Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  3 4 5 6 7  Next ›  Last »  (31 total)
photo
PlutocratsSuck
Godless heathen liberal...and loving it.
07:01 AM on 01/12/2012
Are any of you right wingers regretting John Roberts yet? I know Newt is after supporting Citizens United and getting carpet bombed by Romney Super PAC's, but those were probably crocodile tears.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thom Perkins
06:49 AM on 01/12/2012
Churches are so involved in our politics that they should now pay some taxes. If they want to run my life, they should pay for it. Get rid of the tax exemption for these thieves.
07:26 AM on 01/12/2012
Sounds like you need a little anger management and focus. The article was not on tax exemption of religious institutions regardless of whether it is on the forefront of your mind or not. Stay on topic. Besides, churches are voluntary and if you don't go they can't run your life any more than any other voter.
08:03 AM on 01/12/2012
You lost me on that last sentence. If you don't think churches wield political power to "run the life" of believers and nonbelievers alike, you haven't been paying attention.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:13 AM on 01/12/2012
Oh, you're just projecting.... ;o)

BZ.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:12 AM on 01/12/2012
Tax the income-rich, corps and politically-active religious organizations until their eyes bulge and finally pop out!

BZ.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ncconcernedcitizen
only a fool would take me seriously
06:34 AM on 01/12/2012
So if you want an all rich white male club, just call it a church and make the cronies advisors.
07:27 AM on 01/12/2012
You don't need to do that, it is not unlawful to have a rich white male club.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
canobserv
08:30 AM on 01/12/2012
yeah......it's called the Republican party
06:32 AM on 01/12/2012
Finally, Obama is shut down in his attempts to slowly destroy CHristianity, while his Justice Department promotes his real religion, Islam. He will do anything to create this one world religion, and it be based on Islam. This was a ridiculous suit by the DOJ, and it is time the public realized that Obama is pro-Obama, and really doesn't care about anyone else. He has proven it in all he does. He passed the Healthcare Bill not because he cared, but because it gave him a legacy no one could deny, even though it costs almost $1 trillion a year we can't afford. He ignored jobs and the economy, which recovered despite his best efforts. Germany showed us how to do it properly, but obama did it his way, which leaves us now with debt higher than the GDP. Only fools and government dependents can still be supporting him. Which are you?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MissTake1989
Equal means equal, hypocrites.
06:27 AM on 01/12/2012
A catholic church should have to hire a Muslim to be the priest because of anti-discrimination laws?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
peteschwarze
common sense libertarian
07:15 AM on 01/12/2012
that's kind of what this case was all about. bottom line...the government can't interfere with what you want to believe. and that trumps discrimination laws. neither good nor bad just how it is.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jollywhitegiant
Please, think responsibly.
07:59 AM on 01/12/2012
While I agree to a point, there must be clear restrictions in place to say that some actions of religious individuals do not, and will never trump the laws of the United States. Famous case in point is the questionable coverup and ill-prosecuted (if at all) of child abuse in certain Churches. That goes so far beyond the line that it is reprehensible and downright disgusting that it happened the way it did.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Zombeaver
Wooooooooooooood . . .
07:16 AM on 01/12/2012
Is that what you think this is about?
08:34 AM on 01/12/2012
Ultimately it is because if you are forced to hire someone who i snot qualified under your religious order, then where would it end?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
trespanieli
06:16 AM on 01/12/2012
Does this mean that churches are now a wing of the federal government? We've seen the argument here in New Orleans that the Army Corps of Engineers can't be sued for their botched levees and lies because they are a branch of the federal government. The SCOTUS has not protected religious freedom, the right to worship as one chooses. They've protected a group of employers who have chosen to violate EOE, the law. This is not religious freedom.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
USS Constitution
Any fool can know. The point is to understand.
06:39 AM on 01/12/2012
What are you talking about? Not protected religious freedom? Did someone tell the man in question he could not worship as he chooses?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:15 AM on 01/12/2012
You should read the case. It's about a woman, not a man, and it's not about religious freedom, it's about the American With Disabilities Act.
07:18 AM on 01/12/2012
"They've protected a group of employers who have chosen to violate EOE, the law."

Slippery slope. Catholics and Orthodox Jews have long refused to ordain women as priests and rabbis. Should the government step in and force them to under equal opportunity laws?

The issue here is that ministers are not just "employees" of the church. Their relationship to the church goes beyond "employment," they ARE the church, personified. Only a minister can offer the sacraments, without that individual's ordained and sanctified status, there IS no church. The Constitution, which trumps EOE, prohibits the government from telling a church what, and by extension, who, it has to be. SCOTUS was correct.
photo
pseudonymXXVI
I (Respectfully) Disagree
06:07 AM on 01/12/2012
Hmm, unanimous? I fail to see what the problem is when eight of the country's most skilled legal experts (and Clarence Thomas) all agree. Hardly "shielding" churches in my view.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim Pasterczyk
Banned!
06:06 AM on 01/12/2012
IOW, It's perfectly OK for Christians to discriminate. Glad we cleared that up.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KLaZoMaNiaC
Knowledge is power.
07:06 AM on 01/12/2012
I'm guessing you like having the church separate from government, but your fine with the government interfering with church?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim Pasterczyk
Banned!
01:21 AM on 01/13/2012
I'd like that wall. I'd also like churches to not claim special privileges.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:20 AM on 01/12/2012
I'm no fan of our far too conservative SCOTUS and, as an atheist, I am not defending anything but the law, but you're a bit off base with your post. The Court was correct in it's ruling, but this doesn't only apply to Christian churches or organizations. Several Supreme Court decidions have upheld that religious groups may discriminate in hiring practices because of the unique nature of their structure. All religious faiths "enjoy" this exclusion from federal laws, not just Christian groups.

This same provision worked against Illinois Catholic Services organizations when the state required ALL groups providing adoption services MUST not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in their placement of children. Catholic Services sought an exemption in attempting to extend their employment discrimination exemption to allow them to discriminate against gay couples in their placement. The Illinois Supreme Court acknowledged their employment waiver, but disallowed that it extended beyond hiring practices.

Both were correct decisions.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
klincklanc
Don't mistake activity for achievement.
05:57 AM on 01/12/2012
Most smart people would just stay away from Churches altogether, unless you are weak and need to be controlled by others.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
denroth1
Not a micro kinda guy
06:28 AM on 01/12/2012
Fanned!!!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
USS Constitution
Any fool can know. The point is to understand.
06:43 AM on 01/12/2012
Sure, but what does that have to do with the rights of people?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
klincklanc
Don't mistake activity for achievement.
07:43 AM on 01/12/2012
It would promote more independent thinking...perhaps folks could focus more on their individual rights w/o that dogma
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mij13
05:54 AM on 01/12/2012
We the people disagree. Doesn't matter? I'd think again. How much power does this court think it has? Let's see over the next year.
08:14 AM on 01/12/2012
No, you the person disagrees. Most agree with the constitution explicit protection of religious freedom. It would be stupid to force a church to hire a Jewish rabbi as pastor.

The Supreme Court has the same power it always has had. Just because you dislike this particular decision doesn't change that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mij13
09:15 AM on 01/12/2012
We'll see.
05:49 AM on 01/12/2012
Separation of Church and State --liberals love it when ONLY the state dominates. Here the Church won. Cool
06:50 AM on 01/12/2012
This liberal is fine with the decision, this church won a civil case against one of its own ordained ministers. SCOTUS' decision has nothing to do with the church's relationship or obligations to secular people.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:20 AM on 01/12/2012
Except she wasn't an ordained minister. The court said anyone with 'significant' religious duties, which in this case meant teaching a religious class once a week and going to services with her class. Pretty wishy-washy to me.
08:15 AM on 01/12/2012
Yes it does, if those secular people want to be pastors or otherwise teach or preach their values to people while employed by the church. The church can now discriminate against those who do not share its views.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thom Perkins
06:51 AM on 01/12/2012
Yeah right, now go pray away your gay.
08:16 AM on 01/12/2012
This is the second off topic remark by you on this blog. Are you off your meds?
05:46 AM on 01/12/2012
Some people on this forum have made light of the fact that this lady is disabled with Narcolepsy. This can be a serious and debilitating condition, depending upon it's severity. I know firsthand because I am disabled with it too. We can be a danger not only to ourselves, but to others as well, and I'm not just talking about driving. Losing conscientiousness at any given moment is truly a frightening experience.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
themodernleader
05:44 AM on 01/12/2012
That is a curious definition of equal justice under the law. In this Supreme Court the power of the Church is above the law as was the case throughout history until our American Constitution. The pattern of traditional organization domination has been established in the Roberts Court. The ignominious beneficiary is autocracy and made legal the traditional leadership of aristocracy-dynasty with the high priests of religious superstition and enslavement riding shotgun.
07:21 AM on 01/12/2012
Separation of Church and State is very popular with the radical Left when they can use it to slap down public religious expression, but apparently it stings too much when it limits the government, too. Your historical assessment is wrong in my opinion. Before the Constitution, churches did have significant political power (at times anyways), but hand-in-hand with that was meddling from political authorities in the governance of the church. Look at the influence of powerful Italian political families in the affairs of the Papacy, for instance. The Constitution clearly delineated political and spiritual authority in a way that best preserved human freedom. Your worry that the powers of enslavement have won the day is baseless. No American adult has to submit to the authority of any church.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
themodernleader
09:10 AM on 01/12/2012
 My friend, there is no right-left continuum of American leadership except the propaganda of autocratic advocates.  The morphing of religious ritual and primitive thought and action into our governing processes is subtle and insidious accelerating as our Republic declines.  The right of religious organizations to be above the laws of the land gives them an unfair advantage to swamp the people with the ideas of theocracy and ruin .
08:19 AM on 01/12/2012
Wow, are you overblowing it. The court ruled consistently with hstorical interpretations of the first amendemnt's religious rights. It was a UNANIMOUS decision with both lib and conservative justices concurring.

It would make no sense to force a church to hire say a muslim to be pastor or otherwise teach their values. Every institution has the right to make sure that those who are leading it, propagating their views, or teaching their values actually share those values. A Christian minister is disqualified from leading a Jewish congregation on the basis of his religion. You cannot do that for a job at McDonald's however. It makes complete sense.
photo
richj45
politically correct linux vegetarian
05:42 AM on 01/12/2012
The only thing good you can say about this ruling is the results won't be as bad as giving corporation the rights of individuals
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
frank1946
Tell the Truth
05:38 AM on 01/12/2012
They read the Constitution ?

I'm Impressed. What about Congress and Whitehouse ?