Skip to main content

"Religious Freedom" Tops Nondiscrimination Statutes in the Our Lady of Guadalupe Case

From Justice Sotomayor's Dissent in the Our Lady of Guadalupe case (Cite as: 591 U. S. ____ (2020) 21):

"In expanding the ministerial exception far beyond its historic narrowness, the Court overrides Congress’ carefully tailored exceptions for religious employers.

Little if nothing appears left of the statutory exemptions after today’s constitutional broadside. So long as the employer determines that an employee’s “duties” are “vital” to “carrying out the mission of the church,” ante, at 21–22, then today’s laissez-faire analysis appears to allow that employer to make employment decisions because of a person’s skin color, age, disability,
sex, or any other protected trait for reasons having nothing to do with religion.

This sweeping result is profoundly unfair. The Court is not only wrong on the facts, but its error also risks upending anti-discrimination protections for many employees of religious entities.

Recently, this Court has lamented a perceived “discrimination against religion.” E.g., Espinoza v.
Montana Dept. of Revenue, ante, at 12. Yet here it swings the pendulum in the extreme opposite direction, permitting religious entities to discriminate widely and with impunity for reasons wholly divorced from religious beliefs. The inherent injustice in the Court’s conclusion will be impossible to ignore for long, particularly in a pluralistic society like ours." (my bolding)

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Wow! What a Finish! The Gilead Court Guts US Women's Rights in a Neat Three-Play Touchdown in the Last Ten Seconds of the 2020 Term

Nobody ever said Team Gilead had bad coaching, and the team had brought in a new quarterback and tight end during the previous term. But Team Gilead surpassed all bets, rolling over Team Women in a surprise end-run in the last ten seconds before the season adjourned. A real play-by-play of the season-ender isn't available, because Team Gilead played it close to the chest and the commentary they put out about the plays (called "Opinions") is just a pile of bullshit. But we watched the game and noticed a few things: PLAY ONE: Bostock v Clayton County   Justice Roberts passed the ball to Justice Gorsuch and timeout was called for some judicial deliberation. Gorsuch huddled with Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh. He said Roberts was willing to let him use his pet Scalian method, and that Team Women would give up five yards for a "win" of any kind. The other three hated the idea, but Gorsuch promised Alito his dissent could be as long and droning as he wanted, a...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Limits of Textualism In the US Supreme Court's Bostock Decision

I'm becoming a fan of Pulitzer Prize winner Linda Greenhouse, a contributing opinion writer for the New York Times. The June 15 Bostock Opinion  written by Justice Neil Gorsuch shocked me for many reasons she touches on in the article below, which I'm pulling from its paywall and posting below. I agree especially with her assessment that Justice Gorsuch was more interested in self-aggrandizement than ideology of left or right; that "textualism" or "originalism" as a method of statutory construction is a sad diminishment of real judging and that the method allows for almost any decision to be made in any case. Neil Gorsuch decided the three associated cases, involving matters of huge moment for a large percentage of the American population, based on parsing the meaning of "because of sex" in the language of Title VII. He decided that phrase means "because of sex or anything necessarily related to sex", including the will o' the wisp...
1 comment
Read more

Making Judith Butler Disappear in 3 EZ Steps, by Jane Clare Jones

JANE CLARE JONES Search for: JUDITH BUTLER: HOW TO DISAPPEAR PATRIARCHY IN THREE EASY STEPS TRIGGER WARNING: Fucking Pissed Off So, as many of you are aware, the high-priestess of genderology decided to momentarily descend from her exalted academic plinth and  relay her ‘thoughts’  on the ongoing internecine shitshow that she, probably more than anyone else, has helped to create. Except of course that, with her usual intellectual integrity, the thoughts she decided to relay about said shitshow totally ignored what is really going on, in favour of pretending that this is a conflict between the wibbly-wobbly-gender-and-sex-is-fluid-rah-rah-liberation crowd, and, basically, um, the Pope. Despite being entirely predictable, this level of disingenuous erasure, is, nonetheless, pretty staggering. As Judy is actually more than well aware, this is a conflict which turns, fundamentally, on the fault-line in feminism that she, in fact, inaugurated – a fault-line between those of us...
Post a Comment
Read more