Perhaps you otta look at what
part of your comment I replied to in my previous post.
But that wasn't from the post which my quote came from. Don't mix up the post.
My point in that post clearly stated that the government cannot force our Churches to perform gay marriages. You then tried to rebut my statement by posting links about schools owned by our Churches.
The two situations do not relate.
Which part in question I also highlighted so you wouldn't confuse my point about your said comment, and I qoute Yarddog " The Court made no ruling regarding lay employees though"
I wasn't confused about what you were replying to in "that" post. My point was about the argument which you have poised since you first replied to me.
Then I gave proof that your comment was not true based on the article I posted below your comment.
Your article(below) didn't prove anything against what the discussion is about. An article giving an opinion about the case involving the Lutheran Church is not proof. Giving us what the Court actually said and how it applied is proof.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf
A piece of your article:
Here is a clip from said article which proves my point....
WASHINGTON "In a groundbreaking case, the Supreme Court on Wednesday held for the first time that religious employees of a church cannot sue for employment discrimination.
But the courts unanimous decision in a case from Michigan did not specify the distinction between a secular employee, who can take advantage of the governments protection from discrimination and retaliation, and a religious employee, who cant.
It was, nevertheless, the first time the high court has acknowledged the existence of a ministerial exception to anti-discrimination laws a doctrine developed in lower court rulings. This doctrine says the First Amendments guarantee of freedom of religion shields churches and their operations from the reach of such protective laws when the issue involves employees of these institutions."
The Court did specify between "a secular employee" and religious employee because there was nothing in the case involving "secular employees".
Where did you get the article.
What the Court did distinguish was "lay teachers" and "called teachers" for the purpose of the Lutheran Church.
Syllabus from SCOTUS:
Called teachers are regarded as having been called to their vocation by God. To be eligible to be considered called, a teacher must complete certain academic requirements, including a course of theological study. Once called, a teacher receives the formal title Minister of Religion, Commissioned. "Lay teachers, by contrast, are not required to be trained by the Synod or even to be Lutheran. Although lay and called teachers at Hosanna-Tabor generally performed the same duties, lay teachers were hired only when called teachers were unavailable.
By the above Supreme Court syllabus of the case you can see how badly your article covered the case. In the above case, "secular" teachers would have fallen in with lay teachers. Regardless, this case still reaffirms what I had said in the 1st post which you responded to, of mine in this thread.
Did you catch that? "ministerial
exception"
Clearly there is an
exception to their rules.
That's right. The ministerial exception refers to the courts granting an exception to the Churches regarding discrimination cases. In other words, Churches can discriminate in regards to their ministerial employees without fear of law suits. This is the first time that SCOTUS has applied that exception to a case but it has been used in lower court ruling for several years.
To add further, this was an unanimous decision which lets everyone know how the Court feels about the 1st Amendment. A change in the swing judges will not effect any future decisions.
