See people, it's the State that wants to tell the churches what to do, not the other way around, lol!

Just thought it was relevant to OZ because this issue comes up all the time here, yo.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/us/supreme-court-recognizes-religious-exception-to-job-discrimination-laws.html

The case, Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, No. 10-553,
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/12/us/12scotus-text.html

the court looked to several factors.

Ms. Perich was a “called” teacher..who had completed religious training and whom the school..considered a minister. She was fired, the school said,..for violating religious doctrine..by pursuing litigation..rather than trying to resolve her dispute within the church.

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of
Americans United for..*Separation of Church and State,..said Wednesday’s decision could have..pernicious consequences,..by,
for instance,..barring suits from pastors who are sexually harassed.

“Blatant discrimination..is a social evil
we have worked hard to eradicate in the United States,” he said in a statement...“I’m afraid the court’s ruling today will make it harder to combat.”

Bishop William E. Lori, chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ ad hoc committee for religious liberty,..called the ruling “a great day..for the First Amendment.”

“This decision,” he said in a statement, “makes resoundingly clear the historical and constitutional importance..of keeping internal church affairs..off limits to the government —because whoever chooses the minister..chooses the message.”

recognized a “ministerial exception” to employment discrimination laws, saying that churches and other religious groups must be free to choose and dismiss their leaders without government interference.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/12/us/12scotus-text.html?ref=us


The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the government cannot interfere in the hiring decisions of religious groups.

"The formula affirmed by the Court..is equality
when it suits the purpose of the religious organization,
inequality when it does not."
Andrew Arato, New York

“The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important,”..Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in a decision..that was surprising in both its sweep and its unanimity.

“But so, too, is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith and carry out their mission.”

The decision gave only limited guidance
about how courts..should decide..who counts..as a minister,

saying the court was “reluctant to adopt a rigid formula.”
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/12/us/12scotus-text.html

Two concurring opinions offered contrasting proposals.

Whatever its precise scope,..the ruling will have concrete consequences..for countless people employed..*by religious groups..to perform*..religious work.

I agree that any group should be allowed to hire and fire their own staff, within the law.
I would be worried about insisting that all disputes about employment in religious organisations were dealt with 'within the church' because churches have been known to hide dirty little secrets within their walls before...

Secularist have very little moral ground for complaint. How many conservative journalist work for the ABC/SBS. At least churches are honest about discriminating.

Any private person, or private organization (by private I mean, who does not receive any assistance, benefits or preferences from the government and its associated bodies or by listing themselves as public bodies), should be able to hire and fire anyone at any time as they please, for whatever reason or for no reason at all. Obviously, they would still need to abide by the agreements signed with their employees.

Churches should not flirt with the government in the first place, then such problems would not arise. Why would anyone anyway want to entrust their spiritual welfare with someone who flirts with the devil?

Funny, the Presbytarian church sacked an entire hospital board to enforce its mishapen church rules on abortion.

Three abortions, all well within the law, on women whose lives were directly threatened, or whose child was beyond hope, had been performed over a long period of time.

They then installed a bunch of far right extremists.

The doctors resigned and took out advertising to support the previous board, which was an intensely pro-xtian one anyway.

The hospital takes squillions of public tax dollars in to do work.

Religions can run their own hospitals, of course, but like their own mishapen faith schools, they should be funded from within their church mob, and from income that is taxable too.

The state has every right to impose the national law on all its citizens, that is what makes it a nation state.

Religions are not states, except in 'the usual suspect' nations, which seems to include nations like the USA and Israel these days, never mind the UK, and civil states cannot afford to have a parallel unaccountable religious state within the same borders.

Religion is, should be, a private affair between individuals and their mythical gods.