Anyone else see the inconsistency?

[Oerets]

Originally Posted by ebacon

The woman is still free to undergo in-vitro. She just can't do it and work for that Bishop. That is unless the US Supreme Court changes the rules or the Bishop changes his mind.

Free to do it? So no problem with the the life at conception issue? Just the company she works for has special privileges allowing them to opt out.




Barney

[ebacon]

Originally Posted by Oerets

Free to do it? So no problem with the the life at conception issue? Just the company she works for has special privileges allowing them to opt out.




Barney

Are you are asking my opinion? My opinion is unrelated to the facts and the law but here it is.

Personally I feel for the teacher. She's been dealt a crappy hand without question. Not only did God deny her the ability to conceive naturally, but her employer, who is supposed to be a teacher of compassion, also turned his back on her.

That's raw.

But the law is the law. For it to work it must be applied with dispassionate consistency. In this case the teacher has a few legal hurdles to overcome. None of them are that big IMO, it's just a shame that she has to jump them at all.

First is the issue of contract. If she is truly a contractor then typical employment law is out. The way the courts get around such a cold analysis is re-categorize the contractor as an employee. The court can do that by looking at, among other things, who dictated how the teacher got her work done. If she worked to the beat of her own drum then the court will likely leave her stuck as a contractor. On the other if the court finds that the church dictated her day to day activities then the court will likely re-categorize her as an employee.

Second is the issue of case law. The Supreme Court recently ruled in Hosanna-Tabor that federal disability protections do not apply to a church-minister relationship. If the court finds that the teacher was a minister then she is unfortunately SOL. On the other hand if the court finds that she was merely an employee of the church then the law works in her favor.

Bottom line is that her best shot happens if the court finds that she was employee of the church. Her chances at winning peter out quickly if the court finds that she was a minister or contractor.

Them's the rules.

Why are your underwear in a wad over this anyhow? It doesn't affect you and you leftie guys are generally in favor of church/state separation. Do you you see the church's dispassionate application of doctrine as cold? Would your opinion differ if the church did not receive gov't funds? (I don't know if they do but someone said they did and I'm not going to fact check).

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by ebacon

It doesn't affect you and you leftie guys are generally in favor of church/state separation. Do you you see the church's dispassionate application of doctrine as cold? Would your opinion differ if the church did not receive gov't funds? (I don't know if they do but someone said they did and I'm not going to fact check).

Church/State Separation isn't a license for the Church to violate laws of the State. I would feel the exact same way regardless of whether the school received State funds. As for cold, damn right. Cold, arbitrarily punitive and potentially illegal.

John

[Oerets]

Originally Posted by ebacon

Are you are asking my opinion?

Why are your underwear in a wad over this anyhow? It doesn't affect you and you leftie guys are generally in favor of church/state separation. Do you you see the church's dispassionate application of doctrine as cold? Would your opinion differ if the church did not receive gov't funds? (I don't know if they do but someone said they did and I'm not going to fact check).

I guess my interest in this is as a lapsed Chocaholic and all, seeing the church of my youth once a bastion of liberal ideals has now succumbed to ultra conservative ideals. Granted the church was never for abortion but we will agree they have changed.

I do have a problem with the private schools receiving funds meant to go to public schools. The whole voucher program in general, but that has nothing to do it this. I just thought it was inconsistent for the church to be against abortion and in-vitro at the same time. But was reminded that the church believes fertilized eggs are to be treated as alive.


If a church receives public funds then I believe they should be treated like any other business would be.

Barney

[ebacon]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Church/State Separation isn't a license for the Church to violate laws of the State. . .

And there's the rub.

You are ignoring the U.S. Constitution, in particular:

The Supremacy Clause at Art. VI, para II;
The scope of the Supreme Court at Art. III, Sec. 2, para I; and
The 1st amendment.

The Supremacy Clause comes in with the Americans with Disability Act.
The Supreme Court comes in with its ruling under Hosanna-Tabor.
The 1st amendment comes in because the facts involve a church.

It sounds like what you want is for the nation to run willy-nilly according to your feelings. That's anarchy and it doesn't work.

[ebacon]

Originally Posted by Oerets

I guess my interest in this is as a lapsed Chocaholic and all, seeing the church of my youth once a bastion of liberal ideals has now succumbed to ultra conservative ideals. Granted the church was never for abortion but we will agree they have changed.

I do have a problem with the private schools receiving funds meant to go to public schools. The whole voucher program in general, but that has nothing to do it this. I just thought it was inconsistent for the church to be against abortion and in-vitro at the same time. But was reminded that the church believes fertilized eggs are to be treated as alive.


If a church receives public funds then I believe they should be treated like any other business would be.

Barney

And I can agree with those frustrations. The American brands of Christianity are generally drifting towards dickyness.

IMO the Bishop of this church could have avoided the whole mess by simply being nice and talking to the teacher over lunch and explaining the church's position as laid out in the Vatican Informational. Who knows, maybe the teacher might even agree with it and decide that the emotion anguish of artificial conception isn't worth the heartache.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by ebacon

The Supremacy Clause comes in with the Americans with Disability Act.

I don't know how the ADA applies here. We're not talking about a disabled person or accommodation in public places.

The Supreme Court comes in with its ruling under Hosanna-Tabor.

Hosanna-Tabor v EEOC established the ministerial exception. Unless the courts find that a teacher in a parochial school, regardless of the subjects she might teach, is a minister, that case is irrelevant.

The 1st amendment comes in because the facts involve a church.

Again, Churches, except where specifically exempted, must obey the law of the land. This must be especially so in cases where they punish others for personal decisions and actions that are in keeping with that law.

It sounds like what you want is for the nation to run willy-nilly according to your feelings. That's anarchy and it doesn't work.

No, that's autocracy and it works for me?

John

[Oerets]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I don't know how the ADA applies here. We're not talking about a disabled person or accommodation in public places.


John

I think being infertile is considered a disability by law.




Barney

[ebacon]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I don't know how the ADA applies here. We're not talking about a disabled person or accommodation in public places.

The ADA applies because the complainant asserted it. See the OP.

And please don't write to me with that ridiculous tit-for-tat style that amateurs use all over teh internet. It's disrespectful but worse than that it enforces incoherent thinking.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Oerets

I think being infertile is considered a disability by law.




Barney

Weird if true. I wonder whether sterility in males is too. Seems only fair.

Also, if true, it's just another basis for suing the church for discrimination so I wonder whether that's what EB meant. Doesn't seem likely.

John