregnant and not married by a school where she was employed as
a teacher, when it is 100% clear the religious sponsor of the school objects to
unmarried women being pregnant on religious grounds?In that case, I
believe the school would win, because the 1964 Civil Rights Act is federal law
and that trumps state law. However I am not sure what would happen if courts
had to decided whether religious motivations for firing could apply to end other
This case is actually a clear example of upholding the non-establishment of
religion. One mark of established religions is that they have ministers who are
chosen by the political leaders of the country, instead of by a system internal
to the Church itself. If the government could sue churchs for firing ministers
it would lead to the government forcing ministers upon unwilling congregations.
There is a reason this decision was unanimous. It was because the
other way leads to an established Church and government attempting to control
religion. Of course Connectucut state authorities putting together
a list of approved religions that met certain criteria they liked a few years
back also was state establishment of religion. When word of this got out they
backed down. Some public universities, which are state actors, have put
together similar approved religion lists, and not all have been backed down from
as of yet.
Re: Pagan | 4:27 p.m. Jan. 11, 2012 Sorry but the US Supreme Court
ruling was unanimous. Mr. Obama got his hand slapped.
I Love Freedom!!!!!!
Great Job, Supreme Court!
To toosmartforyou: "Obama" does not have an apostrophe in it. Also,
DOMA is the Defense of Marriage Act, not Definition of Marriage Act.eagle651: Of course the Obama administration gets the blame. It's the Obama
administration that chose to take the case and argue it to the Supreme Court!
Why shouldn't Obama be responsible for his administration's actions?1ket: First, the main reason they fired her rather than work out some kind of
agreement was because she brought suit, which is against their religion, and
they felt betrayed. Second, even if it were immoral, are you suggesting that
anything immoral should also be illegal?Kami: Did *you* read the
article? She wasn't a minister with some minor teaching roles; it was the other
Only in Red China and BOs vision for the US does the government choose who will
be the ministers in the churchesGregory M. Lipper and his group,
Americans United for Separation of Church and State, by his comments and
positions, seem to be misnamed. They should call themselves Americans United
for the Elimination of Religion.
The case started back in 2007-2008...so it was actually the Bush Administration
that started it but hey, don't let that detail get in the way of an anti-Obama
The title of this article US Supreme Court rules on religious employees is a
little misleading. This decision was based on paid ministers who happen to be
church employees also. Since the LDS Church has a lay clergy this really doesnt
apply to the Church. The only ones that this would effect in the LDS Church is
seminary teachers and maybe bishops or priesthood leaders that happen to be
Church employees also. It was good to see the Supreme Court respect
freedom of religion.
@toosmart for youO'bama? When did the president become Irish?
A landmark decision, but one that will ultimately be of little consequence.
Organized religion across America is failing. The old generation is passing and
the new generation doesn't subscribe to the narrow minded judgmental view of
life that most religions tend to teach.Humanity is approaching a
turning point, where we realize that religion has been crafted by man so that he
may have power over other men. That is not the path we should be on.
@John Pack Lambert:Thanks for your posts. Very interesting. I
agree with most of them. But as a layman who admittedly has only observed the
Supreme Court, I'd like to ask a question.Is it really true that
this decision has little effect on the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day-Saints? Personally, with the law of unintended consequences, I can
see how upholding the EEOC's position could have had a significant impact on The
Church, not only in the present, but down the road as the implications of the
decision would have sent down a trickle affect for decades. Out of small things
come large consequences. At the least, it could have encouraged the slow but
steady erosion of the environment of appropriate religious rights for every
church, including the LDS. Having to hire, or retain, employees whose values
are in direct opposition to the churchs teachings could be a real detriment to
the management of church affairs and the carrying out of its goals.Am I correct?Thanks, your comments got me thinking.
@ John Pack LambertI do support and agree with the following points
you made:The court was probably smart not to rule further. At least
I can understand why it is just as important what they dont say as what they do.
I agree that the court will have other cases come up. At least
this sets a solid precedent for religious rights.I agree that this
ruling will prevent the government from dictating who is, or who will be
retained, as ministers. One only need look at the reformation centuries ago in
Europe to see the horrible consequences of state interference in such matters.
Think of Tyndale and other reformers whose lives were taken by the government
because of their efforts in behalf of religious freedoms. Unfortuantely, just IMHO, and in other words, I dont trust that the
anti-religious groups would (or will) leave it alone. Without rulings such as
this, there are those who will readily try to discourage, if not destroy,
religious freedoms. Go Supreme Court (in this case).Anyway, thanks
and now if religious orginizations would stay out of politics then that would
be better to.
@Delta FoxtrotMy feel is that your posting was meant to instigate rather
than illuminate, but I think it deserves a response. I agree that there is less
organized religion than there used to be. Mores the pity. However, I disagree
that true religion is *narrow-minded (and) judgemental*. True religion embraces
all truth, wherever it may be, and preaches non-judgementalism and charity, the
pure love of Christ.I agree that humanity is approaching a turning
point. Yes, a turning point at which it is coming to ignore the God Who gave us
life and a chance for happiness. A turning point away from the only chance we
have. A turning point away from centuries old values that could solve most of
the worlds problems, including hunger, war, dishonesty, neglect, etc.I believe that when we pass that turning point, we will reap the consequences.
Its like the guy who finally got his donkey to do without water, but the donkey
up and died. Go figure.
I agree with the decision; however, it should not have been necessary.Liberal advocacy groups frequently boycott businesses they do not like. They
have basically fired that business simply because they don't like their politics
or behavior.Why can't a business owner do the same? I can spend my
money any way I choose. Why can't a business do this? It is their money. Why
should the government tell anyone how to spend their money?I used
to work for a company that bought out a very abusive employer. These clowns went
through 300 employees in a single year but never employed more than 50 at any
one time. They were idiots. Nobody in town would work for them unless they were
desperate. They paid a high price for such abuse.1. They could not
attract and retain talented people.2. They were always training new
employees.3. The quality of their product was low as a result.4.
Sales plummeted.In the end they went bankrupt and my employer bought
them out. It took years to clean up the mess and get to where we could hire
talented, competent people again.John Wayne once said; "Stupid
should hurt."Firing people without good reason is stupid; however, I
support every man's right to be stupid.Remember, the only difference
between freedom and a dictatorship is who makes the decisions. The words
"discriminate" and "decide" have a common Latin root. There
is not a financial decision that can be made in life that does not discriminate.
When I go to Burger King over Del Taco I am discriminating. Out law
discrimination and you outlaw freedom.
One more DN attempt to blame Obama for something that is not really his issue.
Like other businesses Churches should be able to hire and fire who and when they
will. Employment at will is a principle well established in law. But, the
question is, are there circumstances where law should protect employees of such
institutions as it does for other companies and corporations. We have developed
protected employee classes like the disabled for a reason. Should these
protections be removed just because a person works for a church?
@ Hutterite "Religion, it divides us like nothing else
can"Really? The Supreme Court didn't seem too divided on THAT
issue.However, I would say that "politics" divides us like
nothing else can. If the Supreme Court were not so political, and more like it
should be, an "applier" of the law and not an "interpreter"
of it, then there would be more 9 to 0 decisions and less 5 to 4, along party
lines. I know, some will point out that judges are supposed to
"interpret" law. However, letting judges interpret law is like
letting people interpret the Bible. You come out with many varied opinions. I
just wish judges would look at the law as written and apply it. Wether they like
it or not. Instead they often don't like a law, 2nd Amendment for instance, and
find many unjustified ways to get around the law. I think many judges in America
have aquired too much power that allows them to cross over to the legislative
side, where they don't belong.
Noodlekaboodle, remember BOs trip to Ireland? The media reported BO did
have Irish ancestry from his mothers side.
@Kami: Of course I read the whole article and have been aware of this case going
to the Supreme Court. I probably know more about it than you, but I definitely
am not sure about this and will not accused you of not reading the whole
'Pagan, you have it all wrong. No theocracy here.' - UtahBlueDevil | 8:17 p.m.
Jan. 11, 2012 Reply fact: **'Religious lobbying is
changing political focus' - By Mercedes White - Deseret News - 11/21/2011 "Number of lobbies has grown from 40 to over 200." -
Article Religious obbies have grown from 40... to over
200. Let's discuss this MORE... on the Deseret
news... that is owned, by the LDS church. **'Romneys
donates $647,500 to charity in 2010' - By Jordan Burke, Deseret News -
11/16/11 "About $145,000 went to The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints (sic) Romneys have donated $7.1 million to charitable causes,
including at least $525,000 to Brigham Young University in Provo." - Article
The reality is that this did not have to do with the exercise of religion. It
was about religious institutions practicing discrimination in non-religious
matters. The decision puts institutional interests above all. Is religion a
personal matter or an institutional matter? If it is an institutional matter,
then the principles taught by Christ are undermined.
Readers might notice, as a side note, the attorney representing the
Hosanna-Tabor Church is Hannah Clayson Smith - quite well known around here.
She is a very active LDS Church member, sister to Jane Clayson Johnson, graduate
of Princeton University and BYU Law School, twice a Supreme Court clerk, member
of the Deseret News Editorial Board, mother of three, accomplished violinist and
all-around classy lady. She grew up in the Sacramento area and her father is a
renowned vascular surgeon. She would be a great person to have on your side in
any legal battle.
This decision was actually pretty narrow, about who qualifies as a minister or
@very concerned: If true religion is not narrow minded and judgmental then what
do you call the millions of dollars spent by churches nationwide combating gay
marriage?Religion teaches people that there is one true path and
those who do not follow it are to be condemned.What ever happened to
judge not, love thy neighbor and turn the other cheek?
The following statement says it all about Obama's administration. "I
was surprised that the decision was unanimous," said Robert P. George, the
McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program
at Princeton University. "The fact that not even the most liberal justices
on the court regarded that position as tenable just shows you how wildly out of
bounds the Obama administration's position was." If this had
not prevailed then people who left the LDS Church, and no longer supported the
church would still be allowed to work in making sacred garments and or work in
temples or work in the church administration offices.
Re: Pagan | 10:23 a.m. Jan. 12, 2012 It was Obama that said
"You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig".The
US Supreme Court just handed a defeat to those who are hostile to religion .....
DeltaFoxtrot:Organized religion's opposition to gay marriage has
nothing to do with being "narrow-minded". It has to do with
protecting the God-ordained ordinance of marriage. To mandate same-sex marriage
would be to deny religions their beliefs and theology. Personally, I am OK with
a "civil union" which will allow gay couples the legal rights afforded
marriage. If same-sex marriage were mandated by law, the state could require
the LDS church to allow a gay couple to be married in a Temple. Similar
situations have happened in other states (the Catholic Diocese in MA being
ordered to allow gay couple adoptions, the photographer in NM being fined for
refusing to photograph a gay wedding, etc.)Most religions do teach
one true path. Jesus Himself said that "No one comes unto the Father but
through Me". However, no one is requiring you to follow that path. If you
don't believe the Bible and Jesus, then whats the problem?I can't
speak for everyone, but I can speak for myself: I try very hard to avoid
judgment, love my neighbor, and to forgive those who wrong me. These are the
changes religion has made in my life.
Pagan - the reason there are more religious lobbies is tied to the fact there
are more groups trying to strip religion from public view. I happen to live in
a religiously open area. But other places I have lived, groups are trying to
suppress religious expression back to the home or church/mosque/synagogue. This is exampled by those who found crosses memorializing the deaths of those
who have fallen in service, offensive. This is a very dangerous precedent -
for everyone. If one group can have their rights denied to free expression, all
groups are threatened.I hate it when people wear their religion on
their sleeves as a mark of their spirituality. But I will defend their right to
do so, because if their rights are breached, mine can easily be done so as
well.A mosque should have the right to restrict those who WORK there
to those of their faith. A synagogue should not have to hire a neo-Nazi
maintenance person. Neither should a gay organization be forced to employee the
same person.Be reasonable.
'A synagogue should not have to hire a neo-Nazi maintenance person. Neither
should a gay organization be forced to employee the same person. Be
reasonable.' - UtahBlueDevil | 1:00 p.m. Jan. 12, 2012 If a neo-Nazi
does not spend all of his work day spreading his gospel, it would not be, an
issue. And yet, people DO choose to use their profesional
titles...to spread PERSONAL beliefs. Would you like some
examples? **'Counseling student refuses to work with LGBTs, ACLU
files brief' - Windy City Media - 10/04/11 "Cincinnati -- The
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is slated to hear arguments today in
the case of a graduate student who was removed from Eastern Michigan
University's (EMU) counseling program because she refused to counsel lesbian,
gay and bisexual clients..." Your beliefs, do not give you
authorization to run ram-rod over the rights American citizens are afforded. **'Don't punish chaplains' - Deseret news - 11/02/10 If the
ONLY thing you are doing, is forcing your religious agenda on persons who did
not ASK you to... you are NOT, factually doing the job, regardless.
@DeltaFoxtrotI think it may be a matter of semantics. When you say
*judgmental*, we immediately think of the negative connotations of judging:
intolerance, coercion, condemnation, etc. The fact is that we all judge daily.
We judge what will be the consequences of our actions, whether we agree with
others, what color shoes we like. We judge all the time. Hopefully we do it in
a fair, informed, and honest way, (See **Judge Not* and Judging*, by Elder
Dallin H. Oaks, on lds.org, from a talk given on 1 March 1998 at Brigham Young
University). But even then, there will be disagreements, such as with gay
issues.I think organizations such as churches have the right to
judge (in this way) as well. I also hope that Mormons would not be
intolerant, coercive, blaming, angry, or condemning. Loving thy neighbor should
still be the gold standard even though we may not agree with the neighbors
lifestyle.But I also hope we who subscribe to the beliefs of The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints would act within the law and support
laws that maintain the morals of society we believe to be so critical.
Re:Pagan | 1:56 p.m. Jan. 12, 2012 "If a neo-Nazi does not spend all
of his work day spreading his gospel, it would not be, an issue."Since the US Supreme Court has rejected the Obama Administration argument
unanimously your objects are moot. People who say they have "well-deserved
issues with religion" are just going to have to accept the fact that they
lost this fight.
'People who say they have "well-deserved issues with religion" are
just going to have to accept the fact that they lost this fight.' - Rifleman |
2:52 p.m. Jan. 12, 2012 We accept rulings now? Should I
remind you of the appeal of Judge Walkers ruling on Prop 8 because he is a
homosexual? I guess liberals should just 'accept facts'... but conservatives can claim 'judicial activism?' Double
Standard. Besides, while the ruling may be final (or, appealed, as
conservatives have shown) the issue is far, far from over. We both
I don't disagree with you when people are hired into secular position, like the
EMU example. And in public schools, people should not promote their own
religious beliefs. But that isn't what we are talking about, now
is it.""If a neo-Nazi does not spend all of his work day
spreading his gospel, it would not be, an issue."In the real
world, it would be an issue if the neo-nazi spent any of their work time
spreading their values, period. I am not sure what percentage you think would
be ok.... me, I think none would be about right.Why is it you can't
see that by respecting others rights, you guarantee your own. This isn't a zero
sum game. Your rights don't' need to come at the expense of someone else's, and
visa versa. What you are battling over is only a very small percentage of what
makes up a person. There are plenty of people I know who disagree with LDS
teachings, yet are able to also see the common ground they share. Why each side
make this all this, or all that, is beyond me.
Re: Pagan | 3:22 p.m. Jan. 12, 2012 "We accept rulings now? Should I
remind you of the appeal of Judge Walkers ruling on Prop 8 because he is a
homosexual?"May I remind you that a ruling by the US Supreme
Court is the end-O'-the-line. There are no appeals of their rulings. That is
what frosted Obama's cookies.Their ruling on Obamacare won't be
released until the end of their session. Care to place a bet on the outcome of
Just one more example of the Obama administration being out of line.
How can teaching seminary not be considered a minister? Here is the
problem with laity doing tasks religious of the church should be doing. And the
problem with smaller churches who really don't have a large base. In the
catholic church if you were a nun or priest and sick the church would care for
you if you were ill, temporary or life long. Either by direct care by fellow
nuns and priests, or they would arrange through nursing home. Basically cause this is a small christian school they can't do for their
workers. In the old days the brothers and sisters taught at the school and if
couldn't do the task because of health was found other tasks to do and cared
for. If this women as a member of their congregation were sick and her employer
let her go would they be helping her with bills and such? Interesting as they
are the evil employer in this. I think a right ruling but I wish a different
case were brought. This woman hasn't gotten respectful treatment.
I dunno... college football in this country seems pretty divisive. But then,
some consider that a matter of faith as well.
She had a right under the ADA to sue. Her suit was dismissed. It sounds to me as
though much thought and consideration went into this by nine justices whose
background and beliefs were set aside in the interest of justice, as it should
be, considering their responsibility as our national last court of appeal.
President Obama, like every other president of any party, has nothing to do with
it, since the executive branch is another branch of government not given this
responsibility. If you don't know about the separate branches of government,
please look it up. Personally, I think they did the right thing.
Hi Pagan,For someone who talks so much about court rulings, you sure
seem to lack an understanding of how they work. Appeals Court rulings can be
appealed to a higher court (the Supreme Court). Supreme Court rulings are not
appealed, as it is the supreme court in the land.Opinions carry much
more weight when they are well-thought out instead of littered with copy/pasted
snippets from articles with no context or explanations.
Kargirl,Guess whose administration argued to the court that the
religious exception should not be adhered to. Yes, the executive branch can try
to convince the courts to rule a certain way.
Pagan writes "Besides, while the ruling may be final (or, appealed, as
conservatives have shown) the issue is far, far from over."Sorry but the unanimous ruling is final. Looks like religion won one.