SUPREME COURT RULES AGAINST OBAMA ADMIN:

[DinarMillionaire]

SUPREME COURT RULES AGAINST OBAMA ADMIN: RELIGIOUS EMPLOYEES CAN’T SUE FOR JOB DISCRIMINATION

WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) — Religious workers can’t sue for job discrimination, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday, saying for the first time that churches — not courts — are the best judges of whether clergy and other religious employees should be fired or hired. The Blaze originally covered this story in October.

But the high court tempered its decision bolstering the constitutional separation of church and state by refusing to give a detailed description of what constitutes a religious employee, which left an untold number of workers at churches, synagogues and other religious organizations still in limbo over whether government antidiscrimination laws protect them in job bias disputes.

It was, nevertheless, the first time the high court has acknowledged the existence of a so-called “ministerial exception” to anti-discrimination laws — a doctrine developed in lower court rulings. This doctrine says the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion shields churches and their operations from the reach of such protective laws when the issue involves religious employees of these institutions.

Chief Justice John Roberts

“The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important,” Chief Justice John Roberts said in a unanimous opinion. “But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith and carry out their mission.”

Douglass Laycock, who argued the case for a church school that fired a teacher for bringing about an employment discrimination lawsuit against it, called it a “huge win for religious liberty.”

Read more...

[Sal0525]

Wow, I hope that you or none of your family members have to go through what they went through... People should think twice and have a plan B if they work in a church, so unchristian like...

[kiteman]

What does this case have to do with the Obama Administration?????? Ummmmm...... absolutely NOTHING!

This case was originated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of this teacher in July of 2008! That's nearly 4 months before President Obama was even elected!

http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FA-MI-0002-0003.pdf

Some of you people will say anything to discredit the President, regardless of the factual basis for it. Shameful!

[reveldog]

What does this case have to do with the Obama Administration?????? Ummmmm...... absolutely NOTHING!

This case was originated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of this teacher in July of 2008! That's nearly 4 months before President Obama was even elected!

http://www.clearingh...I-0002-0003.pdf

Some of you people will say anything to discredit the President, regardless of the factual basis for it. Shameful!

we the people dont need to discredit our so called wonderful dumbarse of a president , he does that all on his own

[mojack]

we the people dont need to discredit our so called wonderful dumbarse of a president , he does that all on his own

Quite the contrary!

What does this case have to do with the Obama Administration?????? Ummmmm...... absolutely NOTHING!

This case was originated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of this teacher in July of 2008! That's nearly 4 months before President Obama was even elected!

http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FA-MI-0002-0003.pdf

Some of you people will say anything to discredit the President, regardless of the factual basis for it. Shameful!

True!

[DinarMillionaire]

What does this case have to do with the Obama Administration?????? Ummmmm...... absolutely NOTHING!

This case was originated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of this teacher in July of 2008! That's nearly 4 months before President Obama was even elected!

http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FA-MI-0002-0003.pdf

Some of you people will say anything to discredit the President, regardless of the factual basis for it. Shameful!

Sorry to upset you kiteman. As for "what does this have to do with the administration?" Obama nominated Chai R. Feldblum, a current Commissioner. In addition to the nomination of Commissioners, the President appoints a General Counsel to support the Commission and provide direction, coordination, and supervision to the EEOC's litigation program.

As far as "Some of you people will say anything to discredit the President." I simply brought forth news that was also on television, found an article on it and posted the headlines. The main part that stuck out in my mind was that 'separation of church and state' was upheld by the Supreme Court, but that wasn't the headline.

Hope you have a better rest of the day.

[brandon2222]

What does this case have to do with the Obama Administration?????? Ummmmm...... absolutely NOTHING!

This case was originated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of this teacher in July of 2008! That's nearly 4 months before President Obama was even elected!

http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FA-MI-0002-0003.pdf

Some of you people will say anything to discredit the President, regardless of the factual basis for it. Shameful!

Sorry Kite, but we don't have to work too hard to discredit Obama or "Bush Jr". He takes care of that himself.

[uncirculd]

I don't see this as political. I see this as a win for the church. Would you want an atheist working in your church? Probably not. Separation of church & state goes both ways. Your employees need to be reflecting your goals as a non profit especially.

This is not Obama, democrat, or republican issue. It's a Church and their right to hire and fire their employees. I hate politics. I am very disappointed in our rep & dems for what they have done to this great nation. It's up to us and educate our children to fix it. Don't know the answers but obviously what they have been doing is not working.

[mojack]

Sorry to upset you kiteman. As for "what does this have to do with the administration?" Obama nominated Chai R. Feldblum, a current Commissioner. In addition to the nomination of Commissioners, the President appoints a General Counsel to support the Commission and provide direction, coordination, and supervision to the EEOC's litigation program.

As far as "Some of you people will say anything to discredit the President." I simply brought forth news that was also on television, found an article on it and posted the headlines. The main part that stuck out in my mind was that 'separation of church and state' was upheld by the Supreme Court, but that wasn't the headline.

Hope you have a better rest of the day.

Wasn't really your fault that Obama's name was in the title of the headline. Kiteman is correct with his post. The author of the article was misleading. That's very common.

[kiteman]

Sorry to upset you kiteman. As for "what does this have to do with the administration?" Obama nominated Chai R. Feldblum, a current Commissioner. In addition to the nomination of Commissioners, the President appoints a General Counsel to support the Commission and provide direction, coordination, and supervision to the EEOC's litigation program.

As far as "Some of you people will say anything to discredit the President." I simply brought forth news that was also on television, found an article on it and posted the headlines. The main part that stuck out in my mind was that 'separation of church and state' was upheld by the Supreme Court, but that wasn't the headline.

Hope you have a better rest of the day.

You haven't upset me, I love pointing out the obvious falsehoods posted by those that think they can get away with it.

And, you must have missed the point of my post and the link I posted. This lawsuit was filed and startted in July 2008! That means this lawsuit was started long before President Obama was elected (November 2008) or sworn in (January 2009).

And, ummmm....... , you left out a little bit about the commmission (but I've bolded it for you. )

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a bipartisan Commission comprised of five presidentially appointed members, including the Chair, Vice Chair, and three Commissioners. The Chair is responsible for the administration and implementation of policy for and the financial management and organizational development of the Commission. The Vice Chair and the Commissioners participate equally in the development and approval of Commission policies, issue charges of discrimination where appropriate, and authorize the filing of suits. In addition to the Commissioners, the President appoints a General Counsel to support the Commission and provide direction, coordination, and supervision to the EEOC's litigation program.

So let's take a look at those Commissioners:

Jacqueline A. Berrien, Chair, Sworn in April 7, 2010, appointed by President Obama

Stuart J. Ishimaru, Commissioner, Sworn in in 2003, appointed by President Bush.

Side note: He was also Chair from 2009 to 2010 when Berrien took over.

Constance S. Barker, Commissioner, Sworn in June 27, /2008, appointed by President Bush

Chai Feldblum, Commissioner, Sworn in April 7, 2010, appointed by President Obama.

Victoria A. Lipnic, Commissioner, Sworn in July 1, 2010, appointed by President Obama.

P. David Lopez, General Counsel, Sworn in April 8, 2010, appointed by President Obama.

So it appears no one member controls the commission and the only two members of the commission that were on board prior to 2010 were both President Bush’s appointees. Both of whom were on the commission when the suit was filed and one of them was even the chair of the commission between fiing and now.

And I wasn't pointing fingers at you for "saying anything" I was talking about the source of your article. The right wing, hack site that wrote the article is deliberitely misleading on ths headline.

It's shameless and offensive! But I guess it sells ads on his site! Anything for a buck!

[DinarMillionaire]

Thanks for all the free added ammo, kiteman. I was only trying to quote enough to make the point that it does have to do with the administration because you said it has "ABSOLUTELY NOTHING" to do with it. That's why I was only quoting enough to make my point without going overboard "the President appoints a General Counsel to support the Commission and provide direction, coordination, and supervision to the EEOC's litigation program." which now that you have proven my point, with your gratuitous additions, you also added a bonus of proof that it is mostly made up of Obama's appointments.

I guess if you want to change the headline to "Supreme Court Rules Against Bush" because it was started under his administration, as you point out, then we should change the headlines of "Obama gets Osama" to "Bush gets Osama" because that hunt too was started long before President Obama was elected.

[kiteman]

Thanks for all the free added ammo, kiteman. I was only trying to quote enough to make the point that it does have to do with the administration because you said it has "ABSOLUTELY NOTHING" to do with it. That's why I was only quoting enough to make my point without going overboard "the President appoints a General Counsel to support the Commission and provide direction, coordination, and supervision to the EEOC's litigation program." which now that you have proven my point, with your gratuitous additions, you also added a bonus of proof that it is mostly made up of Obama's appointments.

I guess if you want to change the headline to "Supreme Court Rules Against Bush" because it was started under his administration, as you point out, then we should change the headlines of "Obama gets Osama" to "Bush gets Osama" because that hunt too was started long before President Obama was elected.

Thanks again for pointing out why Republicans and Right Wingers support No Child Left Behind. Because you've been Left Behind!

Let's go slow for you:

Case Filed: July, 15, 2008, with the approval of the EEOC and them named as a Plaintiff.

Members present at the most recent EEOC meeting before the case is filed:

http://www.eeoc.gov/...transcript.html

NAOMI C. EARP Chair, Sworn 09/06/06, appointed by George W. Bush.

LESLIE E. SILVERMAN Vice Chair, nominated by George W. Bush on February 11, 2002, approved March 1, 2002.

STUART J. ISHIMARU Commissioner, as mentioned earlier, appointed by George W. Bush and was chairman for 2009 - 2010.

CHRISTINE M. GRIFFIN Commissioner, appointed by George W. Bush on July 28, 2005, and approved on July 28, 2005.

Also at the same meeting:

RONALD COOPER General Counsel, nominated by George W. Bush on March 27, 2006, and approved on July 26, 2006.

So the EEOC that started the case, filed the case, and took this case to court was 100% George W. Bush appointed. They obviously thought it was a good enough case to pursue, so they allowed to be filed. They obviously had no problem with the merits of the case or someone on that 100 % Bush appointed team would have said something. They argued the case in front of the Sixth Circut in March of 2010, BEFORE any of the Obama appointments were sworn in, and while still under the Chair of the Bush appointee, Ishimaru. So obviously those Bush appointees aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer or there is something too this case.

And your offer is a sure thing!!! I'll trade you straight up, but with one minor modification:

I'll concede right here: Obama got schooled by the Supreme Court over some obscure religion case because it's his EEOC in charge.

I'll await your post that says : Obama gets all the credit for the detection, planning, operation, and killing of OBL because his Department of Defense and his CIA was in charge at the time of the operation!

I'll await your post, heck, I even typed it up for you.

Just face it, this bag of hammers that wrote this original article tried to make it sound like the Supreme Court ruled against President Obama! When in fact the case was prepared with, authorized by, and filed under the Bush administration. Because the Obama administration didn't stop the case, doesn't make it their defeat!

Trying to hang this on Obama is a complete and utter hack job by not only the originator of the junk blog, but now by you for defending it.

You can spin it however you want! This case had very little, if not NOTHING, to do with Obama.

took out my hateful remark. I apologize to those that saw it. Wasn't nice and I apologize.

Edited January 13, 2012 by kiteman