SCOTUS Decides Important Religious Freedom Case
We discussed the case of Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC a few times last year. This was a case deciding whether a church could fire a religious employee on religious grounds. It was a messy case for a number of reasons but the most surprising and appalling thing about it was the approach that Obama's Justice Department took.
As our Adam Freedman wrote:
The legal issue is the scope of the so-called “ministerial exception,” which is a long-standing doctrine that exempts religious organizations from employment-discrimination laws, at least with respect to "ministerial employees." There was some thought that the administration would argue that the exception should not apply in this case because the teacher wasn't "ministerial" (she also taught secular subjects). But no, the Obama DOJ is arguing that the "ministerial exception" shouldn’t exist at all.
This approach posed a huge threat to religious freedom. So I'm happy to note that the Supreme Court unanimously decided in favor of religious freedom. That's a nice loss for the Obama administration, one we can all be pleased with regardless of our particular political and religious views.
- Comment (46)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments:
Jul '11
Re: SCOTUS Decides Important Religious Freedom Case
raycon
Does the comparison between running a church and running a Hooters have any more parallels? · Jan 11 at 10:02am
People enter looking for nourishment, sustenance, and stimulation. I have never been to a Hooters by the way but I would guess what they serve contributes to atherosclerosis and married men that go there without their wives permission walk down a slippery slope to marital discord.
Nov '10
Re: SCOTUS Decides Important Religious Freedom Case
etoiledunord: Most churches, by their nature, are undemocratic and judgmental.
...
I was a member of a democratic church once. That's why I left.
It bugs me how otherwise intelligent people try to tar all (or weakly qualify, "most", to effect essentially the same conclusion) churches as having this or that trait, based on some encounter they've had with a nutjob or a childhood experience in some group, further distorted by years of rumination on slow simmer.
What the H#$% does the charge mean, in the first place? Anyone prepared to generalize from a small number of cases and to interpret "undemocratic" and "judgemental" at to their own convenience could level this charge at practically any church, political organization, media empire, company or social club. Come on!
I am a member of a mainstream evangelical church in the congregational tradition: government BY the people, FOR the people. All decisions are made locally and everyone in the church has a vote. The executive powers of the church are vested in elders elected by popular vote. As for "judgemental", sure you can find individual instances of judgementalism there, but no more than in society in general. Less, even.
Re: SCOTUS Decides Important Religious Freedom Case
For practical purposes I am happy about this decision. Of course there is no coherent logic behind it. If discrimination is wrong and prohibited by law, why should religious organizations be exempt from those provisions?
The underlying problem is government interference in the governance of private associations. Now organizations that employ "ministers" enjoy a freedom denied to most other private associations.
But in our day we must all too often be content with small, logically incoherent victories!
Jun '10
Re: SCOTUS Decides Important Religious Freedom Case
R. Craigen
etoiledunord: Most churches, by their nature, are undemocratic and judgmental.
...
I was a member of a democratic church once. That's why I left.
It bugs me how otherwise intelligent people try to tar all (or weakly qualify, "most", to effect essentially the same conclusion) churches as having this or that trait, based on some encounter they've had with a nutjob or a childhood experience in some group, further distorted by years of rumination on slow simmer.
What the H#$% does the charge mean, in the first place? Anyone prepared to generalize from a small number of cases and to interpret "undemocratic" and "judgemental" at to their own convenience could level this charge at practically any church, political organization, media empire, company or social club. Come on!
I am a member of a mainstream evangelical church in the congregational tradition: government BY the people, FOR the people. All decisions are made locally and everyone in the church has a vote. The executive powers of the church are vested in elders elected by popular vote.....
At Church, I don't consider lack of democracy or the imposition of high standards a defect. I consider them a plus.
Dec '10
Re: SCOTUS Decides Important Religious Freedom Case
John Grant: For practical purposes I am happy about this decision. Of course there is no coherent logic behind it. If discrimination is wrong and prohibited by law, why should religious organizations be exempt from those provisions?
The underlying problem is government interference in the governance of private associations. Now organizations that employ "ministers" enjoy a freedom denied to most other private associations.
But in our day we must all too often be content with small, logically incoherent victories! · Jan 11 at 11:20am
How long until BSA v Dale gets overturned? Is there anything in the new decision that can be used to limit the discrimination exceptions to only religious organizations?
May '11
Re: SCOTUS Decides Important Religious Freedom Case
I hate to sound like the old man on the porch but can we stop referring to the court as SCOTUS. Is sounds like either a disease or a body part or both.
Re: SCOTUS Decides Important Religious Freedom Case
The King Prawn
John Grant: For practical purposes I am happy about this decision. Of course there is no coherent logic behind it. If discrimination is wrong and prohibited by law, why should religious organizations be exempt from those provisions?
The underlying problem is government interference in the governance of private associations. Now organizations that employ "ministers" enjoy a freedom denied to most other private associations.
But in our day we must all too often be content with small, logically incoherent victories! · Jan 11 at 11:20am
How long until BSA v Dale gets overturned? Is there anything in the new decision that can be used to limit the discrimination exceptions to only religious organizations? · Jan 11 at 12:01pm
Hi King Prawn,
I am no authority on con law, but it is my understanding that Tabor just clarifies/provides a liberal construction of what a "minister" is for the purpose of the "ministerial exception."
I don't believe the decision will provide any relief to non-religious private associations.
Jun '10
Re: SCOTUS Decides Important Religious Freedom Case
John Grant: For practical purposes I am happy about this decision. Of course there is no coherent logic behind it. If discrimination is wrong and prohibited by law, why should religious organizations be exempt from those provisions?
The underlying problem is government interference in the governance of private associations. Now organizations that employ "ministers" enjoy a freedom denied to most other private associations.
But in our day we must all too often be content with small, logically incoherent victories! · Jan 11 at 11:20am
I've not read the decision, but isn't the source for the exception the first amendment right to freedom of religion? Without the exception, this right would be fundamentally undermined.
Re: SCOTUS Decides Important Religious Freedom Case
tabula rasa
John Grant: For practical purposes I am happy about this decision. Of course there is no coherent logic behind it. If discrimination is wrong and prohibited by law, why should religious organizations be exempt from those provisions?
The underlying problem is government interference in the governance of private associations. Now organizations that employ "ministers" enjoy a freedom denied to most other private associations.
But in our day we must all too often be content with small, logically incoherent victories! · Jan 11 at 11:20am
I've not read the decision, but isn't the source for the exception the first amendment right to freedom of religion? Without the exception, this right would be fundamentally undermined. · Jan 11 at 1:12pm
Good question. I am not clear on this point--I can't figure out how the First Amendment can be narrowed in that way (i.e. to apply only to ministers).
The jurisprudence on the First Amendment is I think hopelessly confused at this point. It is confused because we are trying to combine religious liberty in the Founders sense with modern liberalism.
Apr '11
Re: SCOTUS Decides Important Religious Freedom Case
I thought the putative moral/social benefit/interest-of-the-state rationale (why is it so hard to write about liberal fascist doctrines without an almost overwhelming urge to put every other word in quotation marks?) is that employers are banned from discrimination on irrelevant criteria. The ministerial exception acknowledges that confessional fidelity is a relevant criterion. Hence the current pogrom focuses on narrowing the number of employees for which it is relevant to those directly engaged in catechetics.
Poor Hooters. Not being a buxom wench has been de facto declared a physical disability, and "flat-chested" is nigh on to hate speech.
Dec '10
Re: SCOTUS Decides Important Religious Freedom Case
John Grant
Hi King Prawn,
I am no authority on con law, but it is my understanding that Tabor just clarifies/provides a liberal construction of what a "minister" is for the purpose of the "ministerial exception."
I don't believe the decision will provide any relief to non-religious private associations. · Jan 11 at 12:51pm
I just finished reading the opinion. It very much focuses only on the case at hand, so it obviously wasn't written by any of the liberal justices. The only mention of BSA v Dale was in a concurring opinion and is helpful to both religious and secular associations:
Dec '10
Re: SCOTUS Decides Important Religious Freedom Case
John Grant
tabula rasa
I've not read the decision, but isn't the source for the exception the first amendment right to freedom of religion? Without the exception, this right would be fundamentally undermined. · Jan 11 at 1:12pm
Good question. I am not clear on this point--I can't figure out how the First Amendment can be narrowed in that way (i.e. to apply only to ministers).
The jurisprudence on the First Amendment is I think hopelessly confused at this point. It is confused because we are trying to combine religious liberty in the Founders sense with modern liberalism. · Jan 11 at 1:30pm
The decision was very clear that not only are religious associations at liberty to determine the employment of their ministers as an essential part of religious expression, but also that determination of who qualifies for the ministerial exception is fundamental to free religious exercise. To boil it down, pretty much anything non-criminal that occurs within a religious organization is off limits to civil authorities. This idea will be tested, but at least it's in writing now. The concepts foundational to the decision are worthy of their own post.
Re: SCOTUS Decides Important Religious Freedom Case
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
No matter how much you may like the EEOC, it should not be over the Bill of Rights.
Re: SCOTUS Decides Important Religious Freedom Case
tabula rasa
Actually the name of the case is Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Evangelical Church v. EEOC. A little less Dickensian.
Another little twist is that Kagan and Alito joined together in a concurring opinion. That doesn't happen very often. · Jan 11 at 10:15am
Edited on Jan 11 at 10:18 am
Thanks -- fixed the typo.
Jun '11
Re: SCOTUS Decides Important Religious Freedom Case
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
No matter how much you may like the EEOC, it should not be over the Bill of Rights. · Jan 11 at 5:32pm
@Mollie... agreed. If anything, this seems like a foolish case for all the usual suspects to have gotten behind. It was a tough set of facts for the teacher given how serious Lutherans are about calls and commissions. There's no doubt that a LCMS teacher -- of whatever subject -- is a minister who reaffirms that call regularly.
Perhaps they think all non-Catholic Christians simply wing it?
Edited on January 12, 2012 at 3:12amApr '11
Re: SCOTUS Decides Important Religious Freedom Case
Well, you are a curmudgeon after all.
May '10
Re: SCOTUS Decides Important Religious Freedom Case
It's a disease! It's a body part! It's a dessert topping!
Jun '11
Re: SCOTUS Decides Important Religious Freedom Case
Fricosis Guy
There's no doubt that a LCMS teacher -- of whatever subject -- is a minister who reaffirms that call regularly.
I think there is doubt about that very point. It certainly is an innovation from traditional LCMS thinking. I'm glad the case was decided as it was, because of the implications. But it surprises me, because I thought (in my limited following of the oral argument) that the SC would, based on the questions being asked, see the lack of difference between called and non-called teachers in most LCMS schools.
Re: SCOTUS Decides Important Religious Freedom Case
Christopher Esget
Fricosis Guy
There's no doubt that a LCMS teacher -- of whatever subject -- is a minister who reaffirms that call regularly.
I think there is doubt about that very point. It certainly is an innovation from traditional LCMS thinking. I'm glad the case was decided as it was, because of the implications. But it surprises me, because I thought (in my limited following of the oral argument) that the SC would, based on the questions being asked, see the lack of difference between called and non-called teachers in most LCMS schools. · Jan 11 at 7:49pm
Pastor Esget, I think the point is that Lutherans have a much more rigid system for called staff than many church bodies do. There are many requirements that must be met in order to be eligible even to be a called teacher. That made this a fairly easy case for the court to decide (compared to, say, a less rigorous Protestant system).
Dec '10
Re: SCOTUS Decides Important Religious Freedom Case
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Christopher Esget
Fricosis Guy
There's no doubt that a LCMS teacher -- of whatever subject -- is a minister who reaffirms that call regularly.
I think there is doubt about that very point. It certainly is an innovation from traditional LCMS thinking. I'm glad the case was decided as it was, because of the implications. But it surprises me, because I thought (in my limited following of the oral argument) that the SC would, based on the questions being asked, see the lack of difference between called and non-called teachers in most LCMS schools. · Jan 11 at 7:49pm
Pastor Esget, I think the point is that Lutherans have a much more rigid system for called staff than many church bodies do. There are many requirements that must be met in order to be eligible even to be a called teacher. That made this a fairly easy case for the court to decide (compared to, say, a less rigorous Protestant system). · Jan 11 at 8:16pm
I believe the opinion stated that it took her 6 years to complete the requirements for her called status.