THERE'S HOPE!! - SCOTUS Slaps Obama

[CuteOldGuy]

It was a unanimous decision Stevie, and the EEOC is the administration, which is the White House.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

It was a unanimous decision Stevie, and the EEOC is the administration, which is the White House.

Most presidents take credit for all that goes right and someone else gets the blame when they go bad. This administration someone else gets the credit when it goes right and Obama gets the blame for anything that goes bad. If he had anything to do or say at all. Of course if a dog took a crap in the mall in Washington it would be his fault cause he has a dog.

[Sidewinder]

This is an ugly case.

The original plaintiff, Cheryl Perich, appears to have been improperly terminated while on medical disability leave. She attempted to fight the dismissal, through the EEOC. The church demurred, stating that the ministerial exception applied. The ministerial exception says, essentially, that the First Amendment says, among other things, that there ain't no way on God's green Earth that the gummint can force a church to hire a particular person as a minister, no way no how, and no court can rule otherwise.

The District Court agreed with the church and ruled against the EEOC. The EEOC appealed, to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in EEOC's favor. The church appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled for the church.

The Supreme Court decision in this case was that, because the defendant was a Church, and her job description really did add up to "minister", a religious position with the Church, the ministerial exception did apply, and so the First Amendment barred the EEOC from attempting to force the Church to re-hire her.

My personal feeling about the case is that there's a lot more to this story than appears in the Supreme Court decision, or in the case filings.

My personal feeling about the decision is that the Supreme Court made the right call, as bad as it may seem, as calling the case the other way would have opened up a far larger can of far uglier worms.

[Little Stevie]

I agree with your assessment,Sidewinder. I was just pointing out the wide swath of blame that people assign to this President. I doubt he passes judgment on every appeal the EEOC files and for the editorial to be framed as the White House getting hit with a knockout punch was as stupid and technically incorrect as the poster who made the post.

Like you, I think there is more to the case than has been published to date but I also agree that telling a church who they can have as a minister would be a step backward. Had the case been over lost wages or some other tort, I might have a different opinion.

[Little Stevie]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

FYI: The corruption of the Administration is a beacon that showcases moral bankruptcy. Obama, his Czars and his department heads should wear NASCAR jumpsuits showing the corporate sponsors who have undoubtedly bought and fully paid for them.

You really are slow. Do you just pick everything I write, copy it and reapply it in an effort to sully the Dems? You really should try thinking for yourself. Your style of using my ideas and trying to make them work for you in the absence of your own is really boring.

I'm glad you finally quit copying and pasting the same complaints but stealing my ideas and using them from the other side is just as stupid.

Do you have any proof that the SUPER PACS and lobbyists give more to liberal justices than to the four Republican Justices who are on the "mega-take"?

[cptjohnstone]

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

You really are slow. Do you just pick everything I write, copy it and reapply it in an effort to sully the Dems? You really should try thinking for yourself. Your style of using my ideas and trying to make them work for you in the absence of your own is really boring.

I'm glad you finally quit copying and pasting the same complaints but stealing my ideas and using them from the other side is just as stupid.

Do you have any proof that the SUPER PACS and lobbyists give more to liberal justices than to the four Republican Justices who are on the "mega-take"?

do you have any proof that the 4 Justices are on the "mega-take"?
that is a big assumption on your part

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

You really are slow.

Slow? Perhaps you might like to address previous threads and posts you have abandoned without finishing or explaining your lies? Some of them are quite old now. You are the definition of "slow".

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

Do you just pick everything I write, copy it and reapply it in an effort to sully the Dems?

You Dimocrats have sullied yourselves with no help from others. You Dimocrats are talented that way.

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

You really should try thinking for yourself. Your style of using my ideas and trying to make them work for you in the absence of your own is really boring.

You are a Dimocrat. You have issues, but you have no ideas. You cannot think for yourself. You merely drink the Kool Aid and regurgitate. And since you are a Dimocrat, it's understood you have problems grasping simple concepts. After all, isn't that why Obama only proffered intangibles like "Hope and Change"? Anything more complicated would have been beyond your level of comprehension. Your martinet repeated his mantra of "Hope and Change" hundreds of times just for pitiful morons like yourself - morons like you who eventually drank the Kool Aid and voted for his sorry ass.

It's been some time now, and since you may have already forgotten: you are still a lying, pompous asshole.

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

I'm glad you finally quit copying and pasting the same complaints but stealing my ideas and using them from the other side is just as stupid.

You are a hypocrite, or perhaps you've already forgotten the number of times you've made the same, repeated complaint against COG within the last 24 hours. Everything you have criticized others for, you have done yourself. You are a lying, pompous asshole.

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

Do you have any proof that the SUPER PACS and lobbyists give more to liberal justices than to the four Republican Justices who are on the "mega-take"?

That is not what was posted, and once again you are caught in a lie. Your martinet, Obama, is the one who has been gorging at the trough!!! It's public record. When will you stop lying?

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You would have much more credibility if you knew what you were talking about, TTH.

I read Roberts' opinion twice. She's a private school teacher who only spent 45 minutes or so each day teaching what was even arguably religious instruction. The entire rest of her work day was teaching secular subjects. Also those characterized by the Court and the school spent the exact same amount of time teaching "religious" subjects. See Slip Opinion 18 - 19.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf

So if they make the janitor attend chapel services everyday, does that mean employment laws don't apply to him? What a crock of shit!!

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by ekim008

she was more than a teacher had proceeded further and could lead the children in prayers.

So did the so-called "lay teachers." Can the fire them just because they are black? Or in violation of the ADA? Or fire women in preference to men?

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

The SCOTUS decision bitched slaped the Obama administration's position on the case.

As the WSJ succinctly put it........

"The Justices also didn't spare their disdain for the position advanced by the Obama Administration. The Justice Department argued that the same First Amendment analysis should apply to churches as to social clubs. The Court called that argument "hard to square with the text of the First Amendment itself, which gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations. We cannot accept the remarkable view that the Religion Clauses have nothing to say about a religious organization's freedom to select its own ministers." Ouch.

Yeah, the SG's office made a serious mistake in the case (and that has been widely commented on in the profession for a few months). Instead of defending the 6th Circuit decision on the grounds that it was decided on -- the amount of time the teacher spent on religious matters, she really wasn't a minister as a matter of law, etc. -- they charged off and tried to eliminate the ministerial exception entirely. A very bad move. Clearly there should be a ministerial exception given the case law (and probably given the language of the Free Exercise Clause) for those who are true ministers. But instead of focusing on the winnable issue -- was this gal truly a minister -- they tried to swing for the fences and didn't even get a single vote for their position. Just plain bad lawyering.

[Cpalmson]

There are just too many damn rules and regulations for any business (religious or not) to follow. This is the problem with the Federal Gov't today. There's a fucking rule for everything. Personally, I don't think the government has a damn role to play in who a company may or may not hire. For that matter, the government has no damn role to play in who a company can serve or not serve. If Zippy Zug Bolt company wants to hire males over 50, they should be allowed to hire whom they please even if there is a more "qualified" "protected class" applicant. My company, my rules-- Fuck Off Washington D.C.!!!!!

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by Cpalmson

There are just too many damn rules and regulations for any business (religious or not) to follow. This is the problem with the Federal Gov't today. There's a fucking rule for everything. Personally, I don't think the government has a damn role to play in who a company may or may not hire. For that matter, the government has no damn role to play in who a company can serve or not serve. If Zippy Zug Bolt company wants to hire males over 50, they should be allowed to hire whom they please even if there is a more "qualified" "protected class" applicant. My company, my rules-- Fuck Off Washington D.C.!!!!!

A hotel or a restaurant wants whites only, suits you, eh? Fire all the old folks, fine!! Discriminate against the disabled -- well fuck 'em, they're crippled, right??!!!!

Jesus, it's amazing to me that the Republicans have made it publicly acceptable to endorse outright racism, sexism, and age discrimination again in our society. Maybe you'll be for re-instituting slavery next. I hear it lowers labor costs substantially.

[Cpalmson]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

A hotel or a restaurant wants whites only, suits you, eh? Fire all the old folks, fine!! Discriminate against the disabled -- well fuck 'em, they're crippled, right??!!!!

Jesus, it's amazing to me that the Republicans have made it publicly acceptable to endorse outright racism, sexism, and age discrimination again in our society. Maybe you'll be for re-instituting slavery next. I hear it lowers labor costs substantially.

Yes, a hotel should be able to hire whomever they want and not hire whomever they want. There should not be any laws or regulations mandating this activity. And no I'm not a white, sexist, racist. I'm a firm believe in the LIMITED role of government in the affairs of economic activity. Of course, hiring "whites only" is wrong, but it shouldn't be the government who arbitrates in these matters. No, let market forces right the wrong. If Hotel "A" has blatant racist policies, let them suffer from poor PR, organized boycotts and public ridicule. If they can survive that and keep their shareholders happy, then they deserve to still exist even if they are social pariahs. We don't need the government meddling in this area of economic activity. BTW, we already have re-instituted slavery under the guise of illegal immigration. Guess which party doesn't want to stop illegal immigration? Oh, that would be the liberally oriented demo-rats.

[Whirlaway]

You had me rooting for you up to the last 2 sentences; IMO the Republican Party elites also favor illegal immigration. Just look at the lobbying that the US Chamber does against strict immigration standards. If my memory serves, they joined in with the rest of the lefties in filing lawsuits and legal motions against Arizona.

Originally Posted by Cpalmson

Yes, a hotel should be able to hire whomever they want and not hire whomever they want. There should not be any laws or regulations mandating this activity. And no I'm not a white, sexist, racist. I'm a firm believe in the LIMITED role of government in the affairs of economic activity. Of course, hiring "whites only" is wrong, but it shouldn't be the government who arbitrates in these matters. No, let market forces right the wrong. If Hotel "A" has blatant racist policies, let them suffer from poor PR, organized boycotts and public ridicule. If they can survive that and keep their shareholders happy, then they deserve to still exist even if they are social pariahs. We don't need the government meddling in this area of economic activity. BTW, we already have re-instituted slavery under the guise of illegal immigration. Guess which party doesn't want to stop illegal immigration? Oh, that would be the liberally oriented demo-rats.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by Sidewinder

My personal feeling about the decision is that the Supreme Court made the right call, as bad as it may seem, as calling the case the other way would have opened up a far larger can of far uglier worms.

I disagree if, and only if, it was decided on narrow grounds. The lady isn't a minister. She is a garden variety teacher who spent a small sliver of her day in religious instruction. No more, no less. The vast bulk of her duties had nothing to do with religion, much less ministering to anyone. The administration, specifically the SG's office, made a bad tactical choice and should have defended the case on the narrow ground on which the 6th Circuit decided it.

[essence]

It is well known that anti discrimination laws can have a big impact on reducing discrimination. Sometimes the law has to lead (some parts) of society.

I see Cpalmson's rant started (just) on MLK day.

Does society exist, or is it just a collection of individuals doing their own thing?

On the case in point, I agree with most of what the sensible intelligent experts here are saying.