Friday is fired forever

[trouble]

Supreme Court Affirms Right of Religious Organisations to Foster Bigotry by Andrea at This Ain't Livin'

For SCOTUS to uphold the right of a religious organization to fire someone merely because they have a disability, not because they performed their duties poorly but merely because the non-disabled employers were uncomfortable and scared about that person’s disability is shameful and appalling. Confirming the right of religious organizations to discriminate on grounds that have nothing to do with religion is morally reprehensible. Even more repulsively, every major religion in the US, every major Christian denomination (and quite a few minor) filed amicus briefs in favor of their right to discriminate. Only one Sikh organization filed an amicus brief, along with a stellar line-up of civil rights organizations, humanists, and atheists, arguing that religious organizations do not need a legal right to discriminate against people.

Meanwhile, religious organizations including churches will continue to discriminate. They will continue to refuse to make their houses of worship accessible, and now they can easily refuse to even consider hiring someone who is disabled, and if an employee becomes disabled, they may claim that person is a minister and terminate their employment to avoid paying health insurance or disability insurance costs.

Seriously? SERIOUSLY?

Comments

[slave2tehtink]

Seriously. That "you'll scare the children" and "some parents are not comfortable with you being here" are direct, undisputed quotes pulled from the legal briefs. Hosanna-Tabor even acknowledged that it was a retaliatory firing, but said they had a right to be discriminatory because of the ministerial exception, and SCOTUS agreed.

"Appalled" does not adequately convey how I feel about this decision.

[jackandahat]

I'm just... sitting here staring.

[trouble]

It's the blatancy that upsets me.

[trouble]

I know people with narcolepsy. I grew up with people with narcolepsy as part of my life (my best friend's dad). I was never scared of him. Strangely, a lot of children are not.

[jackandahat]

My experience of kids being around multiple types of disability/health problems is that even when they are scared it's usually through not understanding. You tell them what it is and tell them what to do - "Miss Perich has something wrong that makes her fall asleep sometimes. If something happens, go to the next classroom and get a teacher." (Or whatever's suitable - I don't know what's appropriate for the situation.)

It's generally only a big deal if the adults make a big deal out of it.

[vass]

I can't even.

[trouble]

YAY, CRIPPLES ARE SCARY! KEEP THEM AWAY FROM OUR CHILDREN!

[gamerchick]

That's the denomination that was behind my own, uh, challenging employment experience from a few years back. I've been watching this case closely for that reason. I'm not really surprised by where they stood on all of this and the church/school's original decisions were absolutely ableist.

That said, this is a really, really complicated case - nothing gets before SCOTUS without being so - and my feelings on it are really complicated too. As a member of a minority religion whose clergy often perform religious functions that are quite distinct from the Christian sacraments but are still deeply religious to the members of that group, I have to recognize that this decision has granted me and the other members of my religion a legal right that we did not expressly possess before. I'm grateful for that, but I hate the way it came about, and the thought of how it can be abused.

(I can see the ruling has hit close to home here in a very different way, so I'm sorry if this comment is upsetting - I will delete it if you'd rather not have it in your space. Just let me know.)

[slave2tehtink]

I'm not sure what right you're referring to as being expressly granted? The ministerial exception has existed since the establishment clause was ratified as part of the first amendment. Religious organizations have always been exempt from the Civil Rights Act as employers, from the ADA's public access provisions under Title III.

This decision does not break any new ground, it just affirms the right of religious organizations to engage in retaliatory and hostile employment actions as long as they can convincingly claim that the employee in question is covered by the ministerial exception.

I'm not sure, either, why you would be grateful that your religious organization continues to have the right to engage in retaliatory and discriminatory employment practices. I suggest you look over the case documentation more closely to see what was actually being argued here.

[gamerchick]

I refer to the ability to self-define who is a minister and what are ministerial functions, and to hire and fire accordingly. Here's a link with context as the decision might apply to my religion in particular.

I have read the case documentation closely and my feelings, as I said above, continue to be conflicted. It was probably a mistake to say so here and I'm thinking it would be best if I walked away now. Sorry, trouble, for causing upset.

[gamerchick]

Ugh I can't edit comments here. I wanted to apologize to you as well, slave2tehtink, for compounding the hurt you must feel about this decision. I'm stepping away now and will continue to give this matter more thought to best consider it from all angles.

[trouble]

Oh gosh no! No, seriously. ♥ There's been a lot of discussion about this and the nuances of this, I'm just generally appalled, again, at how disability is often the "test case too far." I understand the reasoning behind the SCOTUS position on the equal pay issue, for example, and it also appalls me, but I get what the reasoning behind it was. The same for this.

I mean, I think you've made a good point here, and others are talking about the separation of church & state, and of course there's the US aspect of it that I just don't *get*. But I'm still... urgle. Disability. Of course that's okay. (as would, I'm certain, had they decided to fire someone who was in a same sex relationship or who came out as trans* in some way.... not for all religious denominations, of course. I'm partly disturbed that everyone in the major Christian religious hierarchy in the US seemed in on this, though.)

[amadi]

Not just the Christian religious hierarchy, there were amicus briefs from Jewish organizations, Islamic organizations, Buddhist organizations, the only major faith group that filed an amicus brief on behalf of this woman was a Sikh group.

Edited to add: I'm trying to think of any faith group where this particular expansion of the exception actually makes sense. I can't, for the life of me.

[trouble]

*nodnod* Yeah. I... I don't understand, and I don't know how much of that is lack of context and how much of it is that I'm so exhausted.

[capriuni]

Actually, that ruling came through the news reports yesterday, and I almost posted about it then, but I did not want to get ranty on my birthday... I may post thoughts about it this weekend, though.

Preview summary: this is why I have "Buyer's remorse" about the ADA.

[trouble]

I'm really conflicted about the ADA because it looks so pretty.

[trouble]

(Oh my gosh, is it your birthday? HAPPY BIRTHDAY WONDERFUL FRIEND. You are wonderful. Friday can continue to exist. ♥)

[capriuni]

Well, actually, legally speaking, it was my birthday yesterday.. But my mother initiated the family tradition of celebrating birthdays for eight days (borrowing from the Catholic Church's handling of Saints' Days -- the Eve + Week Of). So it's still my Octave, so Birthday Wishes are still accepted, Thank You.

It was just that I first heard this story Yesterday, during breakfast, listening to NPR. And I had a moment of GRAH! must Rant Online... When I decided not to.

[silveradept]

*sigh* At some point, we would think that with all the exceptions carved out for religious organizations, that we might want to investigate why those organizations keep needing wide exceptions from the laws that require fairness and prohibit discrimination.

*sigh*

[ysabetwordsmith]

As Pagan clergy, I should like to note that not all religions are made of wank and some include handicapped deities such as Odin, Sedna, and Hephaestus.

While the rule is "ask 3 witches, get 5 answers," I can also say that there's nothing in any of the Pagan religions I've studied which advocates discrimination against handicapped people. Individual Pagans and organizations do vary; I've run into problems with non-accommodation of assorted flavors. But I've also hosted rituals where handicapped friends attended, and I know other folks have too. There are even circles in some bigger cities that are by and for handicapped Pagans.

I think if you're not accommodating all the people the Creator made, you're embarrassing your religion ... and if you're the clergy, you should totally get another job where you can coddle your shortcomings without inconveniencing anyone else.