PJM: Religious Liberty: Trump DOJ Defends Catholic School in State Court

https://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/religious-liberty-trump-doj-defends-catholic-school-in-state-court/

It is good to see the DOJ openly defend the religious freedom of a Catholic school, as the story describes. I suppose someone will object that the action violates the doctrine of separation of church and state, but that’s an easy argument to refute. Specifically, it is not a promotion of religion for government to defend the civil rights of a religious organization.

Another objection might be that gay men have a right to be teachers in religious schools where homosexual behavior is regarded as immoral. But this, too, is an easy objection to refute. Gay men certainly have a right to be teachers, but they have no right to a job with any employer they choose.

There may be other objections, but I’m partial to the view that religious organizations have constitutional protection to operate as they wish to operate, which necessarily includes hiring and firing employees best able to represent the religious beliefs of the organization.

12 thoughts on “PJM: Religious Liberty: Trump DOJ Defends Catholic School in State Court

  1. @Roberts

    This is bigotry disguised as “religious liberty.” We see a lot of that in “conservative” and “Christian” circles.
    I would wager a dollar against a donut that this Catholic school and every other such school in the country employs LOTS of people who do not follow Catholic doctrine in their PERSONAL lives. Protestants. Jews. Muslims. Atheists. Divorced people. Men with vasectomies. Women practicing birth control. Do they fire divorced teachers? Do they fire female teachers on the pill? Do they fire men for getting a vasectomy? They almost certainly do not. That fact demonstrates that this is not about “religious freedom.” It is about legalizing discrimination.

    And is it not ironic that this organization which has been flying air cover for thousands of pedophiles for decades has the Chutzpah to fire people for living in a committed relationship in their PERSONAL lives?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “This is bigotry disguised as ‘religious liberty.'”

      Maybe so, but so what?

      In a free country, bigotry is allowed.

      Apart from that whole issue, it is not clear to me that bigotry is even a factor here. Catholic doctrine on marriage is well established. The teacher who was fired was openly defiant of that doctrine. I see no reason the Catholic school should be required to keep him on the payroll.

      Like

      1. We have laws against discrimination in the workplace. The Catholic School is not above the law.

        Or, put another way, are the civil rights of the school superior to those of the individual?

        If I have a church that believes racial mixing is against Biblical tenets, and there are those, can I refuse to hire a black person or one that might be married to a white, a mulatto, a quadroon, an octoroon.

        Perhaps the law should stipulate that a business post a sign outside their establishment “No Blacks Allowed” or “No Gays Allowed”. We used to do that.

        These issues are not easy to solve, I’ll grant that. I believe SCOTUS is hearing similar suits regarding federal funds and adoption services. The sticking point there is the money. The religious agencies want to discriminate and get public money. The argument is religious freedom. Is there a point at which one groups religious freedom is another’s civil rights violation?

        We are a secular nation and it may be in our national interests to interpret the Constitution more narrowly with regards to how far the claims of “religious freedom” can intrude on those who believe differently.

        Liked by 3 people

        1. I find the entire “attack on religion (Christianity)” crap tiring in the the extreme.

          Religions are not above the law. And they should be taxed like any other business.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. @Jimmie

            It is not a stretch to say that the countless tax breaks given to religious institutions by federal, state and local governments are clear violations of the Establishment Clause. In order to administer these tax breaks the government MUST determine what is a legitimate religion and what is not.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. @Paul

            Yes, and the ability to determine what’s an “acceptable” religion is capricious and arbitrary, and quite frankly bullshit…

            Liked by 2 people

    2. I’m Jewish.

      My Filipina bride of 35 years is Christian. For those living in Chesapeake–that means she’s Asian.

      I’ve been in “other” places of worship dozens of times when my friends married, had their children baptized, went to funeral rites, etc.

      Personally? It bothered me seeing graven images of a Jewish guy who was crucified 2,000 years ago hanging on the walls…but I wasn’t there to make political or religious arguments. Come to think of it, I’ve worn a Kippah at some of them (twice in my Class A dress uniform).

      Adultery, homosexuality and other aspects are not widely accepted in the three Abrahamic religious institutions.

      Please explain why these lawsuits are focusing upon 1 of the 3 Abrahamic religious institutions?

      Liked by 3 people

      1. @Craig
        It appears that one of the three Abrahamic religions has chosen to apply their bigotry in the work place. It seems likely that if a mosque or a synagogue had fired an employee for the same reason, it too would have been challenged in court.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. @ Paul,

          Yes, it would appear that way.

          Yet in reality? How many times have you (or others) read a news item or media-bite about an Islamic or Judaic business (company, school, etc.) being sued for not keeping up with current societal shortfalls?

          Liked by 1 person

          1. @Craig

            “Yet in reality,” compared to Christians (71%), there are very few Muslims (1%) and Jews (2%) in the population of our country. That alone would explain a huge part of any differential in lawsuits directed against their mosques and synagogues.

            Beyond that, I would speculate that Muslims and Jews having experienced discrimination may be less prone to bigotry that reaches into other people’s PERSONAL lives than Christians. In other words, they may be better at practicing Christian virtues than many Christians are.

            Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s