Now... I am sure, and I could be wrong, but I am SURE that the President is appraised the various cases the DOJ is taking to the SCOTUS. You'd almost think that a Constitutional Lawyer would go, "Say WHAT?!" and quash this shit before it started.

Yeah, Darth, I know, "Fox News" ... but since everyone was on board with this slap down I figured it was safe to use it.

I agree with this ruling but the article is a piece of partisan bullsh*t. How did the government even get involved in the first place?

That's what I'd like to know Hag... hey seriously, if you can find a HuffPo link to an article by them, post it. Maybe they have some insight as to why the DOJ would be this stupid.

Of course they did set up Fast and Furious... so you know...

Here - I got it...

The huffpo article is SO MUCH BETTER than the FOX News article, CJJ. Thanks.

It all boils down to this:

"The concurrences touch upon a fault line that some of the justices exposed during the case's oral argument last year: To what extent can religious organizations shield themselves from employment laws by simply deeming all of their employees to be ministers?"

That's why the EEOC took the case all the way to the SCOTUS.

The woman went to the Government and I guess they wanted clarification on this point of law. Even Thomas wrote a concurring opinion that was reasonable on the point.

DOJ picked the wrong battle on this. I stopped attending and supporting our Lutheran church because they started that "Social Justice" crap and it was not a local church decision but the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's decision.

Faithful to God's call, the ELCA Washington Office fulfills the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's witness for social justice on domestic and foreign policy

"DOJ picked the wrong battle on this."

The government doesn't necessarily pursue a case to win, often it is to clarify a point of law. From what I'm reading in the opinions, that appears to be the case here.

This site offers the --imho--best analysis of SCOTUS cases.

In June 2004, before the next term opened, she suddenly became ill and was hospitalized. She ultimately was diagnosed with narcolepsy, and took a leave for the following school year. In January 2005, she told the school she would be cleared to return to work in February. The school, however, decided that her health would not permit her return, and a replacement was hired to teach third and fourth grades. School officials then decided it would be best if she resigned. Ultimately, Perich and school leaders came into sharp conflict, when she threatened to sue, claiming that the refusal to retain her was based on her illness, and thus the school would be charged with violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. When she tried to return to school, she was fired; she was told that she was let go because of her threat to sue, which violated a Lutheran religious tenet that members of the faith should resolve internally their disagreements.

She filed charges with EEOC, claiming retaliation under the ADA. The EEOC wound up suing the school, and Perich joined in the lawsuit. A District Court ruled that her claim was barred by the “ministerial exception” to federal workplace discrimination law. The Sixth Circuit Court, however, while recognizing (as have all federal Circuit Courts) that there was such an exception, ruled that Perich could not be treated as a “minister” under that exception because her duties were not primarily involved in the teaching of the faith, and that she had no role in spreading the faith or in church government.

That was the result the Supreme Court overturned Wednesday. Tracing the constitutional history of allowing religious organizations the independent right to control their internal affairs, Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion said the string of Court rulings going back to Watson v. Jones in 1872 “confirm that it is impermissible for the government to contradict a church’s determination of who can act as its ministers.” Religious organizations, the Court said, have that freedom from official interference for matters of church government as well as matters of faith and doctrine.

Let me get this straight Hag thinks it OK for the government to force someone to pay legal fees to defend themselves against some charge just so the government can get clarification about the scope of a law from the courts? Poor Hag so easily led by the nose

I stopped attending and supporting our Lutheran church because they started that "Social Justice" crap and it was not a local church decision but the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's decision.

So what you're saying is the Church wasn't bigoted enough for your tastes?

DOJ picked the wrong battle on this. I stopped attending and supporting our Lutheran church because they started that "Social Justice" crap.

Pretty sure the rest of the congregation was good with that decision.

That people like you even call yourself a Christian is an insult to that religions good name

Be Well..

I stopped attending and supporting our Lutheran church because they started that "Social Justice" crap and it was not a local church decision but the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's decision.

Man, you sure do have to hate an organization that actually follows the teachings of a socialist community organizer like Jesus.

This is what you get when you work for an organization which places its own teachings above secular law.

These people want social change to stop at their front doors, fine. If that has a few ramifications they didn't stop to consider, tough titty.

I'm waiting for the unintended circumstances of this ruling to start crawling out of the woodwork. You all know there are lawyers who started drafting arguments citing this case in all manner and variety of cases, from Catholic child abuse to Muslim honor killings. Stand by for heavy rolls!

#16 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2012-01-12 07:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

Firing someone from a job and keeping their life in tact = honor killing in your mind?

I think if the Lutheran church killed the person over their duties... they would not be except from the law.

Don't you?

except from the law. (dang that was bad) exempt* from the law.

Don't be obtuse. I'm not saying they're at all the same. I'm saying that there are sleazebag lawyers right now using this case as a cited example of the court ruling that religious institutions can be held separate from the law, and they're going to try to widen that crack.

#19 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2012-01-12 09:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

No acts of obtuse characteristics intended. I am saying that will not happen.

There is clear legal difference when it comes to something like killing. I don't see the opening here being widened to any significant degree.

A legitimate example of separation of church/state.

FTA: "Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts on behalf of the entire Court. "By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group's right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments."

Agreed.

A legitimate example of separation of church/state.

Also agreed.

Damn these agree-y threads are boring.

Be Well.

I agree with the decision completely. But why the hell is freedom of religion more sacred than freedom of speech? Why on earth can a church say "no, we won't hire you despite EEOC regulations" but a business can't do the same? This double standard of who can be discriminatory and who can't is total legal BS. My best hope is that this case is used as a precedent to allow private business and organizations to also have their own right to choose who they want as members.

We're guaranteed equal protection by the Constitution. "Exceptions" have no place in our jurisprudence.

"Let me get this straight Hag thinks it OK for the government to force someone to pay legal fees to defend themselves against some charge just so the government can get clarification about the scope of a law from the courts?"
#11 | Posted by Gimme_a_Scotch

It's got nothing to do with liking it, I'm pretty sure that's the way it works. Ask somebody who knows better if you aren't satisfied with my comment.

"Poor Hag so easily led by the nose"
#11 | Posted by Gimme_a_Scotch

Go chase CaliforniaChris, Gracie and Bayside around, douche.

I stopped attending and supporting our Lutheran church because they started that "Social Justice" crap and it was not a local church decision but the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's decision.

Yup. And if you know your bible (doubtful) you'll remember they(you) wanted to throw Jesus off a cliff for speaking about social justice.

The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.
....And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed -- only Naaman the Syrian.
28 All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff. 30 But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way.

Tell us, what price did General Naaman have to pay for his recovery?
Ahhh fuck it.
Politics and economics trumps faith with christians, at least you admit it. Props.

Anywho, USSC decides in favor of the church. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

so hire the young boys and the party will begin

so hire the young boys and the party will begin

#27 | Posted by moneywar

I'll second that!

Strewth!

Exiting stage left as the neighborhood watch approaches

Well No shit! Who are they gonna sue?

#19 along those lines I wonder if this will be used to ensure gay marriage in the church will never happen.

#19 along those lines I wonder if this will be used to ensure gay marriage in the church will never happen.

#30 | Posted by jpw at 2012-01-12 03:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

You really want to force a minister to marry two people he (or she) does not feel comfortable marrying?

Certainly Jesus would have done the same thing.

Damn these agree-y threads are boring.

Sorry Spud... I'll start the next one off with, "You fucking suck!" That way we can get some blows in before the actual context of the story :D

"Poor Hag so easily led by the nose"
#11 | Posted by Gimme_a_Scotch

Go chase CaliforniaChris, Gracie and Bayside around, douche.

#25 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

Ah gee Hag I had no idea you felt that way but I promise that as soon as I get my own internet access I will stalk you too though normally it's against my policy to stalk boring one-trick ponies

P.S. just to show you how sincere I am I took time out from my demanding schedule of dumpster diving for cans, walking my water-loving hyperactive neurotic Corgi-Terrier, napping and watching reruns of the Rifleman schedule to take the time to go to the library to use a computer for the 1st time in about 3 months just to post this

I stopped attending and supporting our Lutheran church because they started that "Social Justice" crap and it was not a local church decision but the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's decision.

#7 | POSTED BY PANEOCON

Because helping mankind and having compassion for your fellow man is so un godlike. Motherfuckers like you paneo make people sick. All about you and nothing more. You are a vile individual and if I was religious would state you are going to hell.

So what you're saying is the Church wasn't bigoted enough for your tastes?

#12 | POSTED BY JPW

He is a scumbag piece of shit.

I stopped attending and supporting our Lutheran church because they started that "Social Justice" crap...
#7 | POSTED BY PANEOCON

You must've hemorrhaged from the eyeballs at Sunday School when you ran smack into news about that guy Jesus and all his social justice crap.

"You fucking suck!"

Oh, yeah!

Sez you!

Them's fightin' words!

You and what army?

Yo mama wears army boots!

And so on and so forth.

Yes, this is exactly what this palce nees.

A little heightened tension.

As the French say "frisson".

Too much agreement is dull.

Be Well.

You really want to force a minister to marry two people he (or she) does not feel comfortable marrying?

Not at all. Where exactly did I indicate that?

But this ruling seems like the necessary legal backing to ensure that someone else who does want that won't have their way.

I think the constitution is over simplified and can no longer be followed. Here is why.
If we stop discriminating against peoples beliefs, we would have to let prisoners go.
The other thing that bothers me, why is there a supreme court? it is unconstitutional to have a couple of people over ride the majority vote.

#39 | Posted by jpw at 2012-01-12 10:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

It seemed like that was what this:

#19 along those lines I wonder if this will be used to ensure gay marriage in the church will never happen.

#30 | Posted by jpw at 2012-01-12 03:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

was implying. That is why I asked you the question rather than just assuming that was definitely your actual position.

From how I see it, the only thing this can be used for is to ensure that no minister is forced to officiate a homosexual marriage that he does not want to officiate. Thus why I wondered if that was what you were insinuating.

Some churches already support homosexual marriages in them and thus I don't see how this ruling can be used to create a complete block of homosexual marriages taking place in the church. (It appeared you were using church as in the whole rather than one particular individual church).

#40 - Rick please go take a high school government class. All will be explained to you.

And the Constitution was supposed to be "simple". The whole point was to have a small government with very limited Federal Powers. Do you really think what we need is a hyper inflated Federal Government to solve the nation's problems? No... that's not what we need... it's what we HAVE. They keep passing Federal Laws to govern all the people in the nation when it's supposed to be the states that dictate how we live our lives.

Workers can't sue for discrimination is the thread title? How about "Obama can't force religions to do what he wants?" That's more accurate. Another Eric Holder blunder!

How about "Obama can't force religions to do what he wants?" That's more accurate. Another Eric Holder blunder!
#43 | Posted by Diablo

Perich filed her charge with the EEOC in 2005 and the EEOC filed a comlained againswt Hosanna-Tabor in district court in 2007. Obama was in the US Senate at the time. Next time, try doing your homework.

Do your, doc. The administration could have dropped it, like the Black Panther convictions, right? F-off you phony.