Supreme Court: Church-state separation extends to religious schools
The Supreme Court extended the principle of church-state separation Wednesday to shield religious schools nationwide from discrimination suits from teachers and school employees who serve as ministers of the faith.
In a unanimous ruling, the high court for the first time concluded the Constitution includes a ministerial exception that protects churches and their schools from undue interference from the government and its courts.
However, lower courts have long recognized that churches are protected from lawsuits involving their internal workings.
The 1st Amendment protects the free exercise of religion, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the state infringes on religious freedom if it forces a church or its schools to accept or retain an unwanted minister.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2012/01/supreme-court-shields-religious-schools-from-teacher-discrimination-suits.html
Shrek
(3,970 posts)I don't expect that pairing to occur very often.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)Princess Turandot
(4,784 posts)the topics don't generate as much publicity, I guess. SCOTUSblog has interesting stuff on this. The stats for last term are about halfway down the link.
http://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/
Detail stats for several years are here: http://www.scotusblog.com/reference/stat-pack/
PT
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Both are Catholics, and thus wanted to make it clear that the term "Minister" included anyone holding a place of leadership in any religion, including Nuns in the Catholic Church and anyone who leads prays in a Mosque.
The concern is any Government interference in the internal works of ANY religious OR secular political group. Such interference is NOT permitted under the second clause of the First amendment, to wit "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1
Any decision as to who is a minister, hiring or firing a minister, is interfering with "the free exercise [of religion]" and thus forbidden by the first amendment.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)as in a religious school who fired two very popular teachers for violating their Morals Clause: Divorce and Remarriage, and a Vasectomy. In this case the students walked out and the parents refused to pay tuition until these teachers were rehired. It created so much bad press, that the school relented, rehired the teachers, and scrapped their Morals Clause. Ok, this happened in a NE Catholic HS and might not have happened in other parts of the country.
jmowreader
(50,451 posts)The churches don't want the state to exert any control whatsoever on them. I half expect a church somewhere to challenge things like the building codes--how dare the government exert control over religion in making them install fire sprinklers, large-enough roof joists, or a ground wire on the water heater.
On the other hand, when the government is passing out social services money, the churches are almost always first in line with their hands out. And they're very heavy supporters of school vouchers.
Back to the ruling: It's total bullshit, as with most of the things the Roberts Court does. A "called teacher" (one that leads prayers, among other things, hence making her a "minister" in their church) was diagnosed with narcolepsy and the school fired her. She contacted the EEOC, the EEOC thought she had a case, and they sued for violating the ADA. The courts upheld the firing.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)crim son
(27,462 posts)As despicable as it may be, I am always surprised by people who either work for or attend one of these schools, and are eventually forced out because of their lifestyle or a life choice. My feeling is that if you choose to join a club, you are also choosing to accept that club's rules, or else actively work to change them. I left the Catholic Church because I did not belong there, not because it does not belong in my world.