Religious Freedom Support From SCOTUS!

[PoliticalChic]

1. "Supreme Court Recognizes 'Ministerial Exception' to Employment-Discrimination Laws

2. In a decision with major implications for church-affiliated colleges and their employees, the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously held that the First Amendment precludes the application of federal employment-discrimination laws to religious institutions' personnel decisions involving workers with religious duties.

3. Wednesday's ruling, however, is the first in which the Supreme Court formally recognized the "ministerial exception" as legal doctrine.

4. The Supreme Court majority's opinion, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., made clear that the court was applying the ministerial exception only to employment-discrimination disputes.

5. On the question of whether the ministerial exception applied to discrimination lawsuits, however, the justices were emphatic in stating their view that interfering with a church's ability to hire or fire those it regards as ministers violates two clauses of the First Amendment: the free-exercise clause, which, they said, "protects a religious group's right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments," and the establishment clause, which prohibits government involvement in such religious decisions.

6. Their opinion noted that the First Amendment's authors had chafed against the English Crown's involvement in America's religious matters, and that the Supreme Court had touched upon religious organizations' freedom to choose their own ministers in cases involving attempts by the government to intervene in disputes over church property.

7. The court majority's ruling in the case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (No. 10-553), was cheered by the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, which had submitted an amicus curiae, or "friend of the court," brief urging the justices not to open the door to federal-court involvement in determining which employees of such institutions should be classified as ministerial.

a. "We argued in our brief, and we believe on our campuses, that our faculty are essential to carrying out the religious mission" of religious colleges, said Shapri D. LoMaglio, director of government relations and executive programs for the council... "decision affirms the common-sense proposition that religious schools must be free to choose religion teachers based on religion, without interference from the state."

8. On the other side of the issue, more than 60 professors of law and religion at American higher-education institutions had submitted an amicus brief arguing that the recognition of a ministerial exception "has breathtaking implications for denying the civil rights of employees of religious schools and institutions," including the nation's roughly 900 religiously affiliated colleges and universities."
Supreme Court Recognizes a 'Ministerial Exception' to Job-Discrimination Laws - Faculty - The Chronicle of Higher Education

9. "This decision," he said in a statement, "makes resoundingly clear the historical and constitutional importance of keeping internal church affairs off limits to the government — because whoever chooses the minister chooses the message."
Supreme Court upholds "ministerial exception" in employment-bias laws - The Denver Post

The suggestion here is that the courts are pushing back against an Obama administration seen to be hostile to religious freedom, specifically in passing a healthcare law that mandates abortion and contraception strategegies inimical to many religious doctrines.

America is waking up to the excesses of big government.

 

[Dragon]

The decision has NO implications for "church-affiliated colleges." The exemption applies only to "personnel decisions involving workers with religious duties." In other words, employees of the church proper, not of other businesses such as a school that a church merely owns.

And this is nothing new, although affirmation by the Supreme Court perhaps is. If so, it only ratifies a distinction that already existed. A church is not bound by anti-discrimination laws in its religious functions proper, but is in any other enterprise owned and operated by the church that is not itself of a religious nature.

 

[konradv]

Hostile to relgious freedom? You're going to have to give a little more than an unsupported claim.

 

[Dragon]

Hostile to relgious freedom? You're going to have to give a little more than an unsupported claim.

"Religious freedom" in some circles is code-speak for the freedom of conservative Christians to suppress the religious freedom of anyone else.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Hostile to relgious freedom? You're going to have to give a little more than an unsupported claim.

"Religious freedom" in some circles is code-speak for the freedom of conservative Christians to suppress the religious freedom of anyone else.

No, US conservative Christians get tired of everyone else dictating to US and persecuting US. When the schools in California are mandated to teach a course on the cult of islam and then deny Christian teaching in school, that is suppression of Christians rights.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hostile to relgious freedom? You're going to have to give a little more than an unsupported claim.

Sure.

1. "The problem was that the Senate version of the bill contained no abortion restrictions. But instead of putting pressure on the Senate Democrats to add the Stupak-Pitts Amendment to their version of the bill, the Obama administration chose instead to place enormous pressure on the House to take this language out of their bill. In the end, nearly all the House Democrats, including the small “pro-life” contingent, did as they were told. As a result, there are no restrictions against abortion in the bill itself." Does Obamacare Fund Abortion? Let Us Count the Ways. | Population Research Institute

You're probably unaware of the objections some religious folks have to abortion.

2. “In the latter half of 2009 – in what will surely be remembered as a pivotal achievement – Planned Parenthood worked with its supporters across the nation to help shape and pass the Affordable Care Act,” wrote PPFA President Cecile Richards and PPFA Chair Valerie McCarthy, in a letter published as part of the organization’s 2009-2010 annual report.

The women credit their organization’s “tireless efforts” with the passage of a law that “expands care to millions of women and protects women’s access to essential reproductive care,” and promise their supporters “a promising new era of health care.”

According to many pro-life activists and religious leaders, however, what the “new era” touted by Richards and McCarthy promises is an end to conscience rights for Christian employers and health care providers, and an outpouring of government funding for abortion."
Planned Parenthood takes credit for helping ‘shape’ Obamacare | LifeSiteNews.com

You're probably unaware of the objections some religious folks have to birth control.

3. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Belleville, Ill., has announced that they will be severing ties with their Social Services agency due to Illinois’ Civil Union Law.
“When Illinois Catholic Charities agencies said they would refuse to place children with unmarried or same sex couples through their foster care and adoption programs, the battle lines were drawn,” said the diocese in a statement....“Catholic adoption agencies are morally constrained by their core religious convictions from providing services to same-sex couples,”...'
Catholic Charities, Ill. Diocese Separate Over New Adoption Rules, Christian News

a. "...Catholic adoption agencies shut down and at least one religious organization lost its tax-exempt status...."
NY Gay-Marriage Talks Hinge on Religious Rights - ABC News

b. "An honors student at a Fort Worth, Texas, high school was sent to the principal’s office after he told a fellow student that he thought homosexuality is wrong."
Texas Student Suspended for Saying Homosexuality is Wrong

c. The Obama administration has noted the bigger role that gays and lesbians can play in adoptions. The commissioner for the Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Bryan Samuels, sent a memo to that effect to national child welfare agencies in April.

“The child welfare system has come to understand that placing a child in a gay or lesbian family is no greater risk than placing them in a heterosexual family,” Mr. Samuels said in an interview."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/us/14adoption.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all



You're probably unaware of the objections some religious folks are opposed to homosexuality.


4. "Compton Unified School District in California rejected the two applications for a charter school because the applicant was a church leader."
Christian Applicant Denied Charter School Because of Faith

You're probably unaware that religious folks are entitled to the same rights as nonreligious.

5. "Pastor Scott Rainey was invited to take part in a Memorial Day service at the Houston National Cemetery, as he has done for the past two years. This year, however, he was required to submit his prayer in writing. Within hours he was ordered to remove the words “in the name of Jesus Christ, the risen Lord,” and told if he did not, he would not be a part of the Memorial Day service [at the Houston National Cemetery ]."
Veterans Affairs Houston Cemetery: No Jesus in Prayers – Judge Decides FOR Pastor Scott Rainey | Maggie's Notebook

You're probably unaware of the tendency of some religious folks have to using "the name of Jesus Christ, the risen Lord" during services.


Do you detect an element of hostility?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Yup hostitilty at best toward christians, almost bigotry if you want to stretch it the way many of the fringes of both parties do on issues.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hostile to relgious freedom? You're going to have to give a little more than an unsupported claim.

"Religious freedom" in some circles is code-speak for the freedom of conservative Christians to suppress the religious freedom of anyone else.

So, how about post #6, Lizzie?

Which of your freedoms are "suppressed"?

 

[PoliticalChic]

“That result is hard to square with the text of the First Amendment itself, which gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “We cannot accept the remarkable view that the religion clauses have nothing to say about a religious organization’s freedom to select its own ministers.”
"... Obama’s DOJ would try to argue that religious orgs enjoy no extra freedom in their hiring practices under the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. His amazement was obviously shared: I can’t remember the last time a major decision on a hot-button issue went 9-0....“The fact is that to many in the Obama administration, as to many in modern legal academia, employment discrimination law is itself pursued with the intensity of, well, a religion. And when someone else’s religion comes into conflict with theirs — well, it’s only human nature for them to want theirs to prevail.”
9-0: Supreme Court finds “ministerial exception” to job discrimination laws for religious organizations « Hot Air

 

[konradv]

Hostile to relgious freedom? You're going to have to give a little more than an unsupported claim.

Sure.

1. "The problem was that the Senate version of the bill contained no abortion restrictions. But instead of putting pressure on the Senate Democrats to add the Stupak-Pitts Amendment to their version of the bill, the Obama administration chose instead to place enormous pressure on the House to take this language out of their bill. In the end, nearly all the House Democrats, including the small “pro-life” contingent, did as they were told. As a result, there are no restrictions against abortion in the bill itself." Does Obamacare Fund Abortion? Let Us Count the Ways. | Population Research Institute

You're probably unaware of the objections some religious folks have to abortion.

2. “In the latter half of 2009 – in what will surely be remembered as a pivotal achievement – Planned Parenthood worked with its supporters across the nation to help shape and pass the Affordable Care Act,” wrote PPFA President Cecile Richards and PPFA Chair Valerie McCarthy, in a letter published as part of the organization’s 2009-2010 annual report.

The women credit their organization’s “tireless efforts” with the passage of a law that “expands care to millions of women and protects women’s access to essential reproductive care,” and promise their supporters “a promising new era of health care.”

According to many pro-life activists and religious leaders, however, what the “new era” touted by Richards and McCarthy promises is an end to conscience rights for Christian employers and health care providers, and an outpouring of government funding for abortion."
Planned Parenthood takes credit for helping ‘shape’ Obamacare | LifeSiteNews.com

You're probably unaware of the objections some religious folks have to birth control.

3. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Belleville, Ill., has announced that they will be severing ties with their Social Services agency due to Illinois’ Civil Union Law.
“When Illinois Catholic Charities agencies said they would refuse to place children with unmarried or same sex couples through their foster care and adoption programs, the battle lines were drawn,” said the diocese in a statement....“Catholic adoption agencies are morally constrained by their core religious convictions from providing services to same-sex couples,”...'
Catholic Charities, Ill. Diocese Separate Over New Adoption Rules, Christian News

a. "...Catholic adoption agencies shut down and at least one religious organization lost its tax-exempt status...."
NY Gay-Marriage Talks Hinge on Religious Rights - ABC News

b. "An honors student at a Fort Worth, Texas, high school was sent to the principal’s office after he told a fellow student that he thought homosexuality is wrong."
Texas Student Suspended for Saying Homosexuality is Wrong

c. The Obama administration has noted the bigger role that gays and lesbians can play in adoptions. The commissioner for the Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Bryan Samuels, sent a memo to that effect to national child welfare agencies in April.

“The child welfare system has come to understand that placing a child in a gay or lesbian family is no greater risk than placing them in a heterosexual family,” Mr. Samuels said in an interview."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/us/14adoption.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all



You're probably unaware of the objections some religious folks are opposed to homosexuality.


4. "Compton Unified School District in California rejected the two applications for a charter school because the applicant was a church leader."
Christian Applicant Denied Charter School Because of Faith

You're probably unaware that religious folks are entitled to the same rights as nonreligious.

5. "Pastor Scott Rainey was invited to take part in a Memorial Day service at the Houston National Cemetery, as he has done for the past two years. This year, however, he was required to submit his prayer in writing. Within hours he was ordered to remove the words “in the name of Jesus Christ, the risen Lord,” and told if he did not, he would not be a part of the Memorial Day service [at the Houston National Cemetery ]."
Veterans Affairs Houston Cemetery: No Jesus in Prayers – Judge Decides FOR Pastor Scott Rainey | Maggie's Notebook

You're probably unaware of the tendency of some religious folks have to using "the name of Jesus Christ, the risen Lord" during services.

Do you detect an element of hostility?

No, that's just a multi-cultural society trying to be inclusive. One can pray to God without mentioning Jesus.

Organizations that don't want to participate in government programs don't have to, do they? It's not being forced on them.

Objections to homosexuality are actually the opposite of where you claim the hostility is coming from.

 

[Dragon]

No, US conservative Christians get tired of everyone else dictating to US and persecuting US. When the schools in California are mandated to teach a course on the cult of islam and then deny Christian teaching in school, that is suppression of Christians rights.

Except that that doesn't happen. Either part of it. Regarding teaching a course on Islam, this is done in a historical context; you cannot understand the history of the Middle Ages without understanding Islam. It was crucial in so many things, from the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire to the formation of Spain as a nation to its impact on the culture of Sicily and modern Italy to the Crusades.

In no way is Islam taught as a form of indoctrination in California schools, nor can it be under the First Amendment.

As for Christianity, that, too, is crucial to history and is also not neglected. But like Islam, it cannot be taught by the school as a form of indoctrination -- and THAT is what conservative Christians are complaining about.

Show me Christians being jailed for their faith, or denied jobs or housing -- and be aware that I will examine the fine print to determine whether it really was their faith for which they were being penalized -- and I will begin to take seriously the claims of persecution. But being denied the right to control the government and suppress all other faiths is not persecution.

 

[Dragon]

So, how about post #6, Lizzie?

Post #6 detailed exactly ZERO examples of religious persecution, and MANY examples of conservative Christians being denied the right to dictate what the law should be and thus to oppress others. I'll use one example, the Stupak-Pitts amendment to the Affordable Care Act. This amendment would have made it so that anyone buying PRIVATE health insurance could not have abortion as a covered service, if the company providing the policy received any federal subsidy funds from lower-income insureds. That the ACA itself does not contain "restrictions" on funding abortion means nothing, because those restrictions are already a part of federal law and the Act would have had to affirmatively REPEAL them in order to represent public funding of abortion, not merely stay silent.

Oppression of those who object to abortion would consist of forcing them to obtain abortions or to pay for those of others. Oppression of those who DON'T object to abortion consists of making it impossible to obtain one. The ACA does NOT represent oppression of those who object to abortion. If Stupak-Pitts had been passed, that WOULD have represented oppression of those who don't. Thus, failure to pass Stupak-Pitts is not oppression, it is denial of the privilege of oppressing others.

Every other example you presented follows the same logic.

Which of your freedoms are "suppressed"?

So far, none -- or at least, no religious freedoms. As long as we keep views like yours out of power, hopefully that will remain so.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hostile to relgious freedom? You're going to have to give a little more than an unsupported claim.

Sure.

1. "The problem was that the Senate version of the bill contained no abortion restrictions. But instead of putting pressure on the Senate Democrats to add the Stupak-Pitts Amendment to their version of the bill, the Obama administration chose instead to place enormous pressure on the House to take this language out of their bill. In the end, nearly all the House Democrats, including the small “pro-life” contingent, did as they were told. As a result, there are no restrictions against abortion in the bill itself." Does Obamacare Fund Abortion? Let Us Count the Ways. | Population Research Institute

You're probably unaware of the objections some religious folks have to abortion.

2. “In the latter half of 2009 – in what will surely be remembered as a pivotal achievement – Planned Parenthood worked with its supporters across the nation to help shape and pass the Affordable Care Act,” wrote PPFA President Cecile Richards and PPFA Chair Valerie McCarthy, in a letter published as part of the organization’s 2009-2010 annual report.

The women credit their organization’s “tireless efforts” with the passage of a law that “expands care to millions of women and protects women’s access to essential reproductive care,” and promise their supporters “a promising new era of health care.”

According to many pro-life activists and religious leaders, however, what the “new era” touted by Richards and McCarthy promises is an end to conscience rights for Christian employers and health care providers, and an outpouring of government funding for abortion."
Planned Parenthood takes credit for helping ‘shape’ Obamacare | LifeSiteNews.com

You're probably unaware of the objections some religious folks have to birth control.

3. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Belleville, Ill., has announced that they will be severing ties with their Social Services agency due to Illinois’ Civil Union Law.
“When Illinois Catholic Charities agencies said they would refuse to place children with unmarried or same sex couples through their foster care and adoption programs, the battle lines were drawn,” said the diocese in a statement....“Catholic adoption agencies are morally constrained by their core religious convictions from providing services to same-sex couples,”...'
Catholic Charities, Ill. Diocese Separate Over New Adoption Rules, Christian News

a. "...Catholic adoption agencies shut down and at least one religious organization lost its tax-exempt status...."
NY Gay-Marriage Talks Hinge on Religious Rights - ABC News

b. "An honors student at a Fort Worth, Texas, high school was sent to the principal’s office after he told a fellow student that he thought homosexuality is wrong."
Texas Student Suspended for Saying Homosexuality is Wrong

c. The Obama administration has noted the bigger role that gays and lesbians can play in adoptions. The commissioner for the Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Bryan Samuels, sent a memo to that effect to national child welfare agencies in April.

“The child welfare system has come to understand that placing a child in a gay or lesbian family is no greater risk than placing them in a heterosexual family,” Mr. Samuels said in an interview."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/us/14adoption.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all



You're probably unaware of the objections some religious folks are opposed to homosexuality.


4. "Compton Unified School District in California rejected the two applications for a charter school because the applicant was a church leader."
Christian Applicant Denied Charter School Because of Faith

You're probably unaware that religious folks are entitled to the same rights as nonreligious.

5. "Pastor Scott Rainey was invited to take part in a Memorial Day service at the Houston National Cemetery, as he has done for the past two years. This year, however, he was required to submit his prayer in writing. Within hours he was ordered to remove the words “in the name of Jesus Christ, the risen Lord,” and told if he did not, he would not be a part of the Memorial Day service [at the Houston National Cemetery ]."
Veterans Affairs Houston Cemetery: No Jesus in Prayers – Judge Decides FOR Pastor Scott Rainey | Maggie's Notebook

You're probably unaware of the tendency of some religious folks have to using "the name of Jesus Christ, the risen Lord" during services.

Do you detect an element of hostility?

No, that's just a multi-cultural society trying to be inclusive. One can pray to God without mentioning Jesus.

Organizations that don't want to participate in government programs don't have to, do they? It's not being forced on them.

Objections to homosexuality are actually the opposite of where you claim the hostility is coming from.

"One can pray to God without mentioning Jesus."
Why should they have to?

"Organizations that don't want to participate in government programs don't have to,..."
You probably haven't heard about Obamacare....

"Objections to homosexuality are actually the opposite of where you claim the hostility is coming from."
What?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, how about post #6, Lizzie?

Post #6 detailed exactly ZERO examples of religious persecution, and MANY examples of conservative Christians being denied the right to dictate what the law should be and thus to oppress others. I'll use one example, the Stupak-Pitts amendment to the Affordable Care Act. This amendment would have made it so that anyone buying PRIVATE health insurance could not have abortion as a covered service, if the company providing the policy received any federal subsidy funds from lower-income insureds. That the ACA itself does not contain "restrictions" on funding abortion means nothing, because those restrictions are already a part of federal law and the Act would have had to affirmatively REPEAL them in order to represent public funding of abortion, not merely stay silent.

Oppression of those who object to abortion would consist of forcing them to obtain abortions or to pay for those of others. Oppression of those who DON'T object to abortion consists of making it impossible to obtain one. The ACA does NOT represent oppression of those who object to abortion. If Stupak-Pitts had been passed, that WOULD have represented oppression of those who don't. Thus, failure to pass Stupak-Pitts is not oppression, it is denial of the privilege of oppressing others.

Every other example you presented follows the same logic.

Which of your freedoms are "suppressed"?

So far, none -- or at least, no religious freedoms. As long as we keep views like yours out of power, hopefully that will remain so.

"Post #6 detailed exactly ZERO examples of religious persecution..."

Persecution?

Post #4 refers to hostility to religion.

By changing the subject, I'll assume that you realize that you lost this one.

 

[PoliticalChic]

CRANSTON, R.I. (WPRI) - The prayer banner hanging in the Cranston High School West gym that's now at the center of a lawsuit by the ACLU reads in full:
Our Heavenly Father,
Grant us each day the desire to do our best,
To grow mentally and morally as well as physically,
To be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers,
To be honest with ourselves as well as with others,
Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win,
Teach us the value of true friendship,
Help us always to conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to Cranston High School West.
Amen
Though the banner has hung in the gym for decades, the ACLU points to Supreme Court decisions over the separation of church and state, as well as the Cranston School District's policy which states that "the proper setting for religious observance is the home and the place of worship."
Text of Cranston West prayer banner | WPRI.com

U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Lagueux ruled that the prayer banner at Cranston High School West must be removed immediately because it promotes religion. Jessica Ahlquist, an atheist student, had sued the city of Cranston and the high school after they initially refused to remove the banner.
Federal Judge Says Prayer Banner Must Be Removed | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes

 

[Dragon]

Persecution?

Post #4 refers to hostility to religion.

Substitute the words and everything I said remains true.

 

[Steelplate]

Hostile to relgious freedom? You're going to have to give a little more than an unsupported claim.

"Religious freedom" in some circles is code-speak for the freedom of conservative Christians to suppress the religious freedom of anyone else.

No, US conservative Christians get tired of everyone else dictating to US and persecuting US. When the schools in California are mandated to teach a course on the cult of islam and then deny Christian teaching in school, that is suppression of Christians rights.

Are kids required to take that course? if not... STFU.