Supreme Court Religion Decision/Hosana Case

i don't believe it will lead to any more extremism that what is already in our presence or those who take scriptures from any organized religion to the Nth. degree.

the catholics hate protestants, shiites hate sunnis, buddhist hate hindus and on...so nothing has really changed and all the while government did not need to intercede.

FredHayek wrote: I could link to the whole decision but I don't think most people have the time nor desire to read it.
And you are just spitting out what the reporters and the church say, but more important is going to be the long term effect. The biggest case affirming the support of church freedom in over 20 years. And IMO, overstepping. One example reported in the Post today says that a Catholic university could choose to fire their religious teachers without cause but not their secular ones. Doesn't this sound a little bizarre?

And also historic was the court all supporting the same decision. You would think at least Ruth Bader Ginsburg would dissent. Personally I can't remember the last time the Supremes did that. Can you?

Usually a clear cut case never makes it this high.

One question as I don't want to go read all about it. Did she do something that violated her church's doctrine? If so, this is open and shut. If not, then she would have a case.

quote:
"In this case, the focus was on whether a teacher fired by a Lutheran church-school could sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court said she could not."

here is a link to the story...
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the ... us-liberty

The church said she was fired for not sticking to those Christian principles. And the court wisely agreed that it should not even question that judgment

From your source. That is what makes it open and shut. The disability didn't enter the equation.

The church says they removed her because she threatened to go to the courts (there's biblical prohibitions about that ---- and they're very clear).

The court upheld the church's right to do so.

I agree with the decision in the context of the background --- but suspect the precident will encourage unanticipated consequences.

On the surface, it makes sense, a church should get to choose who their ministers are. In China, Catholic priests have to be approved by the goverment. But I wonder about the unintended consequences too.

I find it interesting that any logical set of people would debate the rights of society to force someone to enter into or maintain a relationship with anyone else against their will.

Employment is a relationship.

Seems like we should all have the rights that the churches have.