Supreme Court Slaps Down Obama's Anti-Religion Attack!


It was unanimous, as legal Scholar Ed Whelan points out on NRO's Bench Memos blog:

In its unanimous ruling today in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC, the Supreme Court held that the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause bar ministers from invoking the employment-discrimination laws against the religious organizations that employ them.

Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion on behalf of the entire Court affirms that the so-called “ministerial exception” to employment-discrimination laws is firmly rooted in the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses, including the Court’s decisions establishing that “it is impermissible for the government to contradict a church’s determination of who can act as its ministers.” The opinion thus rejects the remarkably hostile contentions of the Obama administration that there is no general ministerial exception and that religious organizations are limited to the right to freedom of association that labor unions and social clubs enjoy.


  1. Randy E King
    Posted January 11, 2012 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

    How much more proof do you need that marriage corruption supporters are really after the 1st Amendment.

    Religion was rendered immutable under the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution. Marriage corruption supporters will eventfully fail unless they can either have the freedom OF religion regulated to 14th Amendment protection, or they could somehow get SCOTUS to declare same-sex sexual activity to be innate.

  2. Bobby
    Posted January 11, 2012 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

    Care to expand a bit more on how this has anything to do with Obama?

  3. Louis E.
    Posted January 11, 2012 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

    Bobby,if you follow the links,you'll find that the Department of Justice filed a brief seeking a ruling to abolish the "ministerial exception" in order to minimize the rights of religions to decide who to employ.

  4. Posted January 11, 2012 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    Obama's argument was an outlier compared to the other arguments in support of respondent. The original plaintiff had conceded that the freedom of expressive association "need not comply
    with antidiscrimination laws when doing so
    would require retaining an individual whose presence in a leadership position would significantly undermine a central expressive message of the association, absent an overriding state interest". Brief for Respondent at 35. And the ACLU and Americans for Separation for Church and State had assumed that a ministerial exception existed. See Amicus Brief of Americans for Separation for Church and State et. al. at 5.

  5. Little man
    Posted January 11, 2012 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

    NObama is not a Christian. Democrats act like they are 'helping' certain people by defending their 'rights'. Then we find out they didn't have those supposed 'rights' in the first place. People who do charity for the purposes of self-advancement were already identified in Jesus' times. Of course it looks like charity, but it isn't. It is using poor or orphan subjects for the purpose of financial gain. Example:
    I heard on the radio - 36,000 comforters given away for 36,000 purchased (1 given for 1 purchased). That gives them the excuse to make a calculated list of all the target subjects needed their business. Charity actually means: give away and do not expect any advantage. Otherwise it is not charity. It is Trade.