In the constant battle to keep religion free from government interference (and keep freedom of religion) there have been a lot of ups and downs. Most recently, the Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS) ruled in favor of churches. The stunning, unanimous, 9-0 ruling by SCOTUS favored the rights of the church to hire or fire who they want to lead their church. Even the liberal justices ruled in favor of the churches. The case revolved around the EEOC trying to force a church to rehire a pastor it had fired. Talk about un-Constitutional interference with religious freedom!
President Obama’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claimed during oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court last week that it can order a church to restore a fired minister to a teaching position.
The EEOC did not expect what happened next:
At this, Scalia exploded. “That’s extraordinary! There, black on white in the text of the Constitution, are special protections for religion. And you say it makes no difference?”
Kagan agreed with Scalia’s rejection of the argument that the First Amendment doesn’t protect churches from government ordering who they should hire as pastor or priest.
It really isn’t surprising that that SCOTUS ruled in favor this way, what is surprising is that even the most liberal justice, Elena Kagan appointed by Obama, also ruled in favor of the churches. The EEOC got the smack down pretty hard. As they should have.
Writing the court’s opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said, “Allowing anti-discrimination lawsuits against religious organizations could end up forcing churches to take religious leaders they no longer want.”
“Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs,” Roberts said. “By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments.”
But, Roberts said, since this was the first time the high court has ever considered the “ministerial exception,” it would not set hard and fast rules on who can be considered a religious employee of a religious organization.
“We are reluctant … to adopt a rigid formula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a minister,” he said. “It is enough for us to conclude, in this, our first case involving the ministerial exception, that the exception covers (Cheryl) Perich, given all the circumstances of her employment.”
The State of New Jersey however, has ruled that churches cannot deny access to their property if, as in this following case, a homosexual couple wants to marry there. This is shocking because church property is private property and the government has no business stating that non-church members can use church property if the church denies access for any reason. New Jersey calls it discrimination. Really? A church denying access to private property to homosexuals because of religious beliefs is discrimination? New Jersey need to look at the full context of the recent SCOTUS case mentioned above. Courts Say Christian Church Not Allowed to Practice Christianity.
Guess what Jersey is saying is if a group of homosexuals want to have an orgy on church property the church can’t say no because it is discrimination. But the church can deny anybody else if they want. Another example of homosexuals forcing their way upon the church and Christians. That was bad enough, but the church also lost their tax exemption status over that case. Another example of a court deciding for Christians what they can and cannot believe in and what they can and cannot preach or practice on private property.
One good ruling, one bad.
