tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post999859031244150397..comments2023-10-28T08:02:44.565-05:00Comments on illusory tenant: Gableman benefits from loopholesillusory tenanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-46377324814376810232009-07-23T12:30:10.656-05:002009-07-23T12:30:10.656-05:00Depends on what's meant by ministerial, doesn&...Depends on what's meant by ministerial, doesn't it. <br /><br />While there's no such thing as a Roman Catholic "Minister" — at least, it's not an expression that's encouraged — there are plenty of Anglican and Presbyterian ones. The duties, responsibilities, and powers of the latter do not vary by gender.<br /><br />And yes, I understand that "ministerial" in the present legal sense is far more encompassing than the literal term from which it's derived.<br /><br />And the Supreme Court just made it markedly broader.<br /><br />"I know it's not your thing ..."<br /><br />I have no idea what this means.illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-18226043324235851102009-07-23T12:00:17.915-05:002009-07-23T12:00:17.915-05:00Tom
I know its not your thing, but I don't th...Tom<br /><br />I know its not your thing, but I don't think its fair to say that women cannot hold ministerial positions in the Catholic Church. In fact, at most Catholic parishes, I think you'd find that most of the ministerial positions are held by women. What they can't be are priests but priests are not the only persons in paid ministerial positions.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-82926292765759082852009-07-23T07:06:40.982-05:002009-07-23T07:06:40.982-05:00Right, it seems as though she took it upon herself...Right, it seems as though she took it upon herself to expand her pastoral role well beyond the baseline job requirements.<br /><br />What's ironic is that it's not possible for a woman to hold a "ministerial" position within the Catholic Church. That may be why Crooks preferred to use the term "ecclesiastical" (<i>Jocz v. LIRC</i> allows for either).<br /><br />Had there been a "priestly" exception, she may have been allowed to continue with her claim.illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-21913540536228856612009-07-23T01:38:26.368-05:002009-07-23T01:38:26.368-05:00It's difficult to see how the outcome of this ...It's difficult to see how the outcome of this case could be different. I think you would certainly agree that CCS has a right to discriminate by choosing to require that all its teachers be practicing Catholics (CCS apparently did not require that its teachers be Catholic). Therefore, CCS could terminate a teacher who decides to drop out of the Catholic Church, and the teacher could not file any discrimination action against CCS. The difference in this case, however, is that the age discrimination claim has no apparent connection to religous freedom. But, if you allow the state to review CCS personnel decisions for age discrimination, then where does it stop? Do you allow review of sex discrimination claims? What about race? However deplorable it is, I am sure that there are some people (the very fringe of religious extremism) in this country who honestly belive bigotry and racism is part of their religion. So, what do you do in that situation? I don't know the answers, but I look at the facts of the case and it's hard to agree with the dissent that this lady's daily activities were not cloaked in religion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-47023861066473727902009-07-22T21:25:25.660-05:002009-07-22T21:25:25.660-05:00Yes, and there's a strong implication in the m...Yes, and there's a strong implication in the majority's opinion that Ms. Ostlund to some extent made her own bed by taking much of that infusion onto her own shoulders.illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-24218407065866517232009-07-22T15:02:20.172-05:002009-07-22T15:02:20.172-05:00Skip ahead, brother. Money quote from the dissent...Skip ahead, brother. Money quote from the dissent: "Finally, the majority's conclusion that, based on the facts here, CCS infuses its secular subjects with religion effectively extends a free pass to religious schools to violate nondiscrimination laws with regard to their lay employees; moreover, it undoubtedly threatens this court's decision in Jackson v. Benson and, consequently, the continued viability of the Milwaukee school choice program."Display Namehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15842340986220388709noreply@blogger.com