I agree with the court's ruling. The religious school is a private entity and being a religious school it would make sense to not have an employee whose ideological beliefs contradict their own even if they discriminate. Roberts wrote, "The Establishment Clause prevents the Government from appointing ministers, and the Free Exercise Clause prevents it from interfering with the freedom of religious groups to select their own." The great thing about the constitution is that it seperated religion from government. For Obama to back the woman's case seems a bit out of line and his priorities may be skewed seeing as there is a seperation of powers for a reason and he has other things of importance. The religious group is a very selective group and people who believe in it are members and those who don't are not. They are not servicing an entire nation. They are servicing a group of individuals who willingly attend this place and leave it up to the leaders to decide who is fit and who is not to qualify as a minister.
The court was absolutely right in its decision. In no way was the Church in the wrong in this situation. Because the school is part of the Church, it is considered to be exempt from government intervention under the Free Exercise Clause. Perish may have felt that being replaced was some sort of discrimination, but it is the school's responsibility to ensure that their students be educated. The church had to cut ties when they did not know whether she was coming back or not. Not to mention she violated church doctrine by taking it to court instead of allowing the issue to be decided within the church. And because she claimed ministerial allowances on her taxes, she was susceptible to repercussions from the church. This was not an issue of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, it was a case of freedom of religion, and in this case the Court ruled properly.
I disagree with the courts ruling, primarily based upon the reason behind the firing. I would respect a theological institution's right to terminate one of its employees based upon a difference in beliefs, however I do not condone the termination of an employee based upon medical status. In this case, the employee was fired because she had been replaced during her time of medical leave. However, the church attributes her termination to "misconduct," upon breaking their policy of settling disputes within the church, not the courts. The church should be reminded that while it is a private entity, it is still a private entity operating UNDER THE UNITEE STATES LEGAL SYSTEM, and its attempt at foregoing that oversight through such a tyrannical policy should not be tolerated. This woman deserves the full protection of the law, she deserves to retain her job regardless of unfortunate medical diagnosis.
i agree with the court's ruling that religious entities should have the right to choose their leaders. If Ms. Perich did indeed have narcolepsy, then it is unfortunate that it caused her to loose her job. However, the Constitution clearly states a separation of Church and State, and to prohibit the Church, or any other religious entity, from choosing their leaders as they so choose, would be in violation of the Constitution.
I disagree with the court's ruling for this case. I do believe that religious schools and entities have the right to pick employees based on if their religious beliefs coincide with that of their employer. If religious schools hired teachers who disagreed on a religious basis it would affect the schools ability to promote its religion and preserve its practices and traditions. In this case however, I feel the woman was fired more based on a medical condition than a difference in religious views. I believe the school should have either had her original position available for her when she was fit to return to school or at least a comparable one. When the woman threatened to sue, I see this more of a pursuit for the employment she deserves and earned after serving the school as a loyal teacher. If the school sees a problem with her threatening to sue, they should urge her and aid her in making her case within the church instead of the legal system.
Since the constitution clearly states that the church is separate from the state, I agree as well. The church and any religious institution for that matter has the right to chose whom they what to hire based on the prospective employees religious beliefs. If they weren't able to do this then it would cause a rift within the institution.
I would agree with the court's decision if Perich was fired solely based on her conduct as a religious leader inside the school's walls. I have to disagree with the court's decision because I think the school treated Perich incorrectly as an employee and fired her based on her diagnosis of narcolepsy. I think the Evangelical Lutheran school violated the disabilities act, thus putting Perich in a rightful position to sue the school.
I do agree with the fact that, under the Free Exercise Clause, the United States court cannot make decisions regarding ministers and employees within the Church. But, I feel that it gets a little shaky when they fire somebody for religious reasons. In Perich's case, though, I do not believe she should have won the case because she took medical leave and they did not have room left when she came back. That is understandable. But, if the case had been that they had fired her solely because of her medical condition and not because of lack of room, then I would have leaned more towards the plaintiff's side. Still, I must say that I pretty much agree with the court, although not strongly.
I agree with the court. Although it is important to protect those with disabilities the First Amendment will win everyday. In the eyes of the constitution, the church is its own free enterprise that can decide who will lead, teach, and carry out their faith. What happened to Cheryl Perich may have been unfair but the church is still in there right to fire her.
I agree with the court. Although it is important to protect those with disabilities the First Amendment will win everyday. In the eyes of the constitution, the church is its own free enterprise that can decide who will lead, teach, and carry out their faith. What happened to Cheryl Perich may have been unfair but the church is still in there right to fire her.
I disagree with the ruling. It is wrong to fire someone because of a disability no matter what their profession is. Yes, the church does have control over who leads it's congregation or group, but that should deal with morals, beliefs, and actions, not the fact that someone has a crippling disease. The American's with Disabilities Act protects those people who have been diagnosed with life changing illnesses and disabilities. This case should be no different even though it deals with a religious group.
I do not support this ruling. Yes, the church has a certain "higher power" then other institutions but that should not exempt them from following US law such as the Disabilities Act and from treating their employees with proper respect. Just because the church determines what is right and wrong inside their community, they cannot decide what is right and wrong outside the chapel. That role belongs to the Supreme Court. The church does exclusively have certain powers, but that power should not allow them to fire someone because of a disability. Also, one would think that the church would openly hire and support people with disabilities, because the church's role in society is to help those in need. The church preaches that everyone is equal under the eyes of G-d, and I think that they should practice what they preach.
I agree that with the separation of church and state, the government does not have the right to intervene with the employment within a place of worship. I believe that, while it is unfortunate that she lost her job, once she tried to settle the matter in court rather that within the hierarchy of the church, the church had grounds to fire her.
I disagree with the ruling. The church has been put on a pedestal, when in reality this is a case in which an employer dismisses an employee based on a health issue. Naturally, the church is allowed to dismiss someone based on a disagreement of policy or faith because it is a religious institution and that is the forefront of her job. But when the disability is involved, it should be treated as any other case. This case sparks issues between the separation of church and state, which in the US is not always a clear line.
Being a violation of the Constitution, I believe theren is a positive separation of State and Church. If think it is sad that Perich was fired because of her actions as a religious teacher inside the church. But still, the government has no right to go and select a leader for the church. That is the churches job.
Being a violation of the Constitution, I believe theren is a positive separation of State and Church. If think it is sad that Perich was fired because of her actions as a religious teacher inside the church. But still, the government has no right to go and select a leader for the church. That is the churches job.
i disagree with the ruling. i believe that all places of work should be treated equally even if it is a place of worship. one should not be treated differently because of physical or mental disabilities no matter what but just because it is a church it is no different than any other office or company. it may not profit the same way other companies do but that does not give them an exemption from discrimination laws
I agree with the court's ruling. The religious school is a private entity and being a religious school it would make sense to not have an employee whose ideological beliefs contradict their own even if they discriminate. Roberts wrote, "The Establishment Clause prevents the Government from appointing ministers, and the Free Exercise Clause prevents it from interfering with the freedom of religious groups to select their own." The great thing about the constitution is that it seperated religion from government. For Obama to back the woman's case seems a bit out of line and his priorities may be skewed seeing as there is a seperation of powers for a reason and he has other things of importance. The religious group is a very selective group and people who believe in it are members and those who don't are not. They are not servicing an entire nation. They are servicing a group of individuals who willingly attend this place and leave it up to the leaders to decide who is fit and who is not to qualify as a minister.
ReplyDeleteThe court was absolutely right in its decision. In no way was the Church in the wrong in this situation. Because the school is part of the Church, it is considered to be exempt from government intervention under the Free Exercise Clause. Perish may have felt that being replaced was some sort of discrimination, but it is the school's responsibility to ensure that their students be educated. The church had to cut ties when they did not know whether she was coming back or not. Not to mention she violated church doctrine by taking it to court instead of allowing the issue to be decided within the church. And because she claimed ministerial allowances on her taxes, she was susceptible to repercussions from the church. This was not an issue of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, it was a case of freedom of religion, and in this case the Court ruled properly.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the courts ruling, primarily based upon the reason behind the firing. I would respect a theological institution's right to terminate one of its employees based upon a difference in beliefs, however I do not condone the termination of an employee based upon medical status. In this case, the employee was fired because she had been replaced during her time of medical leave. However, the church attributes her termination to "misconduct," upon breaking their policy of settling disputes within the church, not the courts. The church should be reminded that while it is a private entity, it is still a private entity operating UNDER THE UNITEE STATES LEGAL SYSTEM, and its attempt at foregoing that oversight through such a tyrannical policy should not be tolerated. This woman deserves the full protection of the law, she deserves to retain her job regardless of unfortunate medical diagnosis.
ReplyDeletei agree with the court's ruling that religious entities should have the right to choose their leaders. If Ms. Perich did indeed have narcolepsy, then it is unfortunate that it caused her to loose her job. However, the Constitution clearly states a separation of Church and State, and to prohibit the Church, or any other religious entity, from choosing their leaders as they so choose, would be in violation of the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the court's ruling for this case. I do believe that religious schools and entities have the right to pick employees based on if their religious beliefs coincide with that of their employer. If religious schools hired teachers who disagreed on a religious basis it would affect the schools ability to promote its religion and preserve its practices and traditions. In this case however, I feel the woman was fired more based on a medical condition than a difference in religious views. I believe the school should have either had her original position available for her when she was fit to return to school or at least a comparable one. When the woman threatened to sue, I see this more of a pursuit for the employment she deserves and earned after serving the school as a loyal teacher. If the school sees a problem with her threatening to sue, they should urge her and aid her in making her case within the church instead of the legal system.
ReplyDeleteSince the constitution clearly states that the church is separate from the state, I agree as well. The church and any religious institution for that matter has the right to chose whom they what to hire based on the prospective employees religious beliefs. If they weren't able to do this then it would cause a rift within the institution.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with the court's decision if Perich was fired solely based on her conduct as a religious leader inside the school's walls. I have to disagree with the court's decision because I think the school treated Perich incorrectly as an employee and fired her based on her diagnosis of narcolepsy. I think the Evangelical Lutheran school violated the disabilities act, thus putting Perich in a rightful position to sue the school.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with the fact that, under the Free Exercise Clause, the United States court cannot make decisions regarding ministers and employees within the Church. But, I feel that it gets a little shaky when they fire somebody for religious reasons. In Perich's case, though, I do not believe she should have won the case because she took medical leave and they did not have room left when she came back. That is understandable. But, if the case had been that they had fired her solely because of her medical condition and not because of lack of room, then I would have leaned more towards the plaintiff's side. Still, I must say that I pretty much agree with the court, although not strongly.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the court. Although it is important to protect those with disabilities the First Amendment will win everyday. In the eyes of the constitution, the church is its own free enterprise that can decide who will lead, teach, and carry out their faith. What happened to Cheryl Perich may have been unfair but the church is still in there right to fire her.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the court. Although it is important to protect those with disabilities the First Amendment will win everyday. In the eyes of the constitution, the church is its own free enterprise that can decide who will lead, teach, and carry out their faith. What happened to Cheryl Perich may have been unfair but the church is still in there right to fire her.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the ruling. It is wrong to fire someone because of a disability no matter what their profession is. Yes, the church does have control over who leads it's congregation or group, but that should deal with morals, beliefs, and actions, not the fact that someone has a crippling disease. The American's with Disabilities Act protects those people who have been diagnosed with life changing illnesses and disabilities. This case should be no different even though it deals with a religious group.
ReplyDeleteI do not support this ruling. Yes, the church has a certain "higher power" then other institutions but that should not exempt them from following US law such as the Disabilities Act and from treating their employees with proper respect. Just because the church determines what is right and wrong inside their community, they cannot decide what is right and wrong outside the chapel. That role belongs to the Supreme Court. The church does exclusively have certain powers, but that power should not allow them to fire someone because of a disability.
ReplyDeleteAlso, one would think that the church would openly hire and support people with disabilities, because the church's role in society is to help those in need. The church preaches that everyone is equal under the eyes of G-d, and I think that they should practice what they preach.
I agree that with the separation of church and state, the government does not have the right to intervene with the employment within a place of worship. I believe that, while it is unfortunate that she lost her job, once she tried to settle the matter in court rather that within the hierarchy of the church, the church had grounds to fire her.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the ruling. The church has been put on a pedestal, when in reality this is a case in which an employer dismisses an employee based on a health issue. Naturally, the church is allowed to dismiss someone based on a disagreement of policy or faith because it is a religious institution and that is the forefront of her job. But when the disability is involved, it should be treated as any other case. This case sparks issues between the separation of church and state, which in the US is not always a clear line.
ReplyDeleteBeing a violation of the Constitution, I believe theren is a positive separation of State and Church. If think it is sad that Perich was fired because of her actions as a religious teacher inside the church. But still, the government has no right to go and select a leader for the church. That is the churches job.
ReplyDeleteBeing a violation of the Constitution, I believe theren is a positive separation of State and Church. If think it is sad that Perich was fired because of her actions as a religious teacher inside the church. But still, the government has no right to go and select a leader for the church. That is the churches job.
ReplyDeletei disagree with the ruling. i believe that all places of work should be treated equally even if it is a place of worship. one should not be treated differently because of physical or mental disabilities no matter what but just because it is a church it is no different than any other office or company. it may not profit the same way other companies do but that does not give them an exemption from discrimination laws
ReplyDelete