Supreme Court Upholds Religious Exemption To Employment Discrimination Laws

[her209]

If all parties involved already agreed to use religious laws to settle their disputes, then they are bound to it. This has already been shown in court when Sharia Law was used to settle disputes between Muslims who had already agreed to use it.

Even arrange marriages of a minor to an adult?

 

[JEDIYoda]

If all parties involved already agreed to use religious laws to settle their disputes, then they are bound to it. This has already been shown in court when Sharia Law was used to settle disputes between Muslims who had already agreed to use it.

-- are you sure?? Link please.....

 

[lopri]

Total misunderstanding of the opinion. Has anyone actually read it? It was a narrow decision and that's why it was unanimous. The government did not contend that ministers are subject to the anti-discrimination laws, but contended the teacher wasn't a minister. The court disagreed considering all the facts around her roles in the school, and determined that she had a "ministerial" duty, thus should be considered a minister, thus the church was free to discipline her.

It is true that this ruling indeed will effectively chill any whistle-blowing among those in the churches, since churches can retaliate for whatever reason (or no reason). And you wonder why sexual abuses of minors are so prevalent in some sects of various faiths.

 

[Exterous]

Even arrange marriages of a minor to an adult?

IIRC the agreed apon resolution involving Sharia Law did not break any existing US laws so it was acceptable to resolve the situation through the previous agreed to means.

It appears as though there are some varried laws regarding your example and it is already permissable by some states under certain circumstances

 

[cybrsage]

Even arrange marriages of a minor to an adult?

Sure. They just cannot marry until they are old enough.

 

[cybrsage]

-- are you sure?? Link please.....

Yep:

The 10th Circuit Court Of Appeals struck down Oklahoma’s ban on Sharia law today, declaring that the Sooner State’s move violated the United States Constitution.
In November 2010, Oklahoma voters approved a ballot initiative to prevent Sharia law from being used in the state...


The 10th Circuit is the highest court to date to strike down an anti-Sharia law. It is not yet clear if Oklahoma will appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/10/401693/oklahoma-sharia-ban-unconstitutional/?mobile=nc

There are many places which are trying to ban people from agreeing to specific terms and conditions in their contracts if those terms and conditions come via Sharia Law, but so far any which went into effect have been struck down as illegal by the courts.

Basically, if two groups agree to binding arbitration, then legally they must use arbitration and it is binding. If they agree to use Shiria Law, it is binding as well.

 

[cybrsage]

It is true that this ruling indeed will effectively chill any whistle-blowing among those in the churches, since churches can retaliate for whatever reason (or no reason). And you wonder why sexual abuses of minors are so prevalent in some sects of various faiths.

Whistleblowers are protected by the Whistleblowers Laws. If the church/school is doing something criminal, they have a duty to report it.

 

[her209]

Sure. They just cannot marry until they are old enough.

Says who?

 

[Thump553]

If all parties involved already agreed to use religious laws to settle their disputes, then they are bound to it. This has already been shown in court when Sharia Law was used to settle disputes between Muslims who had already agreed to use it.

I'm only aware of one case where a lower court applied sharia law where the parties had previously agreed to it, and that case was overruled on appeal. Please specifically identify any case where you claim a court in the US applied and enforced sharia law.

This whole sharia law is going to take over the US is a boogieman created by guess who.

 

[cybrsage]

I already did. Laws were struck down which would prevent it.

 

[cybrsage]

Says who?

Make a guess.

 

[her209]

Make a guess.

I'm not a mind reader. Why don't you just tell us?

 

[cybrsage]

I'm not a mind reader. Why don't you just tell us?

Mind reading is not required to know who controls the laws regarding marriage. Give it a shot, you never know, you may surprise yourself by finding out you can think on your own.

 

[her209]

Mind reading is not required to know who controls the laws regarding marriage. Give it a shot, you never know, you may surprise yourself by finding out you can think on your own.

Let's put your "thinking skills" to use then. Why should those marriage laws override religious freedom?

 

[cybrsage]

Let's put your "thinking skills" to use then. Why should those marriage laws override religious freedom?

What marriage laws? Last I heard, you were not a mind reader and had no idea who/what said so.

Were you lying?

 

[her209]

What marriage laws? Last I heard, you were not a mind reader and had no idea who/what said so.

Were you lying?

Thanks for confirming that you're an idiot.

 

[cybrsage]

...snipped to remove personal attack...

Wait....you claimed you did not know and had no way of knowing due to being a mind reader. Were you lying when you said that, becuase you suddenly know all about what you claimed to not know.

You want me to take you seriously when you lie?

 

[thraashman]

Says who?

I think it varies by state, but a minor can get married provided they are of a certain age (16 in most states I think) and have been given parental consent. I believe the act of getting married also qualifies as a legal separation from the parents.

 

[ElFenix]

-- are you sure?? Link please.....

in contract cases that would be perfectly fine, and that's probably what he remembers seeing. the parties to contracts may choose which laws apply. that's well established.

 

[JEDIYoda]

in contract cases that would be perfectly fine, and that's probably what he remembers seeing. the parties to contracts may choose which laws apply. that's well established.

YES, I am aware of that....but it sounded like he was saying that applied to any case......that if both parties agreed that would trump the laws of the land....I could have been mistaken!!

Thank You for your input..this can get confusing real fast..

 

[her209]

Wait....you claimed you did not know and had no way of knowing due to being a mind reader. Were you lying when you said that, becuase you suddenly know all about what you claimed to not know.

You want me to take you seriously when you lie?

All those post and you can't seem to answer a simple question...

 

[dank69]

I see your thread crapping...

It may look like a thread crap to you, but it is entirely relevant.

One of the major platforms that the GOP candidates are running on this year is stopping Obama's war on Christianity/religion in general. Obama's Supreme Court nominees are often offered as supporting evidence toward this claim. But here we have all 9 including his nominees ruling in favor of religion. Just sayin.

 

[cybrsage]

in contract cases that would be perfectly fine, and that's probably what he remembers seeing. the parties to contracts may choose which laws apply. that's well established.

Yes, that is what I am referencing. Employment contracts are just another form of a contract.

 

[cybrsage]

All those post and you can't seem to answer a simple question...

When you stop lying, I will start answering your questions.

 

[Rainsford]

I already did. Laws were struck down which would prevent it.

That is not the same thing as applying Sharia law. "Laws were struck down which would prevent it" because those laws were pointless and unconstitutional. The only law we need to prevent Sharia law being applied by courts is the 1st amendment.