The supreme court limits its jurisdiction from religious rules. The majority on the supreme court is once again conflating something that is not speech at all with “protected speech” to serve their shockingly neoconservative ideology. Here, they use terms of employment to stretch for “protected speech,” just as political cash donations were in Citizens United. Frankly, I want to see a church protect prostitutes using this new rule. They would never do so because churches are so hypocritical about sex. But if employment by a church is beyond the jurisdiction of US law, then the employment of a person for the purpose of sexual gratification by a church is beyond the jurisdiction of US law. “Get them out of jail and into church!” could be their rallying cry.
This is not a “protected speech” case, it is separation of church and state case. And rather than the neocon “majority” deciding this, it was unanimous.
They didn’t say church employment is beyond the jurisdiction of US law. Re-read and Chill.
This is about the most idiotic response to this case I’ve seen. This case was about SEPARATION of church and state, not the other way around. SCOTUS ensured the government COULD NOT define who was and wasn’t a minister to their church. Ministerial exception is a part of case law. Had this case been won by the plaintiff, Obama could have determined who is and isn’t a minister within any denomination in this country.
If you are against the outcome of this case, you would have to actually be FOR the church and state operating as one. Either you are completely ignorant of the specifics of this case, or you are in favor of church and state melding into one. And, based upon your comments, it seems you are NOT in favor of churches integrating with the state power apparatus. This means you are merely ignorant.
It just seems to me that this case is outside of what “ministerial exemption” is for. I could understand if this person was, for example, teaching children, against her employers doctrine, that abortion was an acceptable practice. Whether one agrees with that or not, ministerial exemption says that a religious organization cannot be forced to continue her employment.
This case was purportedly about a person being fired as a consequence of her disability, and nothing to do with her, and her employer’s religious beliefs. I really don’t understand the Court’s thinking here. (I am a conservative.)
Legislating from the bench again I see. Darn rogue judges. Congress should subpoena them!
The supreme court limits its jurisdiction from religious rules. The majority on the supreme court is once again conflating something that is not speech at all with “protected speech” to serve their shockingly neoconservative ideology. Here, they use terms of employment to stretch for “protected speech,” just as political cash donations were in Citizens United. Frankly, I want to see a church protect prostitutes using this new rule. They would never do so because churches are so hypocritical about sex. But if employment by a church is beyond the jurisdiction of US law, then the employment of a person for the purpose of sexual gratification by a church is beyond the jurisdiction of US law. “Get them out of jail and into church!” could be their rallying cry.
This is not a “protected speech” case, it is separation of church and state case. And rather than the neocon “majority” deciding this, it was unanimous.
They didn’t say church employment is beyond the jurisdiction of US law. Re-read and Chill.
This is about the most idiotic response to this case I’ve seen. This case was about SEPARATION of church and state, not the other way around. SCOTUS ensured the government COULD NOT define who was and wasn’t a minister to their church. Ministerial exception is a part of case law. Had this case been won by the plaintiff, Obama could have determined who is and isn’t a minister within any denomination in this country.
If you are against the outcome of this case, you would have to actually be FOR the church and state operating as one. Either you are completely ignorant of the specifics of this case, or you are in favor of church and state melding into one. And, based upon your comments, it seems you are NOT in favor of churches integrating with the state power apparatus. This means you are merely ignorant.
It just seems to me that this case is outside of what “ministerial exemption” is for. I could understand if this person was, for example, teaching children, against her employers doctrine, that abortion was an acceptable practice. Whether one agrees with that or not, ministerial exemption says that a religious organization cannot be forced to continue her employment.
This case was purportedly about a person being fired as a consequence of her disability, and nothing to do with her, and her employer’s religious beliefs. I really don’t understand the Court’s thinking here. (I am a conservative.)
Someone enlighten me.
Glad to see SCOTUS get it right for once.