Religious employees of a church cannot sue for employment discrimination.

[tetrapod]

WASHINGTON — In a groundbreaking case, the Supreme Court today held for the first time that religious employees of a church cannot sue for employment discrimination .

But the court’s unanimous decision in a case from Michigan did not specify the distinction between a secular employee, who can take advantage of the government’s protection from discrimination and retaliation, and a religious employee, who can’t.

http://www.freep.com/article/20120111/NEWS02/120111034/Supreme-Court-Woman-can-t-sue-over-firing-from-Redford-church

[tetrapod]

So in other words they can choose to hire only white religious employees?

I'm not surprised nor do I care.

Religion and politics, the two most controversial topics.

I would rather agree to disagree with them than to hear their childish arguments.

No, it is not fair if they get government funding and tax breaks.

[8v10un30sun]

No, it is not fair if they get government funding and tax breaks.

Okay, so establish that fact when given seperation of church and state.

[tetrapod]

Okay, so establish that fact when given seperation of church and state.

Is this relevant?

[8v10un30sun]

Is this relevant?

In fact that is the crux of the case.  Without it, then your argument fails.  The government have no right in saying what the Church can do and likewise.

[tetrapod]

In fact that is the crux of the case.  Without it, then your argument fails.  The government have no right in saying what the Church can do and likewise.

I see.  So, what happened if Pepsi discriminates someone because of their gender? 

[8v10un30sun]

I see.  So, what happened if Pepsi discriminates someone because of their gender?  

Again, the CHURCH...  

Pepsi???  Not the CHURCH.

[tetrapod]

Again, the CHURCH...  

Pepsi???  Not the CHURCH.

Religious organization has special protection while other private organization has none?

[8v10un30sun]

Religious organization has special protection while other private organization has none?

   YES!  I know...sounds silly.  

Want to know why?  If the government starts telling the church what to do then the government will soon run the church...YIKES ...That is greater evil of the two you might say.

1st admendment. 

[tetrapod]

 YES!  I know...sounds silly.  

Want to know why?  If the government starts telling the church what to do then the government will soon run the church...YIKES ...That is greater evil of the two you might say.

1st admendment. 

Is the government running Pepsi by making it illegal for Pepsi to discriminate employee? 

[8v10un30sun]

Is the government running Pepsi by making it illegal for Pepsi to discriminate employee?  

Again, 1st amendment vs EEO laws...I think 1st amendment wins and I believe that is the ruling in your link.  Somebody has to weigh it all out and at the end of the day, 1st amendment always win.


EDIT:
The power of GOOGLE!

I found it!  There is an exception in EEO laws for Religion.  
http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html#_Toc203359492

Courts have held, based on First Amendment constitutional considerations, that clergy members cannot bring claims under the federal employment discrimination laws, including Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Equal Pay Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, because “[t]he relationship between an organized church and its ministers is its lifeblood.”[50] This “ministerial exception” comes not from the text of the statutes, but from the First Amendment principle that governmental regulation of church administration, including the appointment of clergy, impedes the free exercise of religion and constitutes impermissible government entanglement with church authority.[51] Thus, courts will not ordinarily consider whether a church’s employment decision concerning one of its ministers was based on discriminatory grounds, although some courts have allowed ministers to bring sexual harassment claims.[52]

[tetrapod]

Again, 1st amendment vs EEO laws...I think 1st amendment wins and I believe that is the ruling in your link.  Somebody has to weigh it all out and at the end of the day, 1st amendment always win.


EDIT:
The power of GOOGLE!

I found it!  There is an exception in EEO laws for Religion.  
http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html#_Toc203359492

They take 1st amendment too far.  It's not even a question of 1st amendment but of fairness.   

It simply there to prevent church from church taking over the government and to prevent government from promote a particular religion.   It's not meant to protect church from what is illegal.  Another note on 1st amendment:  it is illegal for pharmacy to fire am employee because he is won't fill birth control prescription.   To a pharmacy, the guy who can't fill the prescription is as good as an unqualified employee because he is unable to do his duty.   

[non dormis]

Religious organization has special protection while other private organization has none?

that's how xians are. they biatch and complain like...oh, the liberal media hates us. we're being attacked, there's a war on christmas....b oohoo. help us.

but then they're like...oh, f*ck ya! the church can do whatever it wants. xains are just a bunch of whiners. sad but true.