Justices Alito, Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh Signal Willingness to Expand 'Ministerial Exception'

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

for Religious Colleges

The Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear an appeal from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in a case asking whether religious colleges are entitled to use the “ministerial exception” to avoid requirements of federal employment law. Though the denial means a near-term loss for the religious college, a statement joined by four of the court’s conservative justices leaves little doubt that there is strong support within SCOTUS for the school’s position that its professors should indeed be considered “ministers.”

Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett "chug and puke" Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett agreed in the decision to deny certiorari by joining Justice Samuel Alito’s six-page statement on the decision. The statement qualified: “But in an appropriate future case, this Court may be required to resolve this important question of religious liberty.”

The case, Gordon College v. DeWeese-Boyd, arose when Gordon College (a Christian college in Wenham, Massachusetts) declined to promote Margaret DeWeese-Boyd to the rank of full professor. DeWeese-Boyd sued the school, claiming that the college’s decision had been based on “her vocal opposition to [the college’s] policies and practices regarding individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer.” The trial court ruled in favor of DeWeese-Boyd, denying the college’s claim that it was entitled to use the “ministerial exception” to shield itself from potential liability. On a direct appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed.

In his statement, Alito summarized the state court ruling: “Though the court recognized that she was required to ‘integrate the Christian faith into her teaching, scholarship, and advising,’ the court reasoned that this integrated teaching was ‘different in kind’ from religious instruction.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/in-statement-justices-alito-thomas-barrett-and-kavanaugh-signal-willingness-to-expand-ministerial-exception-for-religious-colleges/ar-AAUq7hv

[rurallib]

1. so then they should pay taxes, correct?

[Mad_Machine76]

4. +1000

Pay to play. Of course, they're privileged, so they get all of the benefits and none of the costs.

[Stallion]

5. I've Briefed the Ministerial Exception for Several TaxCases-the Idea Would be to Expand the Tax ...

exemption to more than just the single minister which is common under most state law. In fact, you could have whole communities seeking tax exemptions for the teachers at their religious schools. There are some communities who have sought exemptions for over 100 religious school workers who all live in their huge religious communities. It stretches traditional state tax exemption law well beyond the original intent. Imagine the infrastructure costs such expanded exemptions could have on local tax structures. Still paying for schools, roads, utilities with a bunch of freeloaders paying nothing.

[Irish_Dem]

2. The PutinGOP wants to turn the US into white christian minority rule.

The SC will play its part in the takeover.

[RANDYWILDMAN]

3. Can these losers on the court just die already

cause they suck !

[no_hypocrisy]

6. Won't happen in this term or a few terms, but the USSC needs to elevate LGBTQ rights

to examination of strict scrutiny that is akin to prejudice based on race, religion, nationality. Same with gender rights.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutiny#:~:text=Strict%20scrutiny%20is%20a%20form,sues%20the%20government%20for%20discrimination.

[msfiddlestix]

7. Why do Religious Colleges Exist?

And what's the point of any LGBTQ person seeking "Religious equality, when the very doctrine of Male Supremacy and Patriarchy is (hence chauvinism and misogyny and of course heterosexuality) is deeply embedded in scripture, essentially the DNA of "Christian" theology throughout the ages?

Just asking, cuz this has dumbfounded me since forever.

Back to the original question, is the thinking that Christian theology is to supercede all basic laws of democracy? Are they trying to create a different and separate Tribe to rule over citizens and make our laws that non religious people must abide?

I frankly think time is way overdue in disabusing religious leaders and institutions of this highly offensive nonsense.

FREEDOM FROM RELIGION is where I'll make my stand.