|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 01/27/2012 : 08:26:43
|
During the opening of last night's Daily Show they did some commentary about the Supreme Court unanimously ruling that a religious institution could discriminate against an employee with a disability.
I was rather surprised, so I looked the case up and it seems that had the woman only been a teacher, she would have been protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act. But because she was also a minister, the religious institution's right to discriminate in who they employ as clergy trumped that secular law.
From this article:
The ADA prohibits employment discrimination based on disability, and the EEOC filed suit on her behalf. But the church school argued that the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion bars government intervention against a church in its relationship with a minister.
A federal district court in Michigan agreed with the school; but the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals sided with the EEOC and Perich, stating that Perich’s duties as a “minister” were identical to those when she had as a lay teacher.
The unanimous Supreme Court, however, considered Perich to be “one of the group’s ministers.” |
On the Daily Show the joke was to have Aasif Mandvi and Jon Stewart use this case to show there is a double standard in the thinking of conservative pundits who fear-monger about sharia law trumping secular law, when in reality it is sects of Christianity who have set the precedent for religious institutions to have special exemptions from certain secular laws. But all I can think is how the hell do educated, compassionate people in the modern world continue to adhere to religious sects which require exemptions from secular laws which were established to protect disadvantaged minorities?
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2012 : 08:46:36 [Permalink]
|
Hi, Marf! Long time, etc. Congrats on your baby! 
I can see religious organizations being able to enforce that their ministers heave to the party line of their church as a condition of their employment. (It would seem unfair to force them to employ advocates of opposing religions, or atheists.) But I can't for the life of me see how any employer whatsoever can be permitted, even encouraged, by the highest court in the USA to discriminate on the basis of disability. That has no real connection to the free practice of religion. Shame on the Supremes, again. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2012 : 09:10:52 [Permalink]
|
Hey, Mooner! I haven't checked SFN in a few weeks. So glad to see you're back!
Well, the court can't micromanage. They have to rule that the churches either must abide by or can ignore certain secular laws when employing clergy. I think they probably made the correct legal decision, which is why it was unanimous.
Yeah, in this case it seems that these Lutherans really are just taking advantage of their special rights in order to fire a woman whose medical condition is inconvenient for them. There's nothing in the religious tenets of Lutheranism which says narcoleptics can't be clergy. It's pretty shitty. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2012 : 09:22:12 [Permalink]
|
Mere weeks away, Marf? What a piker. Try a year or so, for real braging rights.
I don't think distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate discrimination would be micromanaging by the courts. (And why would micromanaging per se be outside a court's purview?) But I'm hopelessly ignorant of the law. Not that this is allowed to be an excuse. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2012 : 09:26:18 [Permalink]
|
| Hmmm yes it does seem a correct court decision, but where do these Lutherans get their moral guidance from? Didn't the zombie god child heal lepers, raise the dead (perhaps Lazarus was just a narcoleptic?) and preach with prostitutes, thieves and tax collectors? |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2012 : 10:14:38 [Permalink]
|
| I don't want the courts going in and trying to analyze the tenets of religious sects to see if they discrimination they want to do is "legit" or not (legit with regards to whatever crazy beliefs they might have.) The we get into stuff like a court allowing one church to fire someone for being blind because maybe they really do have some weird beliefs that doesn't allow blind people to be clergy, but the ruling that another church can't discriminate against blind clergy. Judges should not have to become near experts in specific theologies to figure out how to rule. Either the law applies in a certain case or it doesn't. Currently the law says that churches can refuse to employ protected minorities as clergy if they deem it inappropriate. Fair or not, that's the law. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2012 : 11:35:14 [Permalink]
|
Well, there's the law, and then there's what out to be. I guess in this case, these are not the same.
I do think the burden of proof ought be upon any discriminators, and that just laws should affirm that. Are there acceptable limits to discrimination laws? Yes. For instance, the entertainment industry may sexually discriminate in hiring actors for parts. It's okay to refuse a woman a role as George Washington, or to refuse to hire a man to play Martha Washington. But I think discriminating of any kind, and especially against a disabled person, should only be permitted in the most extraordinary circumstances. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2012 : 17:37:14 [Permalink]
|
I think part of the problem is that clergy is not exactly a job...it is alleged to be a calling from god.
But also there are plenty of jobs where we would find just cause in discriminating against employing a narcoleptic. Bus driver is one example.
| If you have a disability, you must also be qualified to perform the essential functions or duties of a job, with or without reasonable accommodation, in order to be protected from job discrimination by the ADA. This means two things. First, you must satisfy the employer's requirements for the job, such as education, employment experience, skills or licenses. Second, you must be able to perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation. Essential functions are the fundamental job duties that you must be able to perform on your own or with the help of a reasonable accommodation. An employer cannot refuse to hire you because your disability prevents you from performing duties that are not essential to the job. |
So not all disability discrimination is illegal or immoral. I'm not sure what the needs of a Lutheran cleric are, but I could imagine scenarios where "ministry would suffer" from a person in a job with this particularly nasty illness. |
| Edited by - chefcrsh on 01/27/2012 17:54:14 |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2012 : 23:35:07 [Permalink]
|
| marfknox talk about the buried lede! I finally got around to watching the Daily Show episode and to me the far more interesting (and lengthy) portion/point of the segment was about the courts arbitrary and antiquated idea that some words and images are profane. A consequence that effects everyone, is clearly capricious, and was most certainly based on religious preachings from a time when books were indexed to protect the laity from certain frowned upon ideas. |
|
|
|
 |
|
Religious Rights Trump Protection of Disabled
