Supreme Court conservatives say religious groups should be free to hire only like-minded believers

[riversedge]

Source: nbc




Forcing religious organizations to hire people who don't share their religious views would undermine their autonomy and their continued viability, Alito wrote.

March 21, 2022, 9:43 AM CDT
By Pete Williams

Two of the Supreme Court's conservatives said Monday that religious organizations should be fully exempt from nondiscrimination laws and free to hire only people who share their beliefs.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito made their views known as the court declined to take up a dispute over a Seattle religious nonprofit group’s refusal to hire an applicant who was in a same-sex relationship. They agreed the case was at a preliminary stage and not yet ripe for their review, but they said the court should confront the issue in a future case.

Writing for both of them, Alito strongly suggested how they would rule in such a dispute: “To force religious organizations to hire messengers and other personnel who do not share their religious views would undermine not only the autonomy of many religious organizations but also their continued viability

Churches and religious institutions have a right to employ only people who agree with their religious views, the court has held, provided that the employees at issue perform a ministerial function. That means imparting religious doctrine, for example, or carrying out other kinds of duties that a cleric would perform..................
The case involved a Christian nonprofit group in Washington state that cares for the homeless, Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission. It rejected an application for a legal aid position because the lawyer seeking the job, Matthew Woods, said he was in a same-sex relationship. The mission’s employee handbook prohibits “homosexual behavior.”.....................................

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-conservatives-say-religious-groups-free-hire-only-minded-rcna20663

[Midnight Writer]

1. Verdict first, hearing later.

Not much sense in presenting evidence to a judge when they have already announced how they will rule, is there?

[orwell]

14. Pretty stunning isn't it?

This is the reason why I never bought the "blind justice" bullshit.

Many judges bring their own prejudice to the courtroom. Neurobiologists increasingly find that decisions are made emotionally, and then data is massaged into compliance to support the emotional initial conclusion. That is just how the human brain operates.

We are all guilty of this.

That is the beauty of the scientific method. You don't have the luxury of curve fitting data. Physics and math aren't variable depending on the participants.

There are judges that try to adhere to legal precedent and guidelines, but those judges are becoming increasingly rare now that "justice" has become so political.

One could argue that it has always been that way...

[nvme]

38. He will be fair when he rules against them

[walkingman]

2. Everyone should remember that if given the opportunity these assholes would

force everyone to think like themselves. They are deranged bigots.

[Lovie777]

3. Thomas should be under investigations . ..

[Rebl2]

43. As well

a his wife

[no_hypocrisy]

4. So if a religion doesn't believe in mixing races,

then it can racially discriminate, right?

[cstanleytech]

17. Court would probably say they can as long as they are not something like

a for profit business open to the public.

[DivByZero]

5. Cuts both ways

So it should be OK then for an atheist business owner not to hire Christian employees because they don’t share his or her atheist values. Problem is, I don’t think you’re allowed to ask during hiring, so how do they get away with asking then?

[WinstonSmith4740]

42. That was my immediate thought.

Of course, we know they'll whine like little bitches when they get rejected for any position claiming, naturally, religious prejudice. And I was also wondering how the apploicant's relationship came up. It's been a long time since I filled out a job application...are they even allowed to ask what your marital status is?

[DivByZero]

45. They should not be allowed to ask

This even came up during the SCOTUS conformation hearings yesterday, when Lindsey Graham grilled judge Jackson about her religion, and the point was made that asking about religion during a job interview is unconstitutional.

[WinstonSmith4740]

46. Let's face it...

We're talking Constitution to people who don't give a damn about it...their dear leader wiped his butt with it for 4 years. I mean, they claim to LOVE The Constitution, but only seem to know the 2nd Amendment. and they only know the second half of it.

I had to turn off the hearings yesterday because I was throwing stuff at the TV, but I understand Senate aides were doing LOTS of research on the Rethugs whining points and knocking them down. I hope they brought this up to Lindsay:

Article 6,Paragraph 3 of The Constitution.
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;

but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Damh pesky document. Cue Lindsay's pearl clutch and get the fainting couch ready.

[Buckeyeblue]

44. I agree...or terminating someone whose religious or political views become a distraction

I think that is where the line should be on both sides. Believe what you want but don't bring it to work.

[LiberalFighter]

6. Here is a thought.

If they want to have their restrictions in place then their group should not be interacting outside of their group.

As a side, anything to do with adoptions should NOT be run by religious groups.

The same goes for running hospitals. If they want to have religious rules in place then only those of their religious beliefs would be allowed to use the services AND all of their employees must be of the same religious faith. Otherwise, once they open it to the public they can't impose religious requirements.

[intheflow]

20. They should also lose non-profit status,

or at least eligibility for federal funds due to violation of federal antidiscrimination laws. Most of those "religious" organizations would not be able to survive without federal grant monies.

[LiberalFighter]

27. I think the religion part should be kept separate from any charity they do.

The religion part including their schools should not be tax-exempt. It is not the responsibility of the state to support churches financially.

If they have a charity then the tax exemption would be acceptable. There would need to be some distance between the two.

Donations to a church should not be tax exempt. And any donations made directly to the church would be included. If they want to donate to a church related charity they would need to donate directly.

[OldBaldy1701E]

35. They should have lost that a long time ago! (n/t)

[Deb]

7. Making exclusionary churches unsupportive of the general public good.

Where's that tax whip? Whip 'em good, whip 'em real good.

[TygrBright]

8. I would actually agree, with one caveat:

This should be true ONLY for purely religious functions of the group.

Which would exclude education other than doctrinal classes, health care, any charitable work (other than proselytization-type missionary activities - so not health care, child care, home construction or other 'mission' activities) beyond the membership of said religious group, etc.

With that caveat, I'm fine with them discriminating in hiring priests/ministers/rabbis/imams/shamans, etc., church/synagogue/mosque/temple managers, religious education teachers, etc.

But if they want to run schools that teach reading, math, etc., no, no, no.... no discrimination in hiring.

If they want to run soup kitchens that serve non-believers, no, no, no.... no discrimination in hiring.

If they want to open mission clinics providing health care to non-believers, no, no, no.... no discrimination in hiring.

And most especially, ANY activity they perform, even if it is limited to their own believers, which is funded by government dollars (such as meals to children in daycare operated by the religious group) cannot discriminate in hiring.

helpfully,
Bright

[lees1975]

15. Schools that are operated by churches or religious groups and don't get any tax dollars

should also be exempt, even if they teach math, reading, etc. I don't have a problem with that, nor if they run a soup kitchen that is open to the public. The distinction here is public funding, not what a church can do as a "ministry". That's up to the church to decide. But if it gets public funding, then whatever it is operating, school, soup kitchen, hospital, should not be able to discriminate in hiring, noting that the "discrimination" is only their right to determine the religious affiliation or faith of the employee, and not any other kind of "discrimination." They should be able to determine that the make-up of their school staff reflects their religious conviction and their values, if they own the school and are paying the bills with tuition money from parents choosing to be there.

Most religious groups have gotten out of the hospital business, and sold their facilities to private companies, keeping the religious names.

[cstanleytech]

18. Actually if they want to run those things they probably will be able to with this court

however such schools or anything like the above should not get one dime of taxpayer money be it loans or grants.

[Hekate]

9. Define "religious organization"

Narrowly, please

[Lucky Luciano]

12. churches, Hobby Lobby, chick-fil-a, anywhere a majority of a certain religion is employed or leading

[cstanleytech]

22. I would not put Hobby Lobby nor Chick-fil-A in the category of a religious organization

nor should the Court.
Of course given the current broken and unbalanced Court we have now I would not be willing to wager any money on them ruling otherwise.

[ShazzieB]

28. No, absolutely not.

I hope that even this court wouldn't see them as such. Although, sadly, I would not hold my breath.

[Lucky Luciano]

31. I was intending that to be snark directed at the scotus.

[bucolic_frolic]

33. Somebody baked religion into my cake and I can't eat it!

Are there cake exorcists?

This is not directed at you LL or anyone, just an attempt to put ludicrous nature of these arguments on display

[TygrBright]

25. As long as the definition includes Satanists, Santaria and Voudou, I'm cool. n/t

[Hekate]

26. Naturally. But that might give the batshit rightwing side of the Court a collective seizure...

[TygrBright]

30. Just so... n/t

[bluestarone]

10. Good question to ASK them BEFORE

Confirmation! (BUT they would LIE!!)

[MarcA]

11. So a church can fire employees of a business they takeover? n/t

[Ford_Prefect]

13. Look Out!!! We're on that slippery slope they warned us about...

[mahatmakanejeeves]

16. Here's a link to what Alito wrote.

Scroll down to page 12. The statement starts there.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/032122zor_n7ip.pdf

By the way, Alito concurred in denying certiorari.

Because of the interlocutory posture of this case, I concur in the denial of certiorari at this time. But the day may soon come when we must decide whether the autonomy guaranteed by the First Amendment protects religious organizations’ freedom to hire co-religionists without state or judicial interference.

It doesn't seem to me that Woods has that strong a case. YMMV.

[mainer]

19. So secular humanists can start firing Bible thumpers?

Why not?

[thatdemguy]

21. Lets be honest, if your hiring

and someone came in a trump hat, or a 2nd amendment related shirt, would you hire them? Should Planned Parenthood be forced to hire someone who is anti choice? Even if just for a job like taking out the trash?

[bucolic_frolic]

32. Honestly James O'Keefe type undercover trolls will worm their way into any organization

if they really want to, it's been done, usually by the Right, again and again

[bucolic_frolic]

23. The confession is subtle: Legalized intolerance is the aim of religion

[MissMillie]

24. Unless they're hiring someone to preach religious views...

why would anyone need to know an applicant's religious views?

[ShazzieB]

29. Good point.

Some positions in a religious organization are truly religious in nature. Not all of them are.

[BlueIdaho]

34. Tax all religious groups.

Make sure each and every one of them they are paying their full fair share, then we can talk.

[elleng]

36. 'Difficult' case, and badly written article (and headline, of course.)

*The case involved a Christian nonprofit group in Washington state that cares for the homeless, Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission. It rejected an application for a legal aid position because the lawyer seeking the job, Matthew Woods, said he was in a same-sex relationship. The mission’s employee handbook prohibits “homosexual behavior.”

Woods sued, claiming the organization violated a state constitutional provision that bans job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. A judge threw his suit out, saying small businesses and religious nonprofit groups were exempt from a state nondiscrimination law. But the Washington Supreme Court said the judge should reconsider whether Woods, acting as a lawyer, would actually perform a ministerial function.

The conservative Alliance Defending Freedom, representing the mission, urged the U.S. Supreme Court to say that the exemption to discrimination laws should be a broad one, allowing religious organizations to maintain a community of like-minded believers.

Woods urged the Supreme Court not to take the case and instead to let the Washington state courts sort out whether the job he applied for would qualify for a ministerial exception.

Thomas and Alito said the court should not shy away from a future dispute that directly raises the issue.'

Status quo:
'But the Washington Supreme Court said the judge should reconsider whether Woods, acting as a lawyer, would actually perform a ministerial function.'

[myohmy2]

37. why...

...stop at religious organizations?

...

[rickford66]

39. The organizations should have to prove that all their employees follow all of their religious views

or orders exactly. They shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose which ones to enforce. I'm sure many if not all employees do not follow everything to the letter.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

40. Only if they give up all tax exemptions and sources of government funding.

Thereafter, they're treated as business and subject to all anti-discrimination laws. They should also pay taxes on profits from business activities such as day care and private schools because.......free markets!

They also need to acknowledge that same-sex relationships do not necessarily involve homosexual behavior and that both of those human behaviors are legal in the United States.

Therefore, both Thomas and Alito should excuse themselves from cases involving litigation over those behaviors.

KY...... ........

[Deminpenn]

41. This kind of discrimination already exists

There is a christian college in the town where I live. On their employment application, the applicant must declare they Christian. Applicants don't have to be in the same sect as the college, but must be "christians". The way they get around federal non-discrimination laws is by refusing to take any direct federal money. Of course the college does not pay taxes to the state or local government either, but uses federal/state/local taxpayer funded infrastructure like roads, water, sewer and so on. It is also fine with taking indirect federal money by way of donations from alumni, public event ticket sales, tuition, etc that comes from income that includes federal dollars.

[mackdaddy]

47. Religious groups could be a much wider net than you would think.

I was having problems with insurance for my dads former employer when he was in a nursing home.

I eventually called someone at the US Department of Labor as the insurance was supposed to be carried as part of his retirement package. Pretty much they could dump him anytime they wanted.

But one of the things that came up was that many of the labor laws do not apply to religious groups which also include church sponsored hospital chains. The would be chains such as the Mt Carmel/St Anns group of hospitals in Columbus Oh.

So what exactly are the limits for this?