URGENT: Supreme Court sides with church on decision to fire employee on religious grounds

x0x0x wrote:

<quoted text>The 9-0 vote is unprecedented with this SC.
Every other vote ends 5-4 because the court is far right leaning.
That will change when one of these phuckersdies during Obamas 2nd term.
Islam has a variety of rules for honor killings. If you shut off hate radio more often and read a book, you would know this. A family of 3 was just convicted in Canada for 'honor killing' their daughter/sister. If the church councils rulings hold more power than a Federal judge and they can fire people for any reason, than Muslims can form councils and issue fatwahs, and death sentences and it will be legal, thanks to these recent rulings of the SC.
In other words, this SC continues to invalidate the one document they were sworn to uphold. Hopefully, the future SC will overturn these ridiculous rulings as they have in the past when greater minds rule and recognize these obvious errors. That's what makes this country great.
enjoy your bliss...

LOL I do read the Qu'ran you twit! LOL! And there is no variance in the text.

"The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, flog them each with a hundred stripes." 24:2

YOU should try picking up the book and reading it too.

So any religion should be required to hire anyone of any faith to be a minister/preacher/priest/Imam etc? The government should have the authority to dictate that to a religion?

A Catholic Church should not discriminate against an Imam to teach in the Church?

A Mosque should not discriminate against a Rabbi to preach in the Mosque?

LMAO!!! OMFG you are stupid!!! LMAO!!! You have made the most preposterous claim and extension of the government I have ever heard to date.

You never did answer my challenge to you. You claim I am a Christian. I am not. I challenge you. What faith do I follow? What book do I prescribe?

DavidH64 wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL I do read the Qu'ran you twit! LOL! And there is no variance in the text.
"The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, flog them each with a hundred stripes." 24:2
YOU should try picking up the book and reading it too.
So any religion should be required to hire anyone of any faith to be a minister/preacher/priest/Imam etc? The government should have the authority to dictate that to a religion?
A Catholic Church should not discriminate against an Imam to teach in the Church?
A Mosque should not discriminate against a Rabbi to preach in the Mosque?
LMAO!!! OMFG you are stupid!!! LMAO!!! You have made the most preposterous claim and extension of the government I have ever heard to date.
You never did answer my challenge to you. You claim I am a Christian. I am not. I challenge you. What faith do I follow? What book do I prescribe?

David, I really don't care what faith you are, if any. That's the great thing about America. You don't have to believe in any sky gods. Can we move on or are you just too anal? You are not a Xtian. I get it.

A rabbi would never apply for a job in a Mosque.
Let's stay grounded in reality, shall we?

If a Christian wants to work at a Mosque and does well in the interview, they should hire her but cannot be forced to do so. If they have hired her and later find she is a Christian and they fire her for that reason alone, than she should sue them. Period. They broke the law and need to pay for their crime.

Same thing goes for a Church who hires an employee and later they get sick with an illness that will cost millions to treat, if the church fires them for that reason alone, than they should sue because they broke the law.

The SC cannot change the constitution, only Congress and the President can do that by a very specific process. They are not following the constitution and continue to side with Christians when this is not a Christian nation or a theocracy. If the case WERE about a MOSQUE stoning someone to death, they would have taken a much different approach, guaranteed.

IF that's what you want, a theocracy, than move. Pretty simple stuff, zippy.

tha Professor wrote:

<quoted text>
'Honor kilings' aren't Islamic at all. They're basically primitive, ethnic traditions from various parts of the Middle East and Asia. Muslims likely use religious teachings to try to justify them, but I know of no specific demands by Muhammed that women who are 'dishonored' need be killed by relatives. Disgusting, misogynistic stuff in any case.

I just saw an expert on Islam explaining that honor killings are traditional, not religious. For that reason alone, they should be easy to stop, especially here where freedom of religion is so, so precious.

x0x0x wrote:

<quoted text>
If a Christian wants to work at a Mosque and does well in the interview, they should hire her but cannot be forced to do so. If they have hired her and later find she is a Christian and they fire her for that reason alone, than she should sue them. Period. They broke the law and need to pay for their crime.

NO LAW WAS BROKEN!!!

You are contradicting yourself.

You say that a Church should not be forced to hire someone of another faith to preach in that church. Yet go on to state a law was broken because of their faith. SO WHAT LAW WAS BROKEN?!?

Either a church (of any faith) can choose freely, WITHOUT GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT or LAW, to hire those of a specific faith of the church, or not. So which is it?

A Synagogue should not be required, by law, to have to hire an Imam.

A Catholic Church should not be required, by law, to have to hire a Rabbi.

A Mosque should not be required, by law, to have to hire a Priest.

etc etc etc

The government has no right to make that decision or law. PERIOD. Unless of course you advocate no religion? Then you admit clearly to being a Communist. In which case it is you who should find another country to reside.

So now you advocate that if someone lies on a resume, gets a job, is later to be found to have lied, they should still not be fired?!? ROFLMAO!

spamingsue strikes again wrote:

<quoted text>
The person fired was a TEACHER not an ordained minister and she was fired due to Narcolepsy, a MEDICAL condition.
I think the church evoking the constitutional exception was BS. The court siding with the church will come back and bite them on the azz. I look forward to a case bought forth by a MOSQUE or a Regla de Ocha church that demands a religious exception.

You are incorrect in your statement. She was at one time a teacher , but was then hired as a minister by the church After which she was diagnosed with narcolepsy it was because of the narcolepsy and the inability to properly minister to the congregation that she was let go. She was not employed by the church as a teacher but as a minister, She attempted to claim otherwise but the SC seen thru that BS

Of Perich, Laycock said that not only did she offer religion classes, she also had been a "called" teacher with ministerial responsibility. "The fact that she's a commissioned minister is the clincher in this case," he said.

DavidH64 wrote:

<quoted text>
NO LAW WAS BROKEN!!!
You are contradicting yourself.
You say that a Church should not be forced to hire someone of another faith to preach in that church. Yet go on to state a law was broken because of their faith. SO WHAT LAW WAS BROKEN?!?
Either a church (of any faith) can choose freely, WITHOUT GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT or LAW, to hire those of a specific faith of the church, or not. So which is it?
A Synagogue should not be required, by law, to have to hire an Imam.
A Catholic Church should not be required, by law, to have to hire a Rabbi.
A Mosque should not be required, by law, to have to hire a Priest.
etc etc etc
The government has no right to make that decision or law. PERIOD. Unless of course you advocate no religion? Then you admit clearly to being a Communist. In which case it is you who should find another country to reside.
So now you advocate that if someone lies on a resume, gets a job, is later to be found to have lied, they should still not be fired?!? ROFLMAO!

So now you are adding scenarios that never happened and pretending like I'M the one who is confused?

Your argument has no basis in reality.
The constitution says we are all created equal.
It also says we are free to worship any god we want or no got at all. Oh, and it says you can't fire people based on

GENDER
RACE
RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION

These churches broke the law and the Supreme Court broke their oath to uphold the constitution.

If you are too stupid to understand something so simple than I have wasted enough keystrokes already. You aren't worth my time.
Enjoy your bliss.

When i read the headline i was angry, i figured some church fired a jamitor or some other employee based on their religionn i.e. Jewsih, muslim, another branch of christianity. Hpwever the employee was a minister at the church and was not fired due to her religion she wasnt reinstated after taking medical leave. If anything it should be seen strictly as an ADA issue.

Let me summarize.

Churches and organized religion suck.

So does the Supreme Court.

When one (or more) of the justices kicks or retires, Obama will replace them with a liberal judge and finally, the court will tilt to the left.

Just be patient.

x0x0x wrote:

Let me summarize.
Churches and organized religion suck.
So does the Supreme Court.
When one (or more) of the justices kicks or retires, Obama will replace them with a liberal judge and finally, the court will tilt to the left.
Just be patient.

I keep hoping Scalia and Thomas will leave at the same time (HOW they leave is of no consequence to me, just so they do) and Obama can replace at least one of them with Diane Wood.

That would be awesome, and return real jurisprudence to the Bench. May it happen, and soon!:)

I think people seem to think im on the side of the church in this matter, thats so far from the truth its crazy. I think these organized churchs, and crazy rightnwing biblenthumpersnwho seem to think their way is the only right/moral way n we can all shove off cause godmtold them so. I was just pointing out that the article didnt say she was fired due to her religious views she wasnt fired at all. She had a medical disease/injury and needed to take a medical leave &was not reinstated. Had she not done so she would still have her position. Thats not the same as saying your fired cuz we dont like how u teach/preach. She absolutly should have been given her job back, in any other career choice/company she would have. They just used some crazy loophole which allows this church/churches in general to disregard the Amer. W/ Disabilies Act! Its outrageous! This person was already an employee, yet she gets sick & the church turns its back on her. Come on even walmart wouldnt do that to an employee.

I am aware that technically it was legal, but it was def. Immoral.

Eleanor wrote:

That's right -- Keep the government OUT of religion.

AND keep RELIGION out of goverment!! that is the only way we can be sure, we will not ever have an Islamic Republic here in the former USA.

Mi_nina wrote:

<quoted text>
AND keep RELIGION out of goverment!! that is the only way we can be sure, we will not ever have an Islamic Republic here in the former USA.

Or a Christian or Jewish one, which would be just as bad.:)

Religion has no place in politics
so why does the boy in the vest
ONLY talk about religion?

Someone should tell him he's
running for President, not Pope.
Idiot....