Quantcast

Comments about ‘Supreme Court rejects Obama administration arguments in 'most important' religious freedom case’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Jan. 11 2012 1:45 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
lket
Bluffdale, UT

kind of funny god fearing people can do a immoral firing and its legal. ironic

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

This could have had a deep impact on the LDS church and its employees. We have strict guidelines around eligibility to perform certain jobs, and had the courts sided with the EEOC on this, it would have caused all kinds of heart ache inside the church.

A good ruling.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

"We are reluctant ... to adopt a rigid formula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a minister,"

---

This really appears to only apply to those in "ministerial" type positions and wouldn't affect Secretaries, Janitors, IT, or other non-ministerial positions; at least that is how I read the ruling.

@UtahBlueDevil;

I don't think it will change anything for the LDS Church. Seminary teachers, yes, Janitors, no.

Clarissa
Layton, UT

I'm thrilled with with decision! Way to go Supreme Court. Religious institutions need to be allowed freedom to chose their employees or ministers. I have had some of my faith restored in this country.

eagle651
Chino Valley, AZ

Obama Administration got the blame for this one. Funny, he gets blamed for everything

Kami
Bountiful, Utah

UtahBlueDevil | 12:39 p.m. Jan. 11, 2012
Durham, NC
This could have had a deep impact on the LDS church and its employees. We have strict guidelines around eligibility to perform certain jobs, and had the courts sided with the EEOC on this, it would have caused all kinds of heart ache inside the church.

Clarissa | 2:41 p.m. Jan. 11, 2012
Layton, UT
I'm thrilled with with decision! Way to go Supreme Court. Religious institutions need to be allowed freedom to chose their employees or ministers. I have had some of my faith restored in this country.

Did either of you even bother to read the article? The decision was limited to the facts of this case and the court focused on the facts that she was hired as a minister with perhaps a minor role in also teaching some secular classes. How either of you think that this case will allow a religious instituion to discriminate against any and all of its employees is beyond me....

Andy
Cottonwood Heights, UT

A big win for the free-exercise of religion.

toosmartforyou
Farmington, UT

@ eagle651

O'Bama was blmed for this one because it was his administration that was suing the church. He also refuses to defend the Definition of Marriage Act.

It is a case of "As ye sow..." If he wants to quit being blamed he needs to start making better decisions.

Fitz
Murray, UT

Kami, the question is not did you read the article, but rather did you read the decision. This unanimous decision reaches much further than just the case that was presented before the court. You should read the decision.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

Theocracy, here we come.

Tibi001
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Big O - get used to this.
Only in a dictatorship can a goventment mandate things that has nothing to do with the government itself.
Next stop: health care: public option. Good luck.

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

For those that are against this ruling...

Imagine President Thomas S. Monson having to hire two gay body guards after prop 8. While you may think my analogy is extreme, it's certainly a valid example of someone automatically having a conflict of interest solely based on what we normally prevent as discriminatory. And while you may not like how this ruling plays out in the end- I have a feeling that no one would be disagreeing with the religious side of this ruling had they been the guy those body guards are supposed to protect.

This example may not represent the views of everyone from any group- but it at least reveals the potential conflict of interest.

Even more, this ruling wasn't about typical jobs- but minsters. Would the Utah Symphony be discriminating for not hiring a person without hands to play the piano? Law was never meant to be uninterpretable and set in stone. Law is in many ways set in stone, but equally it is puddy in our hands. We the people form our laws.

If you still disagree, I challenge this- If America can force who can be a minister, then how does freedom still exist?

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Kami
"The decision was limited to the facts of this case and the court focused on the facts that she was hired as a minister with perhaps a minor role in also teaching some secular classes"

Other way around, her major role was the teaching aspect. That's why the "does the ministerial exception apply to her?" question and basis of this trial even came up.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@A voice of Reason
"Imagine President Thomas S. Monson having to hire two gay body guards after prop 8. While you may think my analogy is extreme"

It wouldn't be a matter of HAVING to hire them, it'd be a matter of not discriminating against gay people in the hiring process which is somewhat different since the former suggests no choice in hiring. Granted, the court didn't touch on this matter because as you note...

"Even more, this ruling wasn't about typical jobs- but minsters"
"If America can force who can be a minister, then how does freedom still exist? "

In this case the question was not about getting rid of the ministerial exemption. The question was about whether or not this particular employee qualified as a minister since she spent most of her time teaching. So it's a matter of how far the ministerial exemption covers, not whether or not it should be gotten rid of.

Now don't get the wrong impression, I agree with the lawsuit and find myself peculiarly even more conservative on the issue than the result was.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@A Voice of Reason
Eh... I mean that I agree with the ruling... not the lawsuit. Oops.

Gregg Weber
SEATTLE, WA

It is discussing state influence on religious matters that reminds me of "the thin edge of the wedge" from "Yes Prime Minister". Same with gun control but that's another subject. Actually the thin end is already far in when a church, any church has to change it's religious practices because of political threat. (D&C Pg. 291-3) Unfortunately instead of when the President of the Church speaks, it has long been when the President of the U.S. speaks ...

I'm not perfect but in my humble opinion, neither was (or is?) the POTUS. Another subject.

Danite Boy
SANDY, UT

The article fails to point out that it was the Bush Administration (the EEOC) that started the lawsuit against the church that the Supreme Court just ruled on. While the EEOC under current administration did continue the lawsuit that the Bush administrated initiated, the headline would lay the blame entirely on the Obama administration is misleading and unfair. Painting the Obama administration as actively waging a war against religion may be popular in some circles, but it is simply not accurate.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Religion. It divides us like nothing else can.

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

atl134,

I have read into the lawsuit as well. But the specific case has less interest to me than the single principle I've addressed, thus why I only addressed the one idea. All I really care about is that religions can hire how they see fit. I'm not in favor of suppressing the income of one group in favor of another. I only think that in attempting to be anti-discriminating, many groups have gone so far as to prevent some choices which would have been better left alone.

Not everyone shares the same moral values. The main principle is that we are free. When someone tells me how I can spend my money I have a problem. My company's money or my religion's money are extensions of myself. I believe in something, I support it. Religion works the same way. After all, no religions or companies can do anything without the people behind them. My main focus in debating is only to promote freedom how I think it will be best protected.

-------

Hutterite, religion can't divide anyone. People divide. I find that statement ironic though, being that most criticize LDS ideas of being one in purpose, etc.

ChrisNSuz
Salt Lake City, UT

I don't see what this has to do with Obama at all, but as a Liberal Democrat I feel that this was the right decision. Excellent points made by the Justices in this decision. A very well thought out judgement. Good Job.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments