The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

From the other thread (http://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php?topic=20739.msg271693#msg271693):

So then, it is your position that the scenario which I laid out (principal of religious school fires teacher for refusing to date him) would and should be completely exempt from any sexual harassment laws?   And that it would be brazen disregard of the First Amendment for any court to rule otherwise?

The "free exercise" clause is not a "get out of jail free" card just because you file as a religious organization.  While many conservatives seem to be under the impression that the First Amendment means that any religious organization can do whatever the hell they want to any person they employ and such conduct is outside the rule of law, you will note that the SCOTUS specifically stated that Hosana-Tabor was NOT to be taken as precedent that aggrieved employees could not file suit against their employers (just not in that case).

I'd say it's a case of the government enforcing labor laws on an employer.

The same sense of outrage that you used to describe the blatant disrespect that the Obama administration showed for the First Amendment in Hosana-Tabor was frequently on display this spring when the ACA forced Catholic hospitals to pay for plans that provided birth control to their employees.  So how far does this "free exercise" rabbit hole go down?  Can a Catholic hospital hire janitors as exempt employees and work them 70 hours a week with no overtime?  Can a Scientology... umm, preacher?... fire his secretary because she won't give him a blowjob?

Not if they hire from the general public at large. If their employees only come from the congregation, then you could consider allowing the church to be exempt, especially if the people hired understood this. But if you are hiring both secular and non secular employees, then they should fall under the same guidelines that all other businesses have to comply with.

Employers don't have the right to force their religious views on their employees. end of story.

if you work for a catholic hospital, you didn't abdicate your rights.  They can't decide for you that you cannot have birth control. Or that you are somehow exempted from coverage that everyone else receives. Churches are specifically given exemptions. A hospital is not a church. a School is not a church. A church is a church.

Until God can be properly deposed, I'm for stripping all exemptions, protections and benefits from religious organizations...treat them like any other business.

While they can't decide for you if you can't have birth control, or a morning after pill, they can choose not to carry those items and make you get it somewhere else.  They can also choose not to perform abortions. 

And tax the Churches on their real estate holdings. That alone would wipe out the budget deficit we have!

I don't know about hospitals but schools are considered an extension of the church as long as it is run by the church. If I rented part of the church to run a Christian school out of it then it is not covered. I would have to assume the hospitals are the same way but I don't know that.

Hey guys. I'll get on this as soon as I can. Busy days @ home and @ work. I'll respond when I have a moment, probably tomorrow night.

Amen...

Well it would probably wipe out a lot of churches in the process.  Not to mention the churches then would not have the funds for many of the charitable activities they carry on to help people, hence the government would have to start paying for them.