Supreme Court debates church and state boundary in fired teacher’s case

[alp227]

Source: The Washington Post

Few issues test Supreme Court justices like trying to find the proper boundary between church and state. And that difficulty was again on display Wednesday as they considered whether a former teacher at a church school could pursue her claim that she was fired after becoming ill.

Only Justice Antonin Scalia seemed completely sure of the answer, repeatedly taking the position that a church’s personnel decisions about those who serve in ministerial positions are off limits to government inquiry.

“It’s none of the business of the government to decide what the substantial interest of the church is,” Scalia said.

But others on the court thought there might be a role for the government, although no consensus was apparent on that or on whether it would apply in the case before them, which involves Cheryl Perich, a former teacher at the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Redford, Mich.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-debates-church-and-state-boundary-in-fired-teachers-case/2011/10/05/gIQAN6PpOL_singlePage.html

[No Elephants]

1. Really?

"The churches do not set the criteria for selecting or removing the officers of government"

But, believers across the nation are told in church and in notes sent home from parochial schools that it is a sin to vote for someone who supports reproductive choice or supports same gender marriage.

Be that as it may, Scalia is wrong. (Yes, yes, I know: No shit, Sherlock.)

It would be wrong and unconstitutional to enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act in a way that discriminated against church employers. However, it is also wrong and unconstitutional to give church employers immunity from the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Constitutional course would be to enforce laws equally, across the board, church employers, atheist employers, secular employers, whatever. Neutrality. Blind justice.

[HowHeThinks]

2. I wasn't aware..........

that there is a separation of church and state in this country anymore. The churches openly campaign for their selected candidates from the pulpit, yet still enjoy their tax-exempt status. No politician has the sand to go up against them - lest they be labeled a dreaded ATHEIST - so they continue to get away with breaking one of the Constitution's basic tenets. I'd like to see any other group attempt what they're doing. It would be shackles and chains in a New York minute.

[oldhippydude]

5. its far worse than that

with the "faith based initiative".. not only are they tax exempt,we actually subsidize them, with tax dollars!! there is religious superstition.. then there is super-duperstition (where we are required to pay for their beliefs)

[defendandprotect]

11. +1 --- True -- and Obama has increased the subsidy to these "faith-based" orgs ... !!!

[melm00se]

3. a church is not exempt

from laws that have nothing to do with their faith or practice of religion.

Sotamayor hit it right on the head:

“Doesn’t society have a right at some point to say certain conduct is unacceptable,” even if some religions sanction drug use or sexual contact with minors? “And once we say that’s unacceptable, can and why shouldn’t we protect the people who are doing what the law requires, i.e. reporting it?”

[mulsh]

8. Title III of the ADA broadly exempts churches

As noted in the preamble to the ADA title III regulation:

he ADA's exemption of religious organizations and religious entities controlled by religious organizations is very broad, encompassing a wide variety of situations. Religious organizations and entities controlled by religious organizations have no obligations under the ADA. Even when a religious organization carries out activities that would otherwise make it a public accommodation, the religious organization is exempt from ADA coverage. Thus, if a church itself operates...a private school, or a diocesan school system, the operations of the...school or schools would not be subject to the ADA or . The religious entity would not lose its exemption merely because the services provided were open to the general public. The test is whether the church or other religious organization operates the public accommodation, not which individuals receive the public accommodation's services.

56 Fed. Reg. 35,554 (July 26, 1991).

here's a link to the ADA in its entirety:

http://www.ada.gov/

edit to add I'm on the plaintiff's side on this case,it doesn't seem too "christian" to fire a disabled person who is able to do her job.

[thucythucy]

13. Title III deals with public accommodations,

not employment. Employment is covered under Title I of the ADA, and thus the Title III regs have no bearing. It may well be that the Title I regulations offer similarly broad exemptions to religious institutions--I just don't know.

It's interesting though that the two institutions that lobbied hardest for exemption from the ADA were the insurance companies and the mainsteam religious institutions. Insurers didn't want to have to provide disabled people with services because it isn't as profitable for them as offering coverage to people without disabilities. Religious institutions.... well, religious groups wanted to be able to exclude people with disabilities out of pure bigotry. The Catholic church, for instance, for centuries refused to allow people with epilepsy to become priests--because epilepsy was considered a sign of demonic possession.

I leave it to you all to decide what this says about religious institutions in America.

[defendandprotect]

12. "sexual contact with minors" .... nice hit by Sotomayer -- !!!

[SemperEadem]

4. once upon a time,

the catholic church thought it expedient to burn heretics at the stake.

If they decided to set up a a wooden stake and a bunch of timber and start burning people who broke church rules, would the state have something to say about that?

The state most certainly has something to say if the church, in exchange for existing in the US, gets to enjoy a tax free status. You dont' get everything for free.

[McCamy Taylor]

6. An employer is an employer. Even churches have an incentive to fire the sick to keep insurance costs

down.

[Hubert Flottz]

7. I talked to Gawd last night and he told me that...

he don't even go to church anymore.

[greiner3]

9. Makes you wonder;

If God believes in humans.

[thucythucy]

10. But libertarians are forever telling us

that those of us who are sick or disabled but too poor to buy health insurance should rely on the churches to provide the care we need.

I guess this particular church just didn't get the message.