Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess that would be your "religious grounds", although that is a misnomer.
Sorry if you don't like what the constitution says about.
Is this post directed at me??
First off, I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling in this case. I just disagree with the way you're completely misrepresenting it and then using that misrepresentation to attack the president. It's just patently incorrect to claim this church fired her on religious grounds. They did not. They fired her because of her disability - specifically fears that her disability would endanger her students, her threat of a lawsuit, and if you read the respondent and petitioner briefs, there's a heavy undercurrent of her being fired for financial reasons (the church pretty much reneged on a promise to hold her job and pay her while on disability as it became too expensive for them to do so).
I disagree with her, the 6th Circuit, the Department of Justice, and with the Anti-Defamation League all of whom argued she was not a minister. I agree with the Supreme Court. She acted as minister. She preformed religious duties within the church school - she led prayers, she taught Bible study, etc. As disgusting as I personally find what this church did in firing her from all duties (keep in mind a vast majority of her duties were as a secular teacher - hence the legal dispute as to whether she was a minister or not) because of her disability, I believe they have the right to do so. I hold the separation of church and state enshrined within our Constitution sacrosanct. Because of that, they have the right to retain or dismiss her for any reason whatsoever without interference from the government.
Oh sorry then. From your posts I thought you were talking about the court's decision. I now see you were not.
Cross conversations (entering a dispute between other posters midstream) in an online forum often can be confusing.
I was taking issue with the OP's purposeful misrepresentation of the case in order to smear the president.
As to the case, it's an interesting one. Even though I agree with the ruling, I can see the merits of the other side. It's not terribly surprising the appeals court ruled differently (the SC overturned the 6th Circuit), and honestly the 9-0 decision surprised me too. As an interesting point, there were several religious organizations that filed briefs supporting this women against the church (The Unitarian Universalist Association and the Sikh Counsel to name two).
First off, I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling in this case. I just disagree with the way you're completely misrepresenting it and then using that misrepresentation to attack the president. It's just patently incorrect to claim this church fired her on religious grounds. They did not. They fired her because of her disability - specifically fears that her disability would endanger her students, her threat of a lawsuit, and if you read the respondent and petitioner briefs, there's a heavy undercurrent of her being fired for financial reasons (the church pretty much reneged on a promise to hold her job and pay her while on disability as it became too expensive for them to do so).
I disagree with her, the 6th Circuit, the Department of Justice, and with the Anti-Defamation League all of whom argued she was not a minister. I agree with the Supreme Court. She acted as minister. She preformed religious duties within the church school - she led prayers, she taught Bible study, etc. As disgusting as I personally find what this church did in firing her from all duties (keep in mind a vast majority of her duties were as a secular teacher - hence the legal dispute as to whether she was a minister or not) because of her disability, I believe they have the right to do so. I hold the separation of church and state enshrined within our Constitution sacrosanct. Because of that, they have the right to retain or dismiss her for any reason whatsoever without interference from the government.
Wow thats not what I got from your posts and I followed every single post. But ok I can agree with that.
Cross conversations (entering a dispute between other posters midstream) in an online forum often can be confusing.
I was taking issue with the OP's purposeful misrepresentation of the case in order to smear the president.
As to the case, it's an interesting one. Even though I agree with the ruling, I can see the merits of the other side. It's not terribly surprising the appeals court ruled differently (the SC overturned the 6th Circuit), and honestly the 9-0 decision surprised me too. As an interesting point, there were several religious organizations that filed briefs supporting this women against the church (The Unitarian Universalist Association and the Sikh Counsel to name two).
In the end though, the Surpreme Court upheld that wall of separation between church and state. That wall should not be breached.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
