Vow of Silence

  • Thread starter Thread starter CHRISTINE77
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Portland is a particularly tough place to be taking politically unpopulat positions on an issue as celebrated as gay marriage. But they have a wonderful bishop who is surely up to the challenge.
 
Private schools have a right to demand that their teachers and employees adhere to a predetermined code of ethics. From a supreme court ruling just a couple of years ago:

“In what may be its most significant religious liberty decision in two decades, the Supreme Court on Wednesday for the first time recognized a “ministerial exception” to employment discrimination laws, saying that churches and other religious groups must be free to choose and dismiss their leaders without government interference.”

Any lawsuit should be D.O.A.
 
Private schools have a right to demand that their teachers and employees adhere to a predetermined code of ethics. From a supreme court ruling just a couple of years ago:

“In what may be its most significant religious liberty decision in two decades, the Supreme Court on Wednesday for the first time recognized a “ministerial exception” to employment discrimination laws, saying that churches and other religious groups must be free to choose and dismiss their leaders without government interference.”

Any lawsuit should be D.O.A.
Not exactly. The ministerial clause is being debated all across the country. Unless it’s in the signed contract, (and for the San Francisco Archdiocese, the unions fought so that it was NOT included), religious schools are still bound by anti-discriminatory policies.
 
wweek.com/portland/article-25286-vow_of_silence.html

Portland, Oregon St. Mary’s Catholic High School doesn’t want a same-sex married teacher teaching in their school. Looks like it’s law suit time, according to this article in Willamette Week.
I’m on the side of the school on this issue. As a religious institution or affiliate, this kind of school should be able to set its policy in accord with its own religious teachings, and that policy ought to be included in the teacher’s contract.
 
Private schools have a right to demand that their teachers and employees adhere to a predetermined code of ethics. From a supreme court ruling just a couple of years ago:

“In what may be its most significant religious liberty decision in two decades, the Supreme Court on Wednesday for the first time recognized a “ministerial exception” to employment discrimination laws, saying that churches and other religious groups must be free to choose and dismiss their leaders without government interference.”

Any lawsuit should be D.O.A.
I wish. But I feel this could be the start of something. Portland is a very gay city, and the girl is very attractive, and I just have a bad feeling about this.
 
I wish. But I feel this could be the start of something. Portland is a very gay city, and the girl is very attractive, and I just have a bad feeling about this.
A bad feeling about what? The case I cited was from 2012 and was decided 9-0. It reaffirmed a private school’s right as to who they choose to hire or not hire. It doesn’t matter if Portland is a gay city and the girl is pretty; the law is the law.
 
I’m on the side of the school on this issue. As a religious institution or affiliate, this kind of school should be able to set its policy in accord with its own religious teachings, and that policy ought to be included in the teacher’s contract.
👍
 
religious schools are still bound by anti-discriminatory policies.
:ehh:

Oh really? So what would happen if a mosque, a synagogue or a Christian school in the South or CA wouldn’t hire a practicing homosexual?

And if the issue were pressed, what if they organized and threatened to not, say, show up to vote in 2016 and/or started calling people racist and islamophobic as it applied?

Would “equality” be a worthwhile sacrifice for that? 🤷

These are all serious questions, especially when the gay “marriage” movement compares itself (quite erroneously)to the civil rights movement, where activists were in many cases risking their lives.
 
Not exactly. The ministerial clause is being debated all across the country. Unless it’s in the signed contract, (and for the San Francisco Archdiocese, the unions fought so that it was NOT included), religious schools are still bound by anti-discriminatory policies.
*“The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in a decision that was surprising in both its sweep and its unanimity. “But so, too, is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith and carry out their mission.”

Bishop William E. Lori, chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ ad hoc committee for religious liberty, called the ruling “a great day for the First Amendment.”

“This decision,” he said in a statement, “makes resoundingly clear the historical and constitutional importance of keeping internal church affairs off limits to the government — because whoever chooses the minister chooses the message.”

In a concurrence, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the courts should get out of the business of trying to decide who qualifies for the ministerial exception, leaving the determination to religious groups.

“The question whether an employee is a minister is itself religious in nature, and the answer will vary widely,” he wrote. “Judicial attempts to fashion a civil definition of ‘minister’ through a bright-line test or multifactor analysis risk disadvantaging those religious groups whose beliefs, practices and membership are outside of the ‘mainstream’ or unpalatable to some.”

In a second concurrence, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., joined by Justice Elena Kagan, wrote that it would be a mistake to focus on ministers, a title he said was generally used by Protestant denominations and “rarely if ever” by Roman Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists. Nor, Justice Alito added, should the concept of ordination be at the center of the analysis.

Rather, he wrote, the exception “should apply to any ‘employee’ who leads a religious organization, conducts worship services or important religious ceremonies or rituals, or serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith.”*
 
*“The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in a decision that was surprising in both its sweep and its unanimity. “But so, too, is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith and carry out their mission.”

Bishop William E. Lori, chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ ad hoc committee for religious liberty, called the ruling “a great day for the First Amendment.”

“This decision,” he said in a statement, “makes resoundingly clear the historical and constitutional importance of keeping internal church affairs off limits to the government — because whoever chooses the minister chooses the message.”

In a concurrence, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the courts should get out of the business of trying to decide who qualifies for the ministerial exception, leaving the determination to religious groups.

“The question whether an employee is a minister is itself religious in nature, and the answer will vary widely,” he wrote. “Judicial attempts to fashion a civil definition of ‘minister’ through a bright-line test or multifactor analysis risk disadvantaging those religious groups whose beliefs, practices and membership are outside of the ‘mainstream’ or unpalatable to some.”

In a second concurrence, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., joined by Justice Elena Kagan, wrote that it would be a mistake to focus on ministers, a title he said was generally used by Protestant denominations and “rarely if ever” by Roman Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists. Nor, Justice Alito added, should the concept of ordination be at the center of the analysis.

Rather, he wrote, the exception “should apply to any ‘employee’ who leads a religious organization, conducts worship services or important religious ceremonies or rituals, or serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith.”*
See the new thread above. St. Mary’s reversed their policy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top