Originally posted by unofan
View Post
So let's talk about a church first. Let's say this church is opposed to gay marriage as part of its doctrine. It seems to be settled law that we will allow them to discriminate in a way that say General Electric can't by refusing to hire someone, or firing someone, who supports gay marriage. Whether that's right or wrong can be debated, but in this country, today, that seems to be well-settled.
The question addressed in today's case is to whom does that apply within the spectrum of church employees. A church may have a minister, an associate minister, a youth minister, an activities director, a secretary, a groundskeeper, or a wide variety of positions. There has never been a doubt that someone like the minister could be fired for preaching against creed, without recourse to the discrimination statutes. But the litigation was always in the gray area. Is there a difference between with the youth "minister" versus the youth activities director? I always thought that distinction was stupid. These people are supposedly representing the church in their job. If they are going to go against church ways, why should one be barred and not the other? The effect of trying to draw a line always involved churches applying the name "minister" whenever they could, which is silly.
The second question, and the one you addressed in your post, has to do with how far down the "business" spectrum should this apply. On one end you have churches, on the other you have businesses like Hobby Lobby who claim to have some sort of religious belief. Religious schools, somewhere in between, were the subject of today's case.
In my mind, I don't think the rule should be extended to for profit businesses like Hobby Lobby or wedding cake shops or the like. Personally I think it probably shouldn't go much further than churches and affiliated schools. I didn't attend a catholic high school, but I had plenty of friends who did. There is no question that part of the curriculum of that school was religious education/indoctrination. In those instances I think the rule set out by the SCOTUS today should apply. I don't care if it's a priest, a nun, or a "teacher" that's engaged in the indoctrination. If you happen to be emptying the garbage cans in the school after hours as your job, unfortunately you are part of the indoctrination process.
For things like your hospital that is owned in part by a church, or Hobby Lobby, I don't think they should receive the right to discriminate at all. Their purpose is not religious teaching, it's healthcare or selling junk.
Just my two cents.
Comment