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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Oh, wah.
Despite Cheryl Eager and the other whiners, yes, this issue is over.
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.
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?
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.
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?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.
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".
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
>>>>
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.
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."
You know there are other agencies that were qualified and able and the cases were transferred. The end.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
>>>>
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.
>>>>
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?
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.
>>>>
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 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.
>>>>
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?