Supreme Court Affirms Religious Exemption in Labor Laws

[bsjkki]

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/08/885172035/supreme-court-carves-out-religious-exception-to-fair-employment-laws

”The U.S. Supreme Court has carved out a major exception to the nation's fair employment laws. In a 7-2 vote, the court ruled on Wednesday that the country's civil rights laws barring discrimination on the job do not apply to most lay teachers at religious elementary schools.”

 

"The religious education and formation of students is the very reason for the existence of most private religious schools, and therefore the selection and supervision of the teachers upon whom the schools rely to do this work lie at the core of their mission," Alito wrote.

As the court saw it, federal courts are not allowed to settle employment disputes involving teachers similar to those in these cases because the religious schools are making "internal management decisions" that are "essential to the institution's religious mission."

Edited July 9, 2020 by bsjkki

[Storm Rider]

This one made me uncomfortable. I do understand how in some areas, these schools may need more flexibility. However, this flexibility can be easily abused.

What has surprised me in the cases I have read about is the number of individuals that clearly, blatantly go against a church's teaching and then are surprised when their contract is not renewed or are released. I don't think any individual should be allowed to flaunt what is clearly viewed as wrong and then expect not to have consequences. 

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

This one made me uncomfortable. I do understand how in some areas, these schools may need more flexibility. However, this flexibility can be easily abused.

I understand and respect your point.  However, the Free Exercise Clause is a pretty important one.  The question here is whether religious institutions can control the content of what is being taught in their schools, and also impose on teachers expectations of compliance with the religious institution's beliefs, or whether the government can coerce and/or punish religious groups until they disregard their religious beliefs.

It's a question of the government violating a core and explicit constitutional right.

Quote

What has surprised me in the cases I have read about is the number of individuals that clearly, blatantly go against a church's teaching and then are surprised when their contract is not renewed or are released.

I think most of that "surprise" is manufactured (relative to our church, anyway).  Feigned outrage.  Pandering.  Seeking victimhood status.

Look at how often we have seen members of the Church publicly disparage, rail against, insult, malign, and defy the Church and its teachings, and then immediately turn around and, ala Captain Renault from Casa Blanca, claim to be shocked - shocked! - that such behavior can adversely affect their relationship with and membership in the Church.

I have a hard time believing that people like Kate Kelly, John Dehlin, Denver Snuffer, Bill Reel, Jeremy Runnells, etc. are that dense.  So that pretty much leaves . . . duplicity.  They know exactly what they are doing.  They know the likely consequences of their actions.  The Oh-My-Stars-and-Garters! routine is just part of the attempt to get one last bit of notoriety or 15 minutes of fame.

Quote

I don't think any individual should be allowed to flaunt what is clearly viewed as wrong and then expect not to have consequences. 

Back in 2018, when Bill Reel and his supporters were  clutching their collective pearls about him being subject to a disciplinary council (now called "membership council" or some such), I made the following remarks:

Quote

  On 11/15/2018 at 12:38 PM, cinepro said:

I suspect this will not shock many people, but Bill Reel (aka dbmormon) has received an invitation to his execution.

You mean a quiet meeting in a church building where men will get together, pray, have a discussion, and possibly remove Bill Reel's membership in the Church?  Which removal can be undone a year later if Bill Reel seeks it?  Which removal Bill Reel has essentially been courting for years?

This is an "execution?"

Melodramatic hyperbole, methinks.

  Quote

I guess it's the same conversation we have whenever something like this happens (Dehlin, Sam Young, Kate Kelly),

"Something like this" being a member of the Church knowingly and deliberately and persistently engaging in conduct that appears to fall squarely within the parameters of "apostasy?"

  Quote

but should there be a place in the church (or, more accurately, on the membership rolls) for people who have widely divergent points of view on things like the historicity of the Book of Mormon, the supernatural abilities of the current leadership, or even the existence of God and His involvement in world events over the past 6,000 years?

Asking for a friend.

Yes, there is a place.  There are all sorts of people in the Church who have "divergent points of view" on the doctrines and practices and history of the Church, who nevertheless remain in full fellowship.

Dehlin, Kelly, Young, Snuffer, Calderwoods, Runnells . . . they all courted excommunication.  Deliberately.  Intentionally.  They provoked discipline.  They demanded it.  So perhaps we can dispense with the Captain Renault routine.  Nothing surprising or shocking about these folks receiving the discipline they were looking to get (along with notoriety, adulation, 15 minutes of fame, etc.).

Nevertheless, I hope they have a change of heart and return.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 9, 2020 by smac97

[Daniel2]

2 hours ago, bsjkki said:

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/08/885172035/supreme-court-carves-out-religious-exception-to-fair-employment-laws

”The U.S. Supreme Court has carved out a major exception to the nation's fair employment laws. In a 7-2 vote, the court ruled on Wednesday that the country's civil rights laws barring discrimination on the job do not apply to most lay teachers at religious elementary schools.”

"The religious education and formation of students is the very reason for the existence of most private religious schools, and therefore the selection and supervision of the teachers upon whom the schools rely to do this work lie at the core of their mission," Alito wrote.

As the court saw it, federal courts are not allowed to settle employment disputes involving teachers similar to those in these cases because the religious schools are making "internal management decisions" that are "essential to the institution's religious mission."

In my view (and despite the fact that some pro-LGBT organizations and individuals are saying otherwise),  SCOTUS got this ruling right.  Further, it's entirely in keeping with their ruling on and especially some of their concluding comments in Bostock.

Religious entities and organizations should be free to hire in accordance with their religious beliefs and values.  They are and should be afforded exceptions that don't apply to privately-owned companies (which are subject to public accommodation and non-discrimination laws).

For example, based on the fact that the LDS Faith considers my husband's and my marriage an act of apostasy, I wouldn't expect to secure a position at an LDS-owned (or even affiliated) school (including Southern Virginia University).

I'm glad to see the Court's willingness to be fair and impartial as they seek to balance potentially-conflicting civil liberties and rights of all.

That said, I expect (and certainly would hope) that most religious institutions would want to avoid blatant discrimination based on age or disability status, even though this ruling allows it.

Edited July 9, 2020 by Daniel2

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

This one made me uncomfortable. I do understand how in some areas, these schools may need more flexibility. However, this flexibility can be easily abused. ...

Okay.  Here's something for you to chew on, though.  If the case hadn't been decided the way it was, do you think that would bode well for Brigham Young University in the long term, henceforth and forever, amen, and amen?

[The Nehor]

This decision I agree with.