Customize

Pew Forum - The Supreme Court takes up "Ministerial Exception" in church employment

Discussion in 'Media' started by moarxenu, Sep 22, 2011.

  1. AnonLover Member

    Yeah me too. Meanwhile, i think i get the gist of it tho :/

    Muppetcourt.jpg
    • Like Like x 1
  2. AnonLover Member

  3. Smurf Member

    • Like Like x 1
  4. So if you want to "discriminate" your employees based on sex etc., make sure your business is also a religion?
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Anonymous Member

    Mark Headley's appeal was based on allegations of abuse, not discrimination. So the decision does not effect such matters. If your afraid a judge were to take this decision and suddenly apply it to all unlawful conduct, it would be struck down fast. This law isn't going to give churches of any kind a license to become crime organizations.

    Besides, its good that the law can address specific matters regarding different types of organizations, and religious organizations are quite different than organizations that should be punished for discrimination (such as businesses).

    Well according to the I.R.S., only Scientology can be a business and a religion at the same time so in that context, they benefit. Unless businesses lobby for such or launch over 9000 lawsuits to bring the I.R.S. to its knees and strike a secret deal, I doubt much we would have to worry about that.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. AnonLover Member

    bump cuz i sees Tikk lurking...
    • Like Like x 1
  7. tikk Member

    Garrett Epps has a very good rundown of the decision here, which I largely agree with, even though Epps and I hold different rooting interests.

    To the anon poster above suggesting that this has no application to the Headleys' cases because the Hosanna-Tabor decision concerned discrimination, such assertion isn't accurate. The ministerial exception arises in a number of contexts held elsewhere to be valid; categorical distinctions relating to the type of claim are not necessarily outcome-determinative. The proper analysis will largely concern the type of work performed by the claimant. It may be the case that the Supreme Court will eventually draw such a distinction between discrimination and other types of cases but there is nothing in this decision, nor prior lower-court precedent, to suggest as much.

    This is the first time the Supreme Court has tackled the ministerial exception and unsurprisingly was wary of setting down a hard rule as to who is and isn't excepted.
    Consequently, there's not a tremendous amount of guidance here as to who and who isn't a minister (except that if you're in a situation like Perich, you evidently are). Rather, as Epps suggests, the Court is more or less inviting future ministerial exception cases to make such determinations.

    Are the Headleys' cases different from Perich's? I think so, though I won't venture to extensively compare and contrast for the moment. But obviously Sea Org workers aren't teachers, do not engage in religious instruction whatsoever, and mostly perform tasks which could be accomplished by day laborers and temp firms. Regardless of how the court might decide on the issue, a hypothetical case involving the Headleys is closer than the case brought by Perich.
    • Like Like x 8
  8. TinyDancer Member

    A key sentence:

    • Like Like x 3
  9. AnonLover Member

    • Like Like x 1
  10. AnonLover Member

    • Like Like x 1
  11. Tin_Foil Member

    As tikk indicated, this isn't the first time that the facts of the case differ from those court watchers waiting for a Supreme Court decision for their own vested interest only to be disappointed with the stillborn baby delivered the the exalted 9.

    I was actually hoping for a 'ministerial duties test' with this one so I was disappointed. But I know from my studies that it is rare that the Supreme Court actually gives a "I know it when I see it" legal test as precedent, but I was hoping just the same. It doesn't mean that the Headley lawyers won't try to use the dicta from this case to resurrect their case but this doesn't bode well for a positive outcome but I don't put much faith into reversing the Headley dismissal.

    Too bad. It isn't often that we have a shot with this high court but fortunately we have countless other channels to dismantle the cult. The law is very slow in keeping up with current technology and cultural norms. We could use this to our advantage if we use the right strategy.
  12. Anonymous Member

    Thank you. I was starting to panic.
    • Like Like x 2
  13. Anonymous Member

    https://whyweprotest.net/community/...rker-qualifications.64523/page-2#post-1372707

  14. Anonymous Member

    There was a Sceintology document leaked on WWP a couple years ago, listing exactly which staff members on the Org board were classed as ministers, and which staff were not classed as ministers. Danged if I can find the doc right now. Maybe an HCOB.

    From memory, Scientology dox said that ED / head of Org + senior management (i.e OES) + auditors + persons who completed Minister Course are considered ministers. Scientology did not consider ordinary staff members to be ministers, for tax purposes.
  15. Anonymous Member

    And that person has no right to say "fuck you!"?

    SCOTUS is forgetting that the right of the people to say "fuck you!" shall not be infringed.

    Hey SCOTUS: Fuck you!
  16. xenubarb Member

    The Beatles?
    • Like Like x 1
  17. 3rdMan Member

    The Monkeys?
  18. Albion Member

    Does this ring any bells with anyone?

    It would be very interesting to see a copy given that
    the question of whether a plaintiff can be considered
    a minister appears to be central to future lawsuits.

    Jonny Jacobsen
    Infinite Complacency
  19. Pique Member

    Bump for visibility for Jonny's request.
  20. Anonymous Member

    being worked on behind the scenes, but thanks for the bump
    • Like Like x 2
  21. BigBeard Member

    Has the pool on how long it will take the Dwarf to issue an order saying anyone who's ever walked into a mission or org is a "$cientology Minister" started yet??

    BigBeard
    • Like Like x 1
  22. Anonymous Member


    They have to PAY for it first. Optional Xed out cross is extra donation.

  23. "Hey, hey, We're 'The Ministers', people say we monkey around but we're too busy 'regging' to pay our fucking slave laborers, lol?"..........

    (They say rhyming's not my strong suit..... :))
  24. AnonLover Member

    Today's most interesting OpEds:

    Catholic News Agency: Hosanna-Tabor ruling could impact future religious liberty cases
    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/n...-could-impact-future-religious-liberty-cases/

    NYTimes: The Ministerial Exception
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/opinion/the-ministerial-exception.html

    Also, dox from previous NYTimes piece: Supreme Court Decision: Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C.
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/12/us/12scotus-text.html?ref=us
    • Like Like x 1
  25. Herro Member

    So I guess you're all just ignoring the part where the Supreme Court explicitly said that it was leaving the interpretation of what counts as ministerial work open to decision on a case by case basis?
  26. Not ignoring, but my read is that they intend to dismiss challenges against the 'Ministerial Exception' on a case by case basis, instead of dismissing them all at once.
  27. Anonymous Member

    Not the requested dox, but related.

    [IMG]

    https://whyweprotest.net/community/threads/a-puddle-of-leaks.43173/page-14#post-909541

    [IMG]

    https://whyweprotest.net/community/threads/a-puddle-of-leaks.43173/page-15#post-909578

    Minister Dox requested by Jonny were posted on WWP a couple years ago, possibly in a Marc Headley thread.
    • Like Like x 1
  28. Anonymous Member

    Not the scan, but part of the text.

    The scan was leaked on WWP a few years ago, but I haven't been able o track it down

    https://whyweprotest.net/community/...t-scientology-church.38652/page-2#post-820832

  29. AnonLover Member

    • Like Like x 1
  30. Anonymous Member

    Scan is on page 14 here

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/50918053/scientology-post-irs-agreement

    plain text for Google

    • Like Like x 2
  31. Anonymous Member

  32. Albion Member

    Fast work: thanks for that.
  33. BigBeard Member

    QUOTE]All orgs are now churches by their Church of Scientology of California affiliation.[/QUOTE]

    Umm...Didn't Cof$ California get 'vaporized' in RTC's attempt to keep Wollersheim from getting "one thin dime"?? If so, what affiliation (if any) is used by the scam these days for orgs to claim 'church' status??

    BigBeard
  34. Anonymous Member

    Umm...Didn't Cof$ California get 'vaporized' in RTC's attempt to keep Wollersheim from getting "one thin dime"?? If so, what affiliation (if any) is used by the scam these days for orgs to claim 'church' status??

    BigBeard[/quote]

    They say they have official recognition of religiousness from the IRS, or something like that.
  35. DeathHamster Member

    The orgs are probably covered in the IRS agreement under C1 subordinate organizations of the Church of Scientology International.
  36. Sponge Member

    • Like Like x 1
  37. AnonLover Member

    • Like Like x 1
    • Like Like x 1
  38. Anonymous Member

    uh oh
  39. muldrake Member

    Let me guess religious corporations will soon be declaring everyone from the copy machine repairman to the janitor "ministers" now.
    • Like Like x 2

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins