Should Churches Be Forced to Accomodate for Homosexual Adoptions?

[QuickHitCurepon]

Oh, wah.

Despite Cheryl Eager and the other whiners, yes, this issue is over.

Only a few states have done this, and the rest of the country can learn what mistakes NOT to make.

 

[WorldWatcher]

First of all it's a religiously affiliated organization, not a church. Secondly, the Catholic Charities need only comply. So, it isn't a question of no matter what they do.

The Court ruling in Hobby Lobby has established that companies have a right to practice their religion.


You're welcome.

Did that case rule there was an entitlement to receive a government contract when the organization desiring to be awarded the contract has indicated they will not fulfill the requirements of it?


>>>>

Organizations which are religious based can currently discriminate based on religion when hiring even if they receive federal funding.

Federal funding of religious institutions Secular Coalition for America

Not that big of a leap of logic to conclude that they could also discriminate as to who they serve.

The can discriminate in hiring only under the Ministerial Exception which means that the employee is a minister or has pastoral duties. And that applies whether they have a federal contract or not. A Church can refuse to hire an atheist as a minister of the gospel, a Church cannot refuse (under employment law) to Buddist for a Janitorial position.

All of that has nothing to do with what I said though.

There is no entitlement to be awarded a contract from the government (in this case a State government and not the Federal government) when the applicant for the contract has indicated in advance they will not comply with the terms under which the contract is due to be awarded.



>>>>

You're wrong about the discrimination law. as applied to religious organizations.

Religious Discrimination in Hiring - ECFA.org

They most certainly CAN discriminate when hiring the janitor. As upheld by SCOTUS

As for government contracts, of course a business has to follow the tenants of a contract , but if a contract contains an unlawful component then the entire contract is invalid.

By executive order, Bush II declared that religious organizations with government contracts could discriminate based on religion when hiring. This executive order is still in effect.

I'll take your link from a Christian Non-Profit site and instead refer you to the Congressional Research Service which discusses Ministerial Exceptions. Last I checked a Janitor was not a minister.

http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/R42464_03272012.pdf

Now you have said that the SCOTUS has upheld your position, that a religious organization can hire or fire anyone on the basis of the emplyees religion - please post a link to the ruling or provide the case citation.

Please don't try Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC because that was not what was held in that case. The SCOTUS held for the defendent based on the fact that the teacher in the case was classified as a "called" teacher vice a "lay" teacher. Perich was originally hired as a lay teacher, but later received a diploma designating her a commissioned minister and her status changed from "lay" teacher to "called" teacher (i.e. one with some ministerial duties).

For example, in Hosanna-Tabor the court said:

"Every Court of Appeals to have considered the question
has concluded that the ministerial exception is not limited
to the head of a religious congregation, and we agree. We
are reluctant, however, to adopt a rigid formula for deciding
when an employee qualifies as a minister. It is enough
for us to conclude, in this our first case involving the
ministerial exception, that the exception covers Perich,
given all the circumstances of her employment."​

The court identifies this is the first case on it's direct ruling on a Ministerial Exception and it is basing this decision on the fact that Periech qualified as a minister because of her ministerial duties and training.

The errors that the SCOTUS pointed to in the Circuit Court decision where: (a) ignoring that she was a commissioned minister, (b) to much weight to the fact that lay teachers performed some similar duties, and (c) placed to much weight on Periech performing some secular duties.


***********************

So this case was from the October 2011 term and they indicated that it was the first direct on the issue of generally applicable employment law and that the ruling was based on Ministerial Exceptions. If there has been another ruling since then, I'd like to review it.

Thanks.

WW


>>>>

 

[Disir]

The fact is that in the US they are replaceable and the Catholic Charities was smart enough to close the agencies and allow the other agencies to continue to handle the cases. You attempt to use children as a weapon.

How are the children being used as a weapon?

The result is far fewer children available for adoption. If gay families MUST be satisfied the children will have to be taken from intact families. Mothers and fathers will just have to be declared unfit and their children taken from them to make the gay mafia happy.

Indeed, that is why the state should play fair towards the church, because they could easily be seen as showing favoritism towards gays, which can lead to a slippery slope where Child Protective Services starts to exaggerate circumstances or invent reasons to take children from heartbroken parents. This could easily become the perception or reality.

That's a lie.

Why do you feel that way?

You know it's a lie.

 

[Disir]

The fact is that in the US they are replaceable and the Catholic Charities was smart enough to close the agencies and allow the other agencies to continue to handle the cases. You attempt to use children as a weapon.

How are the children being used as a weapon?

Homophobia has reached a level where children are being thrown.

Thrown out with the bathwater.

You know there are other agencies that were qualified and able and the cases were transferred. The end.

 

[Syriusly]

First of all it's a religiously affiliated organization, not a church. Secondly, the Catholic Charities need only comply. So, it isn't a question of no matter what they do.

Catholics CANNOT comply if it means promoting the homosexual culture. That's like asking an orthodox jew to eat raw pork while he works on Friday and if he doesn't, threatening to burn his synagogue down. Is there an end to your hubris?

That's a rhetorical question because those of us who have been watching your choreographed incremental progression realize we are dealing with a rival cult hellbent [literally] on extinguishing its nemesis [religions of altruism and personal restraint]....know the answer is "no". No, there is no end to your hubris and your "legal pushing". And that's precisely why I started this thread. To expose that. Thanks for participating "Disir".

Well Catholics have complied- and Catholics have found ways to participate in adoption to same gender couples.

I wonder how long before the anti-homosexual activists target the Catholic Church for working with homosexuals?

SAN FRANCISCO Catholic Charities scaling back its role in adoption services - SFGate

After spending nearly 100 years finding homes for children awaiting adoption, Catholic Charities announced that it will no longer provide full adoption services.

Instead, the branch of the Archdiocese of San Francisco says it put efforts into providing referrals to the state Department of Social Services and California Kids Connection, a statewide adoption exchange that matches foster children with families.

The decision to end adoptions comes five months after the archdiocese said it no longer would allow same-sex couples to adopt children through its Catholic Charities agency.

Earlier this year, Catholic Charities said it had placed five of 136 children with same-sex couples since 2000.

Catholic Charities plans to collaborate with both California Kids Connection, a network provided by the nonprofit Oakland-based Family Builders by Adoption, and the state Social Services department, which oversees the welfare of 82,000 foster children.

Archbishop George Niederauer said that the new partnership would still allow children to be placed with gay and lesbian couples.

"That would be a decision that would be made by the adoption agency," Niederauer said. "We can no longer run an agency that makes those decisions."

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The Court ruling in Hobby Lobby has established that companies have a right to practice their religion.


You're welcome.

Did that case rule there was an entitlement to receive a government contract when the organization desiring to be awarded the contract has indicated they will not fulfill the requirements of it?


>>>>

Organizations which are religious based can currently discriminate based on religion when hiring even if they receive federal funding.

Federal funding of religious institutions Secular Coalition for America

Not that big of a leap of logic to conclude that they could also discriminate as to who they serve.

The can discriminate in hiring only under the Ministerial Exception which means that the employee is a minister or has pastoral duties. And that applies whether they have a federal contract or not. A Church can refuse to hire an atheist as a minister of the gospel, a Church cannot refuse (under employment law) to Buddist for a Janitorial position.

All of that has nothing to do with what I said though.

There is no entitlement to be awarded a contract from the government (in this case a State government and not the Federal government) when the applicant for the contract has indicated in advance they will not comply with the terms under which the contract is due to be awarded.



>>>>

You're wrong about the discrimination law. as applied to religious organizations.

Religious Discrimination in Hiring - ECFA.org

They most certainly CAN discriminate when hiring the janitor. As upheld by SCOTUS

As for government contracts, of course a business has to follow the tenants of a contract , but if a contract contains an unlawful component then the entire contract is invalid.

By executive order, Bush II declared that religious organizations with government contracts could discriminate based on religion when hiring. This executive order is still in effect.

I'll take your link from a Christian Non-Profit site and instead refer you to the Congressional Research Service which discusses Ministerial Exceptions. Last I checked a Janitor was not a minister.

http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/R42464_03272012.pdf

Now you have said that the SCOTUS has upheld your position, that a religious organization can hire or fire anyone on the basis of the emplyees religion - please post a link to the ruling or provide the case citation.

Please don't try Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC because that was not what was held in that case. The SCOTUS held for the defendent based on the fact that the teacher in the case was classified as a "called" teacher vice a "lay" teacher. Perich was originally hired as a lay teacher, but later received a diploma designating her a commissioned minister and her status changed from "lay" teacher to "called" teacher (i.e. one with some ministerial duties).

For example, in Hosanna-Tabor the court said:

"Every Court of Appeals to have considered the question
has concluded that the ministerial exception is not limited
to the head of a religious congregation, and we agree. We
are reluctant, however, to adopt a rigid formula for deciding
when an employee qualifies as a minister. It is enough
for us to conclude, in this our first case involving the
ministerial exception, that the exception covers Perich,
given all the circumstances of her employment."​

The court identifies this is the first case on it's direct ruling on a Ministerial Exception and it is basing this decision on the fact that Periech qualified as a minister because of her ministerial duties and training.

The errors that the SCOTUS pointed to in the Circuit Court decision where: (a) ignoring that she was a commissioned minister, (b) to much weight to the fact that lay teachers performed some similar duties, and (c) placed to much weight on Periech performing some secular duties.


***********************

So this case was from the October 2011 term and they indicated that it was the first direct on the issue of generally applicable employment law and that the ruling was based on Ministerial Exceptions. If there has been another ruling since then, I'd like to review it.

Thanks.

WW


>>>>

You know, it absolutely pisses me off when people are too lazy to read links provided or too dishonest to admit they were in error.

Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos

SCOTUS has ABSOLUTELY ruled that religious non profit businesses can discriminate based on religion. To my knowledge, no religious adoption agency is a for profit business. Coupled with other recent rulings, it isn't inconceivable to think that religious adoption agencies can discriminate in regards to who they adopt to.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Did that case rule there was an entitlement to receive a government contract when the organization desiring to be awarded the contract has indicated they will not fulfill the requirements of it?


>>>>

Organizations which are religious based can currently discriminate based on religion when hiring even if they receive federal funding.

Federal funding of religious institutions Secular Coalition for America

Not that big of a leap of logic to conclude that they could also discriminate as to who they serve.

The can discriminate in hiring only under the Ministerial Exception which means that the employee is a minister or has pastoral duties. And that applies whether they have a federal contract or not. A Church can refuse to hire an atheist as a minister of the gospel, a Church cannot refuse (under employment law) to Buddist for a Janitorial position.

All of that has nothing to do with what I said though.

There is no entitlement to be awarded a contract from the government (in this case a State government and not the Federal government) when the applicant for the contract has indicated in advance they will not comply with the terms under which the contract is due to be awarded.



>>>>

You're wrong about the discrimination law. as applied to religious organizations.

Religious Discrimination in Hiring - ECFA.org

They most certainly CAN discriminate when hiring the janitor. As upheld by SCOTUS

As for government contracts, of course a business has to follow the tenants of a contract , but if a contract contains an unlawful component then the entire contract is invalid.

By executive order, Bush II declared that religious organizations with government contracts could discriminate based on religion when hiring. This executive order is still in effect.

I'll take your link from a Christian Non-Profit site and instead refer you to the Congressional Research Service which discusses Ministerial Exceptions. Last I checked a Janitor was not a minister.

http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/R42464_03272012.pdf

Now you have said that the SCOTUS has upheld your position, that a religious organization can hire or fire anyone on the basis of the emplyees religion - please post a link to the ruling or provide the case citation.

Please don't try Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC because that was not what was held in that case. The SCOTUS held for the defendent based on the fact that the teacher in the case was classified as a "called" teacher vice a "lay" teacher. Perich was originally hired as a lay teacher, but later received a diploma designating her a commissioned minister and her status changed from "lay" teacher to "called" teacher (i.e. one with some ministerial duties).

For example, in Hosanna-Tabor the court said:

"Every Court of Appeals to have considered the question
has concluded that the ministerial exception is not limited
to the head of a religious congregation, and we agree. We
are reluctant, however, to adopt a rigid formula for deciding
when an employee qualifies as a minister. It is enough
for us to conclude, in this our first case involving the
ministerial exception, that the exception covers Perich,
given all the circumstances of her employment."​

The court identifies this is the first case on it's direct ruling on a Ministerial Exception and it is basing this decision on the fact that Periech qualified as a minister because of her ministerial duties and training.

The errors that the SCOTUS pointed to in the Circuit Court decision where: (a) ignoring that she was a commissioned minister, (b) to much weight to the fact that lay teachers performed some similar duties, and (c) placed to much weight on Periech performing some secular duties.


***********************

So this case was from the October 2011 term and they indicated that it was the first direct on the issue of generally applicable employment law and that the ruling was based on Ministerial Exceptions. If there has been another ruling since then, I'd like to review it.

Thanks.

WW


>>>>

You know, it absolutely pisses me off when people are too lazy to read links provided or too dishonest to admit they were in error.

Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos

SCOTUS has ABSOLUTELY ruled that religious non profit businesses can discriminate based on religion. To my knowledge, no religious adoption agency is a for profit business. Coupled with other recent rulings, it isn't inconceivable to think that religious adoption agencies can discriminate in regards to who they adopt to.

When I'm wrong I'm man enough to admit it, as I do now.

Thank you for the case reference.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

SAN FRANCISCO Catholic Charities scaling back its role in adoption services - SFGate

After spending nearly 100 years finding homes for children awaiting adoption, Catholic Charities announced that it will no longer provide full adoption services.

Instead, the branch of the Archdiocese of San Francisco says it put efforts into providing referrals to the state Department of Social Services and California Kids Connection, a statewide adoption exchange that matches foster children with families......"That would be a decision that would be made by the adoption agency," Niederauer said. "We can no longer run an agency that makes those decisions."

That right there is the end game of this entire thread and what I've been talking about all along. The only difference is that a catholic charity even giving a reference of a child to an agency that will place them with homosexuals is the same as just adopting them out to homosexuals. If the Vatican thinks this will get its officials off the hook as to Jude 1, they are gravely mistaken.

In fact, trying to be sly about enabling the spread of homosexual culture while "looking like their hands are clean" is probably a worse crime than just jumping in with both hands and feet out in the open. A sin is a sin. You cannot "launder" it through a third party.

You've just given evidence how precisely, keenly and covertly and insidiously gay marriage will hurt people.....children to be exact. As long as you consider them people?

 

[Silhouette]

You know there are other agencies that were qualified and able and the cases were transferred. The end.

There you go again, shamelessly advocating for the death of catholic charity orphanages. One of the biggest and most longstanding guardians of orphaned children throughout time.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

The fact is that in the US they are replaceable and the Catholic Charities was smart enough to close the agencies and allow the other agencies to continue to handle the cases. You attempt to use children as a weapon.

How are the children being used as a weapon?

The result is far fewer children available for adoption. If gay families MUST be satisfied the children will have to be taken from intact families. Mothers and fathers will just have to be declared unfit and their children taken from them to make the gay mafia happy.

Indeed, that is why the state should play fair towards the church, because they could easily be seen as showing favoritism towards gays, which can lead to a slippery slope where Child Protective Services starts to exaggerate circumstances or invent reasons to take children from heartbroken parents. This could easily become the perception or reality.

That's a lie.

Why do you feel that way?

You know it's a lie.

It is easy to claim people are lying for no reason.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

The fact is that in the US they are replaceable and the Catholic Charities was smart enough to close the agencies and allow the other agencies to continue to handle the cases. You attempt to use children as a weapon.

How are the children being used as a weapon?

Homophobia has reached a level where children are being thrown.

Thrown out with the bathwater.

You know there are other agencies that were qualified and able and the cases were transferred. The end.

If you believe the people who are trying to gain control.

 

[Syriusly]

You've just given evidence how precisely, keenly and covertly and insidiously gay marriage will hurt people.....children to be exact. As long as you consider them people?

I just gave evidence how 5 children now have homes because of homosexuals- and how the Catholic Charities will continue to support adoption.

That must really irritate you.

AN FRANCISCO Catholic Charities scaling back its role in adoption services - SFGate

After spending nearly 100 years finding homes for children awaiting adoption, Catholic Charities announced that it will no longer provide full adoption services.

Instead, the branch of the Archdiocese of San Francisco says it put efforts into providing referrals to the state Department of Social Services and California Kids Connection, a statewide adoption exchange that matches foster children with families......"That would be a decision that would be made by the adoption agency," Niederauer said. "We can no longer run an agency that makes those decisions."

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

You know there are other agencies that were qualified and able and the cases were transferred. The end.

There you go again, shamelessly advocating for the death of catholic charity orphanages. One of the biggest and most longstanding guardians of orphaned children throughout time.

That is ingratitude for you.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Organizations which are religious based can currently discriminate based on religion when hiring even if they receive federal funding.

Federal funding of religious institutions Secular Coalition for America

Not that big of a leap of logic to conclude that they could also discriminate as to who they serve.

The can discriminate in hiring only under the Ministerial Exception which means that the employee is a minister or has pastoral duties. And that applies whether they have a federal contract or not. A Church can refuse to hire an atheist as a minister of the gospel, a Church cannot refuse (under employment law) to Buddist for a Janitorial position.

All of that has nothing to do with what I said though.

There is no entitlement to be awarded a contract from the government (in this case a State government and not the Federal government) when the applicant for the contract has indicated in advance they will not comply with the terms under which the contract is due to be awarded.



>>>>

You're wrong about the discrimination law. as applied to religious organizations.

Religious Discrimination in Hiring - ECFA.org

They most certainly CAN discriminate when hiring the janitor. As upheld by SCOTUS

As for government contracts, of course a business has to follow the tenants of a contract , but if a contract contains an unlawful component then the entire contract is invalid.

By executive order, Bush II declared that religious organizations with government contracts could discriminate based on religion when hiring. This executive order is still in effect.

I'll take your link from a Christian Non-Profit site and instead refer you to the Congressional Research Service which discusses Ministerial Exceptions. Last I checked a Janitor was not a minister.

http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/R42464_03272012.pdf

Now you have said that the SCOTUS has upheld your position, that a religious organization can hire or fire anyone on the basis of the emplyees religion - please post a link to the ruling or provide the case citation.

Please don't try Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC because that was not what was held in that case. The SCOTUS held for the defendent based on the fact that the teacher in the case was classified as a "called" teacher vice a "lay" teacher. Perich was originally hired as a lay teacher, but later received a diploma designating her a commissioned minister and her status changed from "lay" teacher to "called" teacher (i.e. one with some ministerial duties).

For example, in Hosanna-Tabor the court said:

"Every Court of Appeals to have considered the question
has concluded that the ministerial exception is not limited
to the head of a religious congregation, and we agree. We
are reluctant, however, to adopt a rigid formula for deciding
when an employee qualifies as a minister. It is enough
for us to conclude, in this our first case involving the
ministerial exception, that the exception covers Perich,
given all the circumstances of her employment."​

The court identifies this is the first case on it's direct ruling on a Ministerial Exception and it is basing this decision on the fact that Periech qualified as a minister because of her ministerial duties and training.

The errors that the SCOTUS pointed to in the Circuit Court decision where: (a) ignoring that she was a commissioned minister, (b) to much weight to the fact that lay teachers performed some similar duties, and (c) placed to much weight on Periech performing some secular duties.


***********************

So this case was from the October 2011 term and they indicated that it was the first direct on the issue of generally applicable employment law and that the ruling was based on Ministerial Exceptions. If there has been another ruling since then, I'd like to review it.

Thanks.

WW


>>>>

You know, it absolutely pisses me off when people are too lazy to read links provided or too dishonest to admit they were in error.

Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos

SCOTUS has ABSOLUTELY ruled that religious non profit businesses can discriminate based on religion. To my knowledge, no religious adoption agency is a for profit business. Coupled with other recent rulings, it isn't inconceivable to think that religious adoption agencies can discriminate in regards to who they adopt to.

When I'm wrong I'm man enough to admit it, as I do now.

Thank you for the case reference.



>>>>

Love seeing that. Not the proving you wrong part, but the being a man and admitting it part. We all make mistakes, I know I have posted wrong information on here before. I don't know why some can't acknowledge when they are wrong.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Organizations which are religious based can currently discriminate based on religion when hiring even if they receive federal funding.

Federal funding of religious institutions Secular Coalition for America

Not that big of a leap of logic to conclude that they could also discriminate as to who they serve.

The can discriminate in hiring only under the Ministerial Exception which means that the employee is a minister or has pastoral duties. And that applies whether they have a federal contract or not. A Church can refuse to hire an atheist as a minister of the gospel, a Church cannot refuse (under employment law) to Buddist for a Janitorial position.

All of that has nothing to do with what I said though.

There is no entitlement to be awarded a contract from the government (in this case a State government and not the Federal government) when the applicant for the contract has indicated in advance they will not comply with the terms under which the contract is due to be awarded.



>>>>

You're wrong about the discrimination law. as applied to religious organizations.

Religious Discrimination in Hiring - ECFA.org

They most certainly CAN discriminate when hiring the janitor. As upheld by SCOTUS

As for government contracts, of course a business has to follow the tenants of a contract , but if a contract contains an unlawful component then the entire contract is invalid.

By executive order, Bush II declared that religious organizations with government contracts could discriminate based on religion when hiring. This executive order is still in effect.

I'll take your link from a Christian Non-Profit site and instead refer you to the Congressional Research Service which discusses Ministerial Exceptions. Last I checked a Janitor was not a minister.

http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/R42464_03272012.pdf

Now you have said that the SCOTUS has upheld your position, that a religious organization can hire or fire anyone on the basis of the emplyees religion - please post a link to the ruling or provide the case citation.

Please don't try Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC because that was not what was held in that case. The SCOTUS held for the defendent based on the fact that the teacher in the case was classified as a "called" teacher vice a "lay" teacher. Perich was originally hired as a lay teacher, but later received a diploma designating her a commissioned minister and her status changed from "lay" teacher to "called" teacher (i.e. one with some ministerial duties).

For example, in Hosanna-Tabor the court said:

"Every Court of Appeals to have considered the question
has concluded that the ministerial exception is not limited
to the head of a religious congregation, and we agree. We
are reluctant, however, to adopt a rigid formula for deciding
when an employee qualifies as a minister. It is enough
for us to conclude, in this our first case involving the
ministerial exception, that the exception covers Perich,
given all the circumstances of her employment."​

The court identifies this is the first case on it's direct ruling on a Ministerial Exception and it is basing this decision on the fact that Periech qualified as a minister because of her ministerial duties and training.

The errors that the SCOTUS pointed to in the Circuit Court decision where: (a) ignoring that she was a commissioned minister, (b) to much weight to the fact that lay teachers performed some similar duties, and (c) placed to much weight on Periech performing some secular duties.


***********************

So this case was from the October 2011 term and they indicated that it was the first direct on the issue of generally applicable employment law and that the ruling was based on Ministerial Exceptions. If there has been another ruling since then, I'd like to review it.

Thanks.

WW


>>>>

You know, it absolutely pisses me off when people are too lazy to read links provided or too dishonest to admit they were in error.

Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos

SCOTUS has ABSOLUTELY ruled that religious non profit businesses can discriminate based on religion. To my knowledge, no religious adoption agency is a for profit business. Coupled with other recent rulings, it isn't inconceivable to think that religious adoption agencies can discriminate in regards to who they adopt to.

When I'm wrong I'm man enough to admit it, as I do now.

Thank you for the case reference.



>>>>

Now that you know of that ruling, do you agree it is POSSIBLE that a future ruling could rule that religious non profits could discriminate in regards to customers?

 

[WorldWatcher]

The can discriminate in hiring only under the Ministerial Exception which means that the employee is a minister or has pastoral duties. And that applies whether they have a federal contract or not. A Church can refuse to hire an atheist as a minister of the gospel, a Church cannot refuse (under employment law) to Buddist for a Janitorial position.

All of that has nothing to do with what I said though.

There is no entitlement to be awarded a contract from the government (in this case a State government and not the Federal government) when the applicant for the contract has indicated in advance they will not comply with the terms under which the contract is due to be awarded.



>>>>

You're wrong about the discrimination law. as applied to religious organizations.

Religious Discrimination in Hiring - ECFA.org

They most certainly CAN discriminate when hiring the janitor. As upheld by SCOTUS

As for government contracts, of course a business has to follow the tenants of a contract , but if a contract contains an unlawful component then the entire contract is invalid.

By executive order, Bush II declared that religious organizations with government contracts could discriminate based on religion when hiring. This executive order is still in effect.

I'll take your link from a Christian Non-Profit site and instead refer you to the Congressional Research Service which discusses Ministerial Exceptions. Last I checked a Janitor was not a minister.

http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/R42464_03272012.pdf

Now you have said that the SCOTUS has upheld your position, that a religious organization can hire or fire anyone on the basis of the emplyees religion - please post a link to the ruling or provide the case citation.

Please don't try Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC because that was not what was held in that case. The SCOTUS held for the defendent based on the fact that the teacher in the case was classified as a "called" teacher vice a "lay" teacher. Perich was originally hired as a lay teacher, but later received a diploma designating her a commissioned minister and her status changed from "lay" teacher to "called" teacher (i.e. one with some ministerial duties).

For example, in Hosanna-Tabor the court said:

"Every Court of Appeals to have considered the question
has concluded that the ministerial exception is not limited
to the head of a religious congregation, and we agree. We
are reluctant, however, to adopt a rigid formula for deciding
when an employee qualifies as a minister. It is enough
for us to conclude, in this our first case involving the
ministerial exception, that the exception covers Perich,
given all the circumstances of her employment."​

The court identifies this is the first case on it's direct ruling on a Ministerial Exception and it is basing this decision on the fact that Periech qualified as a minister because of her ministerial duties and training.

The errors that the SCOTUS pointed to in the Circuit Court decision where: (a) ignoring that she was a commissioned minister, (b) to much weight to the fact that lay teachers performed some similar duties, and (c) placed to much weight on Periech performing some secular duties.


***********************

So this case was from the October 2011 term and they indicated that it was the first direct on the issue of generally applicable employment law and that the ruling was based on Ministerial Exceptions. If there has been another ruling since then, I'd like to review it.

Thanks.

WW


>>>>

You know, it absolutely pisses me off when people are too lazy to read links provided or too dishonest to admit they were in error.

Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos

SCOTUS has ABSOLUTELY ruled that religious non profit businesses can discriminate based on religion. To my knowledge, no religious adoption agency is a for profit business. Coupled with other recent rulings, it isn't inconceivable to think that religious adoption agencies can discriminate in regards to who they adopt to.

When I'm wrong I'm man enough to admit it, as I do now.

Thank you for the case reference.



>>>>

Now that you know of that ruling, do you agree it is POSSIBLE that a future ruling could rule that religious non profits could discriminate in regards to customers?

Many religious non-profits can already discriminate in regards to customers. The key being religious and non-profit when they are not engaged in commerce (i.e. for-profit activities). Religious Schools can already discriminate on the students they accept, Charities can discriminate on the customers they serve.

Is a ruling POSSIBLE, sure anything is possible.


>>>>

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You're wrong about the discrimination law. as applied to religious organizations.

Religious Discrimination in Hiring - ECFA.org

They most certainly CAN discriminate when hiring the janitor. As upheld by SCOTUS

As for government contracts, of course a business has to follow the tenants of a contract , but if a contract contains an unlawful component then the entire contract is invalid.

By executive order, Bush II declared that religious organizations with government contracts could discriminate based on religion when hiring. This executive order is still in effect.

I'll take your link from a Christian Non-Profit site and instead refer you to the Congressional Research Service which discusses Ministerial Exceptions. Last I checked a Janitor was not a minister.

http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/R42464_03272012.pdf

Now you have said that the SCOTUS has upheld your position, that a religious organization can hire or fire anyone on the basis of the emplyees religion - please post a link to the ruling or provide the case citation.

Please don't try Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC because that was not what was held in that case. The SCOTUS held for the defendent based on the fact that the teacher in the case was classified as a "called" teacher vice a "lay" teacher. Perich was originally hired as a lay teacher, but later received a diploma designating her a commissioned minister and her status changed from "lay" teacher to "called" teacher (i.e. one with some ministerial duties).

For example, in Hosanna-Tabor the court said:

"Every Court of Appeals to have considered the question
has concluded that the ministerial exception is not limited
to the head of a religious congregation, and we agree. We
are reluctant, however, to adopt a rigid formula for deciding
when an employee qualifies as a minister. It is enough
for us to conclude, in this our first case involving the
ministerial exception, that the exception covers Perich,
given all the circumstances of her employment."​

The court identifies this is the first case on it's direct ruling on a Ministerial Exception and it is basing this decision on the fact that Periech qualified as a minister because of her ministerial duties and training.

The errors that the SCOTUS pointed to in the Circuit Court decision where: (a) ignoring that she was a commissioned minister, (b) to much weight to the fact that lay teachers performed some similar duties, and (c) placed to much weight on Periech performing some secular duties.


***********************

So this case was from the October 2011 term and they indicated that it was the first direct on the issue of generally applicable employment law and that the ruling was based on Ministerial Exceptions. If there has been another ruling since then, I'd like to review it.

Thanks.

WW


>>>>

You know, it absolutely pisses me off when people are too lazy to read links provided or too dishonest to admit they were in error.

Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos

SCOTUS has ABSOLUTELY ruled that religious non profit businesses can discriminate based on religion. To my knowledge, no religious adoption agency is a for profit business. Coupled with other recent rulings, it isn't inconceivable to think that religious adoption agencies can discriminate in regards to who they adopt to.

When I'm wrong I'm man enough to admit it, as I do now.

Thank you for the case reference.



>>>>

Now that you know of that ruling, do you agree it is POSSIBLE that a future ruling could rule that religious non profits could discriminate in regards to customers?

Many religious non-profits can already discriminate in regards to customers. The key being religious and non-profit when they are not engaged in commerce (i.e. for-profit activities). Religious Schools can already discriminate on the students they accept, Charities can discriminate on the customers they serve.

Is a ruling POSSIBLE, sure anything is possible.


>>>>

What do you think about THIS

City Threatens to Arrest Ministers Who Refuse to Perform Same-Sex Weddings Todd Starnes

That sure looks like a violation of the first amendment to me.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'll take your link from a Christian Non-Profit site and instead refer you to the Congressional Research Service which discusses Ministerial Exceptions. Last I checked a Janitor was not a minister.

http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/R42464_03272012.pdf

Now you have said that the SCOTUS has upheld your position, that a religious organization can hire or fire anyone on the basis of the emplyees religion - please post a link to the ruling or provide the case citation.

Please don't try Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC because that was not what was held in that case. The SCOTUS held for the defendent based on the fact that the teacher in the case was classified as a "called" teacher vice a "lay" teacher. Perich was originally hired as a lay teacher, but later received a diploma designating her a commissioned minister and her status changed from "lay" teacher to "called" teacher (i.e. one with some ministerial duties).

For example, in Hosanna-Tabor the court said:

"Every Court of Appeals to have considered the question
has concluded that the ministerial exception is not limited
to the head of a religious congregation, and we agree. We
are reluctant, however, to adopt a rigid formula for deciding
when an employee qualifies as a minister. It is enough
for us to conclude, in this our first case involving the
ministerial exception, that the exception covers Perich,
given all the circumstances of her employment."​

The court identifies this is the first case on it's direct ruling on a Ministerial Exception and it is basing this decision on the fact that Periech qualified as a minister because of her ministerial duties and training.

The errors that the SCOTUS pointed to in the Circuit Court decision where: (a) ignoring that she was a commissioned minister, (b) to much weight to the fact that lay teachers performed some similar duties, and (c) placed to much weight on Periech performing some secular duties.


***********************

So this case was from the October 2011 term and they indicated that it was the first direct on the issue of generally applicable employment law and that the ruling was based on Ministerial Exceptions. If there has been another ruling since then, I'd like to review it.

Thanks.

WW


>>>>

You know, it absolutely pisses me off when people are too lazy to read links provided or too dishonest to admit they were in error.

Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos

SCOTUS has ABSOLUTELY ruled that religious non profit businesses can discriminate based on religion. To my knowledge, no religious adoption agency is a for profit business. Coupled with other recent rulings, it isn't inconceivable to think that religious adoption agencies can discriminate in regards to who they adopt to.

When I'm wrong I'm man enough to admit it, as I do now.

Thank you for the case reference.



>>>>

Now that you know of that ruling, do you agree it is POSSIBLE that a future ruling could rule that religious non profits could discriminate in regards to customers?

Many religious non-profits can already discriminate in regards to customers. The key being religious and non-profit when they are not engaged in commerce (i.e. for-profit activities). Religious Schools can already discriminate on the students they accept, Charities can discriminate on the customers they serve.

Is a ruling POSSIBLE, sure anything is possible.


>>>>

What do you think about THIS

City Threatens to Arrest Ministers Who Refuse to Perform Same-Sex Weddings Todd Starnes

That sure looks like a violation of the first amendment to me.

You moved to goal posts. You know that right?


You went from non-profit (not engaged in commerce) to those running a for-profit business.


Now you ask what I think. OK, as I've said before, I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws in general and that private businesses should be able to determine what they do with their property and who their business associates with. If the Knapps didn't want to marry blacks - that should be their choice. If the Knapps didn't want to marry Muslims - that should be their choice. If the Knapps didn't want to marry those from Ireland - that should be their choice. If the Knapps didn't want to marry aged - that should be their choice. If the Knapps didn't want to marry someone previously divorced - that should be their choice. If the Knapps didn't want to marry a same-sex couple - that should be their choice.


>>>>

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You know, it absolutely pisses me off when people are too lazy to read links provided or too dishonest to admit they were in error.

Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos

SCOTUS has ABSOLUTELY ruled that religious non profit businesses can discriminate based on religion. To my knowledge, no religious adoption agency is a for profit business. Coupled with other recent rulings, it isn't inconceivable to think that religious adoption agencies can discriminate in regards to who they adopt to.

When I'm wrong I'm man enough to admit it, as I do now.

Thank you for the case reference.



>>>>

Now that you know of that ruling, do you agree it is POSSIBLE that a future ruling could rule that religious non profits could discriminate in regards to customers?

Many religious non-profits can already discriminate in regards to customers. The key being religious and non-profit when they are not engaged in commerce (i.e. for-profit activities). Religious Schools can already discriminate on the students they accept, Charities can discriminate on the customers they serve.

Is a ruling POSSIBLE, sure anything is possible.


>>>>

What do you think about THIS

City Threatens to Arrest Ministers Who Refuse to Perform Same-Sex Weddings Todd Starnes

That sure looks like a violation of the first amendment to me.

You moved to goal posts. You know that right?


You went from non-profit (not engaged in commerce) to those running a for-profit business.


>>>>

They're my goal posts I'll put them where I like.

Seriously though. Yes, I moved the conversation since I have already established that a non profit religious organization CAN discriminate based on religion. There is no need to further discuss that point. So let's talk about FOR PROFIT. Do you think that threatening to fine and arrest those people if they don't do something that is against their religion is proper?

 

[WorldWatcher]

When I'm wrong I'm man enough to admit it, as I do now.

Thank you for the case reference.



>>>>

Now that you know of that ruling, do you agree it is POSSIBLE that a future ruling could rule that religious non profits could discriminate in regards to customers?

Many religious non-profits can already discriminate in regards to customers. The key being religious and non-profit when they are not engaged in commerce (i.e. for-profit activities). Religious Schools can already discriminate on the students they accept, Charities can discriminate on the customers they serve.

Is a ruling POSSIBLE, sure anything is possible.


>>>>

What do you think about THIS

City Threatens to Arrest Ministers Who Refuse to Perform Same-Sex Weddings Todd Starnes

That sure looks like a violation of the first amendment to me.

You moved to goal posts. You know that right?


You went from non-profit (not engaged in commerce) to those running a for-profit business.


>>>>

They're my goal posts I'll put them where I like.

Seriously though. Yes, I moved the conversation since I have already established that a non profit religious organization CAN discriminate based on religion. There is no need to further discuss that point. So let's talk about FOR PROFIT. Do you think that threatening to fine and arrest those people if they don't do something that is against their religion is proper?

I was expanding my post when you replied.