9-0: Supreme Court finds “ministerial exception” to job discrimination laws for religious organizations

posted at 9:13 pm on January 11, 2012 by Allahpundit

When you’ve got two core First Amendment principles to guide you, even a big case can be an easy one.

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…

The administration had told the justices that their analysis of Ms. Perich’s case should be essentially the same whether she had been employed by a church, a labor union, a social club or any other group with free-association rights under the First Amendment. That position received withering criticism when the case was argued in October, and it was soundly rejected in Wednesday’s decision.

“That result is hard to square with the text of the First Amendment itself, which gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “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.”

I recommend reading Walter Olson’s piece at Cato from October for background on the case, as his post drips with amazement that Obama’s DOJ would try to argue that religious orgs enjoy no extra freedom in their hiring practices under the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. His amazement was obviously shared: I can’t remember the last time a major decision on a hot-button issue went 9-0. What the DOJ could have done — and where this line of jurisprudence is clearly headed — is to quibble over who qualifies as a “minister” for the ministerial exception. Employees who provide strictly secular services for a religious org can sue under discrimination laws, but once there’s some sort of religious component involved, jurisdiction starts to melt away under the First Amendment. (In this case, the teacher had taught not just secular subjects but religious classes too.) Alito wrote a concurrence that was joined by Kagan(!) specifically arguing that the ministerial exception should apply broadly, “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. If a religious group believes that the ability of such an employee to perform these key functions has been compromised, then the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom protects the group’s right to remove the employee from his or her position.” The Court didn’t reach that question but it will in a later case, especially as conflicts between gay rights and religious freedom become more prominent.

I wonder if this ruling will encourage religious orgs to give more ancillary religious duties to their employees, if only for liability purposes. Incentives are, after all, incentives. Exit quotation from Olson: “The fact is that to many in the Obama administration, as to many in modern legal academia, employment discrimination law is itself pursued with the intensity of, well, a religion. And when someone else’s religion comes into conflict with theirs — well, it’s only human nature for them to want theirs to prevail.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I can’t remember the last time a major decision on a hot-button issue went 9-0.

Kagan spooked by all the ’316′ coincidences????

pamplonajack on January 11, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Finally, a non-Romneybashathon post. Anyway, looks like even Comrades Sonya, Ruth and Elena saw the EEOC was up to no good.

andy85719 on January 11, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Wow. 9-0. You don’t see that very often.

SoulGlo on January 11, 2012 at 9:17 PM

Seriously, this seems pretty clear… I can get behind generic race/gender etc protections out of systemic discrimination, even if it’s not “Free market based”, but clearly, if the government has to FORCE churches to hire certain people…. then “free assembly” and “free association” are pretty much dead in the water, not just the religion part.

Non-gutsy call!!

pamplonajack on January 11, 2012 at 9:17 PM

9-0: Supreme Court finds “ministerial exception” to job discrimination laws for religious organizations

…And that’s a good thing.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on January 11, 2012 at 9:19 PM

The administration argued religious institutions have no more protection under the First Amendment than labor orgs and social clubs.

The decision was delayed to permit the justices to finish laughing.

amerpundit on January 11, 2012 at 9:19 PM

This has been a concern of mine since Obama appointed Chai Feldblum to head up the EEOC. She said,

And yet when push comes to shove, when religious liberty and sexual liberty conflict, she admits, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.

I’m glad SCOTUS chose to protect religious liberty, because this will surely come up again.

Laura Curtis on January 11, 2012 at 9:20 PM

OT: Ooh, ooh, let me guess what the QOTD picture will be. It will be Romney smiling, awkward or crestfallen, staring at something we can’t see with a pithy subtitle like: Blowback? Doubt? Winner? Electable?, etc.

andy85719 on January 11, 2012 at 9:21 PM

wow… setback for certain gay activists?

MeatHeadinCA on January 11, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Hooray!

jeanie on January 11, 2012 at 9:22 PM

9-0. Obama will make a comment soon…something like…oh…”They chose poorly”.

BTW, came across this item while quickly googling for a remarkable Obama comment to quote for the above, so lets take a stroll down memory lane:

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) was glad the president called out the Supreme Court.

“He [Alito] deserved to be criticized, if he didn’t like it he can mouth whatever they want,” Weiner said. “These Supreme Court justices sometimes forget that we live in the real world. They got a real world reminder tonight, if you make a boneheaded decision, someone’s going to call you out on it.”

Absolutely priceless and accurate, as it turned out.

BobMbx on January 11, 2012 at 9:24 PM

America is not going to hell after all.

residentblue on January 11, 2012 at 9:25 PM

I see another 9-0 coming down the pike.

Supreme Court Justices Slam EPA Over Its Treatment of Idaho Couple

This is outrageous.

JPeterman on January 11, 2012 at 9:25 PM

What about the Boy Scouts? They’ve been denied venues they used in the past for their “anti-gay” stances. Is that constitutional?

Paul-Cincy on January 11, 2012 at 9:26 PM

No forced LGBT parsons in the pulpit?

How come?

I thought that was discrimination?

The SCOTUS approves of discrimination, by God?

A religion can have religious rules with the religion?!?

Outrageous!

profitsbeard on January 11, 2012 at 9:27 PM

Not to worry! Give JugEars 4 more years or two more picks…and it would have been 9-4!
You don’t think anybody would have been dumb enough to go 7-2 in an election year…do you?

KOOLAID2 on January 11, 2012 at 9:28 PM

You can listen the oral argument before the Supreme Court here. No fireworks, but interesting. The Oyez site I linked to scrolls a transcript of the argument, simultaneous with the audio.

BCrago66 on January 11, 2012 at 9:30 PM

I wonder if this ruling will encourage religious orgs to give more ancillary religious duties to their employees, if only for liability purposes.

I’ve worked for several Christian organizations, and even office and secretarial responsibilities involve some kind of Christian work such as assistance with various projects and even informal counseling. They’re inseparable.

INC on January 11, 2012 at 9:30 PM

bout time the good guys win one….I mean since last night.

Jailbreak on January 11, 2012 at 9:31 PM

I see another 9-0 coming down the pike.

Supreme Court Justices Slam EPA Over Its Treatment of Idaho Couple

This is outrageous.

JPeterman on January 11, 2012 at 9:25 PM

Nope, 5-4 on that one. EPA is more powerful than the church. They look after the whole planet not just peoples eternal souls. It will still will go 5-4 to allow them to build though.

tjexcite on January 11, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Wow would never have seen 9-0 on this one. Maybe 5-4 to the good.

CW on January 11, 2012 at 9:39 PM

+1 for our side?

Or is it too soon to tell…

MooCowBang on January 11, 2012 at 9:44 PM

I recommend reading Walter Olson’s piece at Cato from October for background on the case, which drips with amazement that Obama’s DOJ would try to argue that religious orgs enjoy no extra freedom in their hiring practices under the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. His amazement was obviously shared: I can’t remember the last time a major decision on a hot-button issue went 9-0.

Allahpundit on Jan 11, 2012 9:13 PM

Barack Hussein Obama should try again after the rapture when the Christian are gone because all of the resistance to abortion, gambling, pornography, gay marriage, etc, comes mainly from the Christian community. So once God removes all of the Christians from the earth and Obama wins the November election against Mitt Romney he can change the laws any way he wants, but not before one critical obstacle is removed…. Christians!

apocalypse on January 11, 2012 at 9:47 PM

9-0! Wow!! That’s more impressive than Bama rolling LSU 21-0.

I wonder if this ruling could be applied even as precedent to other issues such as Catholic Charities not supporting adoptions by gays. Why cannot that have a religious exception as well?

GoodAg77 on January 11, 2012 at 9:47 PM

I wonder if this ruling will encourage religious orgs to give more ancillary religious duties to their employees, if only for liability purposes.

I doubt it. The court deliberately left enough uncertainty that sane churches won’t try to exploit the ministerial exception “loophole” for secular employees.

The court’s opinion deliberately didn’t attempt a definition of a “minister” (i.e. who qualifies under the exception, regardless of whether “minister” is part of position title), and although the general theme of the decision is that the definition of “minister” within the religious hierarchy would be honored (i.e. once the last court/tribunal of appeals within the organization had a say, civil courts won’t review that finding), the phrase “good faith” occurs a few times.

Maybe it’s just me, but for us religious folks, our freedoms are too precious to risk on such frivolous issues as “liability issues”. Liability issues concern only money after all; who our ministers are concerns, potentially, our soul.

novakyu on January 11, 2012 at 9:52 PM

Tebow!

carbon_footprint on January 11, 2012 at 9:53 PM

What about the Boy Scouts? They’ve been denied venues they used in the past for their “anti-gay” stances. Is that constitutional?

The only “venues” that I’ve heard of that have not allowed the BSA to meet there are certain public schools and certain government properties. Which is completely constitutional since the government does not have to give money/venues to private organizations with discriminatory policies.

The BSA and any other private organization is free to discriminate against whomever they’d like, whenever they’d like, and however they’d like. But they cannot discriminate and accept government freebies at the same time. Same reason why the state of Illinois stopped giving government money to Catholic Charities. Catholic Charities refused to obey the new law stating that government-funded adoption agencies could not discriminate against gay couples.

By the way, Catholic Charities was not “forced” to close at all. That is a complete and utter lie. They chose to end their operations in Illinois themselves. They could have either chosen to obey the new law and continued to receive government money, or they could have started accepting donations from private donors. Catholic Charities did not close because a law made them do so-they closed because they were angry that they could no longer discriminate while still getting government money at the same time.

theoddmanout on January 11, 2012 at 9:54 PM

Kardashian!

carbon_footprint on January 11, 2012 at 9:56 PM

The 9-0 on this gives me the shivers. Does the court think this will “mitigate” a disgraceful ruling on Obamacare later this year?

Rational Thought on January 11, 2012 at 9:58 PM

I can see another insult to the Supremes during the upcoming State of the Union propaganda lie fest…

Seven Percent Solution on January 11, 2012 at 9:58 PM

BCrago66 on January 11, 2012 at 9:30 PM

Thanks for the link.

talkingpoints on January 11, 2012 at 9:59 PM

Shouldn’t this be exhibit 1 in evidence that Obama is fighting a war against religion itself? The case was absolutely absurd.

ninjapirate on January 11, 2012 at 10:00 PM

The 9-0 on this gives me the shivers. Does the court think this will “mitigate” a disgraceful ruling on Obamacare later this year?

Rational Thought on January 11, 2012 at 9:58 PM

Do clergy get an exemption from ObamaCare?

Where’s my collar?

BobMbx on January 11, 2012 at 10:01 PM

There are 4 Supreme Court justices bristling at the fact they have to acknowledge the existence of other Gods.

Afterseven on January 11, 2012 at 10:01 PM

What about the Boy Scouts? They’ve been denied venues they used in the past for their “anti-gay” stances. Is that constitutional?

Paul-Cincy on January 11, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Yes, because local (and maybe even federal) governments have more powers in their role as landlords.

Perhaps in the most extreme case it could be unconstitutional (i.e. so prohibitive that it effectively infringes on the Boy Scouts’ first amendment rights), but I’d guess that’d have to be more than getting denied use of certain public venue (after all, why couldn’t the Boy Scouts use facilities owned by a private owner who are O.K. with their official positions?).

novakyu on January 11, 2012 at 10:02 PM

By the way, Catholic Charities was not “forced” to close at all. That is a complete and utter lie. They chose to end their operations in Illinois themselves. They could have either chosen to obey the new law and continued to receive government money, or they could have started accepting donations from private donors.

Um no… you have no idea what you’re talking about… many of the services the Catholic Church was providing(foster care) is impossible to do without government cooperation because the government mandates it.

ninjapirate on January 11, 2012 at 10:03 PM

is impossible

are impossible…

ninjapirate on January 11, 2012 at 10:04 PM

Activist judges!

/Newt

RanchTooth on January 11, 2012 at 10:05 PM

Note that the Justice Department took exactly the opposite approach when a Muslim’s ‘faith’ was involved.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/14/national/main7148181.shtml
Then the world had to bend over backwards.
The same justice department. of course she was not christian or white, the two dreaded evils of liberalism.

pat on January 11, 2012 at 10:06 PM

The 9-0 on this gives me the shivers. Does the court think this will “mitigate” a disgraceful ruling on Obamacare later this year?

Rational Thought on January 11, 2012 at 9:58 PM

Funny. That was exactly my first thought on this. Make it look like Kalgan, Sotomayor and Ginsburg are not partisan on a simple case only so they can rationalize their opinions on obamacare in March. Sorry to be so cynical but it really was my first impression.

FLconservative on January 11, 2012 at 10:06 PM

The 9-0 on this gives me the shivers. Does the court think this will “mitigate” a disgraceful ruling on Obamacare later this year?

Rational Thought on January 11, 2012 at 9:58 PM

‘zactly.

Are we now free from any notion that Kagan entered the job with preconceived notions and an itch to Activize? Do we now have evidence that will be repeated by everyone from Megyn Kelly to the Daily Kos that Kagan is a dispassionate jurist?

Axe on January 11, 2012 at 10:06 PM

Good post AP.

DrStock on January 11, 2012 at 10:06 PM

Does this mean that college republicans can kick out democrats now?

besser tot als rot on January 11, 2012 at 10:06 PM

Barack Hussein Obama should try again after the rapture when the Christian are gone because all of the resistance to abortion, gambling, pornography, gay marriage, etc, comes mainly from the Christian community. So once God removes all of the Christians from the earth and Obama wins the November election against Mitt Romney he can change the laws any way he wants, but not before one critical obstacle is removed…. Christians!

apocalypse on January 11, 2012 at 9:47 PM

Obviously God would not want Christians to live obedient lives, raise families and influence society when they can get a heavenly bailout and celebrate the world going to h@ll so that nothing they did made any difference.

/SARC

At least you have a tinfoil hat to protect you from all evil influences until then…..

WhatNot on January 11, 2012 at 10:07 PM

Wow!! That’s more impressive than Bama rolling LSU 21-0.

GoodAg77 on January 11, 2012 at 9:47 PM

Nightmare never going to end :/

Axe on January 11, 2012 at 10:08 PM

Are we now free from any notion that Kagan entered the job with preconceived notions and an itch to Activize? Do we now have evidence that will be repeated by everyone from Megyn Kelly to the Daily Kos that Kagan is a dispassionate jurist?

Axe on January 11, 2012 at 10:06 PM

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. It does not prove she is ‘free of preconceived notions and an itch’ for activism.

If Kagan, or the Wide Latina, had sided with the Obama admin on this one, she/they/it would lose all credibility.

WhatNot on January 11, 2012 at 10:13 PM

apocalypse on January 11, 2012 at 9:47 PM

WhatNot on January 11, 2012 at 10:07 PM

Bah. Stay salty, rather annoying apocalypse :)

Axe on January 11, 2012 at 10:13 PM

So…what are the odds that Obama will make some childish, snarky comment/insult directed toward SCOTUS in his State of the Union address?

Pretty darn good, I’m guessing.

For the Supreme Court to go 9-0 on this ego is a major blow to Obama (and his ego)…

englishqueen01 on January 11, 2012 at 10:14 PM

And the constitutional scholar takes one to the face!

angrymike on January 11, 2012 at 10:15 PM

If Kagan, or the Wide Latina, had sided with the Obama admin on this one, she/they/it would lose all credibility.

WhatNot on January 11, 2012 at 10:13 PM

lol … “Wide Latina”

Sorry WhatNot — my post apparently needed a /sarc tag, and I didn’t use one. Your point was my point.

Axe on January 11, 2012 at 10:15 PM

Nothing this DOJ does surprises me anymore. They’re at war with Religion, 26 states, gun owners, whitey, etc. etc.

CorporatePiggy on January 11, 2012 at 10:16 PM

Axe on January 11, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Bama won 21 to Zereaux!

WhatNot on January 11, 2012 at 10:17 PM

And the constitutional scholar takes one to the face!

angrymike on January 11, 2012 at 10:15 PM

Maybe he really is a constitutional scholar (ahem, doubtful) and he just decided it was a crock and he’d ride roughshod over the entire thing…

More likely though he just read ‘Da Constitution – Cliff Notes’ and spent a few years spouting crap as a teacher’s assistant. Sorry, I mean ‘professor’.

CorporatePiggy on January 11, 2012 at 10:18 PM

By the way, Catholic Charities was not “forced” to close at all. That is a complete and utter lie. They chose to end their operations in Illinois themselves. They could have either chosen to obey the new law and continued to receive government money, or they could have started accepting donations from private donors.

False. Providing adoption services to homosexual couples is now a prerequisite to be licensed to operate in the state of Illinois. Don’t provide service to gay couples, can’t be licensed to operate in Illinois.

Washington Nearsider on January 11, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Corporatepiggy
He thinks alot of things in america are a crock including the constitution!

angrymike on January 11, 2012 at 10:24 PM

Bama won 21 to Zereaux!

WhatNot on January 11, 2012 at 10:17 PM

:) At least someone can spell Zereaux correctly.

Axe on January 11, 2012 at 10:26 PM

Waiting for libfreeordie to weigh in on how mainstream the Obama administration is.

RedinPDRM on January 11, 2012 at 10:27 PM

False. Providing adoption services to homosexual couples is now a prerequisite to be licensed to operate in the state of Illinois. Don’t provide service to gay couples, can’t be licensed to operate in Illinois.

I have read several articles about the Catholic Charities situation (Including an article linked by this website about the incident) and not once have I read that Catholic Charities can no longer get a license. Every article I have read has only mentioned that Catholic Charities can no longer receive government funding and that the state of Illinois will no longer contract Catholic Charities specifically.

theoddmanout on January 11, 2012 at 10:29 PM

I wonder if this ruling will encourage religious orgs to give more ancillary religious duties to their employees, if only for liability purposes. Incentives are, after all, incentives. Exit quotation from Olson: “The fact is that to many in the Obama administration, as to many in modern legal academia, employment discrimination law is itself pursued with the intensity of, well, a religion. And when someone else’s religion comes into conflict with theirs — well, it’s only human nature for them to want theirs to prevail.”

A good question, but res ipsa loquitor.

TXUS on January 11, 2012 at 10:33 PM

The decision was actually 10-0, if you count Tim Tebow.

The Schaef on January 11, 2012 at 10:40 PM

:) At least someone can spell Zereaux correctly.

Axe on January 11, 2012 at 10:26 PM

Laissez les bons temps rouler sur Romney.

WhatNot on January 11, 2012 at 10:41 PM

I can’t remember the last time a major decision on a hot-button issue went 9-0.

December 2000: SCOTUS, in its first of 3 rulings in the Bush V Gore case, smacked down by a 9-0 count the first “ruling” by the all-Democrat Florida Supreme Court, which was said Court’s first of 2 attempts to rewrite Florida election law after the election had taken place.

Del Dolemonte on January 11, 2012 at 10:45 PM

Laissez les bons temps rouler sur Romney.

WhatNot on January 11, 2012 at 10:41 PM

lol … where are you? Next door?

Axe might be in . . . how narrow is safe . . . NW La.

Axe on January 11, 2012 at 10:46 PM

Hey, I’m wondering if this decision could be considered a a suspicious activity by the Obama regime. They seem to be watching everyone now. Drudge has up a headline Homeland Security is monitoring his site.

JellyToast on January 11, 2012 at 10:50 PM

I have a bad feeling about this decision.
Some seriously bad feeling .
The 9 have placated Christians/religious people, unanimously.They seem to be preparing us for the upcoming shock which they are planning.
Now they will go 9-0 to uphold Obama-scare

burrata on January 11, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Catholic Charities did not close because a law made them do so-they closed because they were angry that they could no longer discriminate while still getting government money at the same time.

Yes, because not a single left-wing organization takes government money without discriminating. What a load of B.S.

Free expression is free expression. Denying a church government funds for not compromising their moral teachings is nothing short of state sponsored blackmail.

Catholic Charities should stay open, and keep right on adopting to straight couples. An unjust law is not one that needs to be obeyed.

englishqueen01 on January 11, 2012 at 10:57 PM

The 9 have placated Christians/religious people, unanimously.They seem to be preparing us for the upcoming shock which they are planning.
Now they will go 9-0 to uphold Obama-scare

No, because it’s pretty darned certain Obama’s going to make some petulant remark about them…and then they’re going to hand him his dream legislation on a platter?

Methinks not.

englishqueen01 on January 11, 2012 at 10:58 PM

The Obama Justice Department under Holder is a complete joke, not just out of the mainstream, but the very definition of extreme. The White House is even more extreme with their in-house legal council trumping Justice on the phony recess appointments made by our “Constitutional Instructor” President. A.B.O. folks: Anybody But Obama, please.

stefano1 on January 11, 2012 at 11:01 PM

No, because it’s pretty darned certain Obama’s going to make some petulant remark about them…and then they’re going to hand him his dream legislation on a platter?
Methinks not.

englishqueen01 on January 11, 2012 at 10:58 PM

The wise latina and KD Lang both agreeing about religious freedom ?
There has to be a deal in place.
Specially since Justice Roberts was defending Kagan from recusal over Obama-scare just a few days ago

burrata on January 11, 2012 at 11:08 PM

This has been a concern of mine since Obama appointed Chai Feldblum to head up the EEOC. She said,

And yet when push comes to shove, when religious liberty and sexual liberty conflict, she admits, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.

Laura Curtis on January 11, 2012 at 9:20 PM

And yet religious liberty is specifically written into the constitution but sexual liberty is nowhere to be found. I guess sexual liberty is their idea of a religion.

yhxqqsn on January 11, 2012 at 11:08 PM

And it came down just in time for Obama to mock the Supremes in the SOTU!

Waggoner on January 11, 2012 at 11:13 PM

I’ll wait for crr6′s expert legal analysis to explain how the Supremes got this one wrong.

St Gaudens on January 11, 2012 at 11:14 PM

The real news is how the LSM is once again, complicit in covering up for Obozo’s extreme views.

This never ahould have made it to the SC.

KMC1 on January 11, 2012 at 11:18 PM

lol … where are you? Next door?

Axe might be in . . . how narrow is safe . . . NW La.

Axe on January 11, 2012 at 10:46 PM

I might be a bunker in the North GA mountains, remembering too many classes in too many languages.

The are plenty of LSU fans at work, though.

WhatNot on January 11, 2012 at 11:20 PM

Exit quotation from Olson: “The fact is that to many in the Obama administration, as to many in modern legal academia, employment discrimination law is itself pursued with the intensity of, well, a religion. And when someone else’s religion comes into conflict with theirs — well, it’s on

The Left maligns Freedom of Religion from all aspects, to restate the obvious. The “gay rights movement” is much about doing so, essentially — again, the obvious — because their identity politics and behaviors involved in those run oppositional to just about all religious dogma; and, instead of maintaining themselves in their own environs, they seek to suppress if not eradicate the Freedom of others.

I’m not clear on just what the “Exit Question” is but this is a very good post. As is the Supreme Court decision it discusses.

Lourdes on January 11, 2012 at 11:29 PM

“That result is hard to square with the text of the First Amendment itself, which gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “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.”

Chief Justice Roberts…when he gets it right, he gets it very, very right, as there ^^.

I’m so pleased with this decision. So incredibly pleased.

Lourdes on January 11, 2012 at 11:31 PM

I’m so pleased with this decision. So incredibly pleased.

Lourdes on January 11, 2012 at 11:31 PM

Yet I refuse to be optimistic. I’ve forgotten how to process good news.

Axe on January 11, 2012 at 11:38 PM

Hubby and I had a conversation years ago about discrimination. I mentioned then that there were two instances I could think of where it was okay; clergy and Hollywood.

Now let’s see the Libs go after their pals in LA LA Land for discrimination. How can they cast white people in Shakespeare. Why do so many men play historical characters like Washington, Lincoln, and Churchill. And why are all the people in movies good looking?

RAAAAACISTS ALL!

Laura in Maryland on January 11, 2012 at 11:53 PM

Obama and leftist Dems hate Christianity, but they can’t be open about it.

mydh12 on January 11, 2012 at 11:56 PM

The Constitution’s right of free association pretty much makes ALL “anti discrimination” laws illegal. But no one has the guts to say it.

The only place where it can be argued that discrimination should be illegal is in GOVERNMENT hiring, since we are all (supposed to be) taxpayers.

wildcat72 on January 12, 2012 at 12:01 AM

GREAT RULING!!!

This sets up the ability to attack “Global Warming” as a “religion” which the government is unconstitutionally trying to impose upon its citizens!!!

landlines on January 12, 2012 at 12:03 AM

Obama and leftist Dems hate Christianity, but they can’t be open about it.

mydh12 on January 11, 2012 at 11:56 PM

They are being pretty open about it if you ask me.

Obama is the first openly NON PRACTICING “Christian” president. The “church” he went to for decades (Jeremiah Wright) was certainly not Christian. You can’t preach hate from the pulpit and be so, and just because you call yourself one doesn’t mean that you ARE.

Now, I do believe Obama has a LOT of muslim influence in him, given that both his sperm donor father and adoptive father were muslims. But I think his narcissistic ego goes beyond THAT. He can’t see any god greater than himself.

wildcat72 on January 12, 2012 at 12:05 AM

Poor Eric Holder. He got his wrist slapped again. I guess he’s now going to tell us that we’re just a nation of cowards afraid to have a discussion about religion or something…

climbnjump on January 12, 2012 at 12:06 AM

GREAT RULING!!!

This sets up the ability to attack “Global Warming” as a “religion” which the government is unconstitutionally trying to impose upon its citizens!!!

landlines on January 12, 2012 at 12:03 AM

I’ve always argued that the best way to get liberalism out of the schools is to argue that it is a religion. So much of what they believe in is pure faith, because NONE of it can be proven to work that it HAS to be considered a religion.

wildcat72 on January 12, 2012 at 12:06 AM

Poor Eric Holder. He got his wrist slapped again. I guess he’s now going to tell us that we’re just a nation of cowards afraid to have a discussion about religion or something…

climbnjump on January 12, 2012 at 12:06 AM

Expect the prophet demigod Obamessiah to insult the Justices over this one at the SOTU.

What shocks me is that both of Obama’s bulldyke justices voted for this ruling.

wildcat72 on January 12, 2012 at 12:08 AM

And so the path to Sharia grows wider.
/? (is there a tag for cynicism?)

S. D. on January 12, 2012 at 12:13 AM

Barack Hussein Obama should try again after the rapture when the Christian are gone because all of the resistance to abortion, gambling, pornography, gay marriage, etc, comes mainly from the Christian community. So once God removes all of the Christians from the earth and Obama wins the November election against Mitt Romney he can change the laws any way he wants, but not before one critical obstacle is removed…. Christians!

apocalypse on January 11, 2012 at 9:47 PM

At least you have a tinfoil hat to protect you from all evil influences until then…..

WhatNot on January 11, 2012 at 10:07 PM

If I am right (and I am) that God is gonna come back and be the Judge of this earth one of these days and if you haven’t trusted Jesus Christ to forgive you of your sin you’re in serious trouble. You’re gonna stand on the other side of the rapture in trouble.

PS, you can have my tinfoil hat when I am gone since you love it so much….. but it won’t help if you have been left behind.

apocalypse on January 12, 2012 at 12:17 AM

apocalypse on January 11, 2012 at 9:47 PM

WhatNot on January 11, 2012 at 10:07 PM

Bah. Stay salty, rather annoying apocalypse :)

Axe on January 11, 2012 at 10:13 PM

If nobody’s irritated at you you’re not a good Christian. ;-)

apocalypse on January 12, 2012 at 12:18 AM

And so the path to Sharia grows wider.
/? (is there a tag for cynicism?)

S. D. on January 12, 2012 at 12:13 AM

Exactly

A federal appeals court today blocked a measure that would’ve made Oklahoma the first state in the nation to ban the Sharia law in its court system.

The court ruled in favor of Muneer Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Oklahoma, who filed a lawsuit against the Oklahoma election board on the grounds that the voter-approved constitutional amendment violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution forbidding the government from favoring one religion over another.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/oklahomas-ban-on-sharia-law-struck-down-by-federal-appeals-court/

burrata on January 12, 2012 at 12:20 AM

I think the liberals on the court intend to enshrine Islam as a special religion. After all, most Christians are moderates. I bet the libs are looking down calendar, to enshrine Islam and Atheists.

pat on January 12, 2012 at 12:47 AM

That Eric the Red and Ojesus took a position on this obviously simple issue that is directly in opposition to the First Amendment is a clear indication of the contempt with which they view the Constitution.

They won.

hillbillyjim on January 12, 2012 at 1:11 AM

Am I the only one that doesn’t understand the title at all?

Ortzinator on January 12, 2012 at 1:15 AM

Am I the only one that doesn’t understand the title at all?

Ortzinator on January 12, 2012 at 1:15 AM

Try:

Supreme Court finds, to job discrimination laws, “ministerial exception” for religious organizations

Axe on January 12, 2012 at 1:46 AM

Am I the only one that doesn’t understand the title at all?

Ortzinator on January 12, 2012 at 1:15 AM

Try:

Supreme Court finds, to job discrimination laws, “ministerial exception” for religious organizations

Axe on January 12, 2012 at 1:46 AM

Or:

Supremes find that job discrimination laws don’t apply to ministers.

hillbillyjim on January 12, 2012 at 2:15 AM

9-0: Supreme Court

And, the Obama administration brought this suit forward only to be rebuffed severely.

Let that be a lesson to all who have been ‘hounded and harassed’ by Obama’s leftist agencies (EPA) and leftist administration .

9-ZIP!! should be a ‘rallying call’ against this heinous anti-American administration !!

BigSven on January 12, 2012 at 6:10 AM

Funny how things turn around. It used to be that the Supreme Court was our worse enemy. Now, things have gotten so bad it’s become our best friend. The one institution that seems to be the only real block to the Obama agenda.

JellyToast on January 12, 2012 at 6:38 AM

Comment pages: 1 2