Churches and Mosques Hiring Requirements

[SwordmanJr]

With the recent ruling from the Supreme Court affirming sexual orientation and transgenderism as protected within the language of the Constitution (which they are not), it appears that churches and mosques will no longer be allowed to refuse hiring status to homosexuals, transgenders, pedophiles, and who knows what else, such as those who have married their dinner plates and silverware.

Never mind that the justices intentionally forced wording and meaning into the Constitution that clearly is not there in order to include same sex attractions, gender identity, pedophiles, and who knows what else...as being on the same level of protections as those things with which one is born outside of any conscious choice or control; and therefore cannot be changed without radical interventions of surgery, chemicals, or whatever technology may offer as a "fix." That's obvious and beyond debate.

The thrust of what I'm getting at is that, because leftists could not force that upon America through legislation, they finally got their way through oligarchical means. With judges running wild and out of control by forcing values and conformance upon the citizenry, Churches and mosques are now open season targets of those who seek to destroy public, religious institutions that refuse to bow their knees to this ruling. Christians and muslims alike will now be forced to allow into the hired ranks of their respective religions those they have historically viewed as being perverse and wicked.

Questions: Are Christian and muslim institutions going to give in to this so easily? How are they going to uphold their collective values against those lifestyles that are completely contrary to their values and morals? How is this not an attack upon those institutions and their freedom to govern their own values, and how will this keep the government from eventually SANCTIONING and ESTABLISHING those institutions of religion that embrace and hire those who practice and live what Christianity and islam have always considered to be perverse lifestyles?

It appears this will cast the establishment clause out the door as to its real and actual meaning. Religious institutions will now be silenced from their freedom to speak out against these and many other sins.

Is it possible the activists will avoid pushing up against islamic businesses and religious institutions, but will go full force against all Christian institutions and businesses, as they did with bakeries and other Christian-owned businesses? It seems that islam has always gotten a free pass from having to comply with changing, twisted and warped laws and enforcement, even though they would openly defy baking cakes for homosexual weddings had any of the activists dared enter islamic owned bakeries to push this upon them. Do you suppose islamic institutions will enjoy non-enforcement against them from this ruling?

Thoughts?

Jr

 

[section9+1]

I think Muslims will be mostly left alone. They aren't so easy to attack. Christians are safer people. Cowards will always choose to go after those they know are not to be feared. Cowards will leave the Muslims alone.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Think you're right. All this is an acceleration of satan's project to dethrone God by destroying His image and the logos of creation and replacing it with a digital counterfeit, a kingdom of fear, isolation, pollution and madness.

The silence of most church leaderships to the recent plandemic, even to the extent of cancelling Easter communion and baptisms, reveals just how far advanced this diabolical plan is, and how ignorant so many are to the devil's schemes. God doesn't dwell in temples made from hands.

Still, we must all hold to the faith and endure with patience, slaughtered like sheep all the livelong day, so that we might stand in the evil day knowing God's word is unbreakable, its foundations immovable.

 

[chevyontheriver]

With the recent ruling from the Supreme Court affirming sexual orientation and transgenderism as protected within the language of the Constitution (which they are not), it appears that churches and mosques will no longer be allowed to refuse hiring status to homosexuals, transgenders, pedophiles, and who knows what else, such as those who have married their dinner plates and silverware.

Never mind that the justices intentionally forced wording and meaning into the Constitution that clearly is not there in order to include same sex attractions, gender identity, pedophiles, and who knows what else...as being on the same level of protections as those things with which one is born outside of any conscious choice or control; and therefore cannot be changed without radical interventions of surgery, chemicals, or whatever technology may offer as a "fix." That's obvious and beyond debate.

The thrust of what I'm getting at is that, because leftists could not force that upon America through legislation, they finally got their way through oligarchical means. With judges running wild and out of control by forcing values and conformance upon the citizenry, Churches and mosques are now open season targets of those who seek to destroy public, religious institutions that refuse to bow their knees to this ruling. Christians and muslims alike will now be forced to allow into the hired ranks of their respective religions those they have historically viewed as being perverse and wicked.

Questions: Are Christian and muslim institutions going to give in to this so easily? How are they going to uphold their collective values against those lifestyles that are completely contrary to their values and morals? How is this not an attack upon those institutions and their freedom to govern their own values, and how will this keep the government from eventually SANCTIONING and ESTABLISHING those institutions of religion that embrace and hire those who practice and live what Christianity and islam have always considered to be perverse lifestyles?

It appears this will cast the establishment clause out the door as to its real and actual meaning. Religious institutions will now be silenced from their freedom to speak out against these and many other sins.

Is it possible the activists will avoid pushing up against islamic businesses and religious institutions, but will go full force against all Christian institutions and businesses, as they did with bakeries and other Christian-owned businesses? It seems that islam has always gotten a free pass from having to comply with changing, twisted and warped laws and enforcement, even though they would openly defy baking cakes for homosexual weddings had any of the activists dared enter islamic owned bakeries to push this upon them. Do you suppose islamic institutions will enjoy non-enforcement against them from this ruling?

Thoughts?

Jr

We have divided ourselves and they have conquered. We have become an easy target and most of us are well on our way to embracing their positions anyway. Those that haven't joined the world continue to bicker with each other, providing a lousy example. When the Son of Man returns, will he find any faith? The answer is implicit in the question.

 

[SwordmanJr]

We have divided ourselves and they have conquered. We have become an easy target and most of us are well on our way to embracing their positions anyway. Those that haven't joined the world continue to bicker with each other, providing a lousy example. When the Son of Man returns, will he find any faith? The answer is implicit in the question.

[Mat 10:34 KJV] 34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

 

[SwordmanJr]

What really is happening is similar to Rome, where TRUE Christianity was driven underground from public view. The only "churches" left standing and openly operating in today's America will be those that have, are and will compromise biblical truths for lies and falsehoods. It is doubtful any allowances will be made for any denomination to opt out from having to hire those who believe and/or practice what is contrary to the Bible and the Quoran.

Universities that teach historic moral absolutes as defined by God will be subject to prosecution and/or fines for daring to uphold historic moral absolutes.

Jr

 

[hedrick]

No. There's an exception for churches. That has been understood as fairly broad, to include teachers in church-related schools, for example.

The recent ruling was not an interpretation of the constitution. It was an interpretation of a law. No law can overrule the constitution, so first amendment rights trump the law.

 

[SwordmanJr]

No. There's an exception for churches. That has been understood as fairly broad, to include teachers in church-related schools, for example.

The recent ruling was not an interpretation of the constitution. It was an interpretation of a law. No law can overrule the constitution, so first amendment rights trump the law.

How does that reinterpretation of the 1965 labor law not have any effect upon forcing church organizations to hire homosexuals and transgenders?

Jr

 

[hedrick]

How does that reinterpretation of the 1965 labor law not have any effect upon forcing church organizations to hire homosexuals and transgenders?

Jr

Because there is an exception for them.

 

[hedrick]

This is a difficult area of constitutional law, with some open questions. On churches, there is no ambiguity. Title VII exempts them. The more difficult question is church-related schools. There we have the "ministerial exception." The question then becomes the extent to which teachers perform religious functions. I think it's quite clear that a religious school can teach its doctrine. You don't need to worry that a law can make it illegal to teach that homosexuality is wrong. It is less clear whether you could fire a math teacher for being gay. Catholic schools have done so, but the Supreme Court hasn't issued a clear opinion on this, and lower courts seem to disagree.

Several of the court cases in this area have been based on distasteful actions by schools, firing disabled workers and using their exemption from Title VII as an excuse. There are two cases now before the Supreme Court about applying the ministerial exception to teachers. You'd think it would be firing gay teachers, but it's not. One case is about a school who fired a teacher who was being treated for breast cancer, and another that is accused of age discrimination. Both claim that the teachers are ministers, and the law doesn't apply to them.

Some courts have held that the ministerial exception only applies to things that could reasonably be considered religious. Discrimination on age and disability would generally not qualify, but sexual orientation might. These case are before the Court now. In arguments, justices asked two kinds of questions. One was whether all teachers should be considered ministers, or only those who teach religion or perform a religious function, the other whether this exception should cover things like age discrimination, breach of contract, and other legal issues that could arise with a teacher that aren't related to religious doctrine.

You'd think the decisions on these cases might establish principles that would apply to the question of firing gay teachers, but the Supreme Court is very creative in making decisions that avoid the real issue.

Personally I think it's reasonable for a religious school to ask its teachers to act consistently with the religion. So I think it should be constitutional or a school to not hire or fire a gay teacher, a female teacher (since 1 Tim says women shouldn't teach), or a black teacher (since until the 20th Cent that was considered a Biblical issue). I would hope no parent would send their kids to such a school, but I think the Constitution protects them.

 

[SwordmanJr]

Because there is an exception for them.

That's it? No reference, no proof text...nothing? Just your word on it? I was looking for something solid.

Jr

 

[hedrick]

Look at the Wikipedia article on the ministerial exception.
Here are the cases I described Argument preview: Justices to consider what makes a minister a minister (Corrected) - SCOTUSblog
Questions asked in the hearing. Argument analysis: Justices divided in debate over “ministerial exception” - SCOTUSblog.

That the law has an exception is mentioned in every description. E.g. Questions and Answers: Religious Discrimination in the Workplace | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The Supreme Court decision on Title VII also mentioned the RFRA as relevant to creating exceptions. The following argument outlines possible applications of it American University Law Review | Playing Outside the Joints: Where the Religious Freedom Restoration Act Meets Title VII It notes that the Court allowed Hobby Lobby to claim freedom to exercise religion. They believe that under this interpretation not just religious organizations but non-religious organizations that assert religious beliefs, could avoid Title VII.

Here's an example where a court did not permit the RFRA to override Title VII: Practical Law US Signon. However this is not a Supreme Court decision. As a non-lawyer my impression is that we're in for years of litigation before the specifics of where discrimination is and isn't allowed. But for churches themselves, and I believe for teachers teaching religion, it's clear.

 

[hedrick]

Incidentally, I would argue that conservative Christians should welcome the recent Supreme Court decision. Normally conservatives claim they don't hate gays. Firing someone because they're gay seems like a reasonable sign of hate, supposing that we're not talking about a church or other situation where they're expected to demonstrate a church's values.

This issue presents a tremendous opportunity for anti-evangelism. No one knows why the cross really matters, but everyone know that Christians hate gays.

 

[SwordmanJr]

Incidentally, I would argue that conservative Christians should welcome the recent Supreme Court decision. Normally conservatives claim they don't hate gays. Firing someone because they're gay seems like a reasonable sign of hate, supposing that we're not talking about a church or other situation where they're expected to demonstrate a church's values.

This issue presents a tremendous opportunity for anti-evangelism. No one knows why the cross really matters, but everyone know that Christians hate gays.

That ruling actually created even more confusion by having removed absolutes for persons. When people can demand they are pan-gender, and wearing some funky regalia, expecting to be hired as a minority simply by laying claim to something that cannot be verified, this is not going to help women, blacks, lgtbq's or any other minority. The philosophical destruction to absolutes this introduces by corrupt judge rule forcing this upon the nation, no good will come of this. It furthers the Romish destruction of this country by it collapsing from within.

Jr