| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Dec | ||||||
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | |||||
- Adoption (2)
- Business Law (10)
- Child Advocacy (5)
- Constitutional Law (8)
- Criminal Law (15)
- EDAD 6050/7050 (1)
- Freedom of Religion (6)
- Freedom of Speech (6)
- General Law (15)
- Gun Law (2)
- Immigration (1)
- Injury Law (34)
- Insurance Law (28)
- Insurance Practices (19)
- Juvenile (2)
- Litigation (22)
- Negotiations (5)
- Right To Life (6)
- You've got to be kidding! (3)
- January 11, 2012: If the State cheats, they should lose.
- January 11, 2012: The hiring and firing of "ministers" - Hosanna-Tabor v/ EEOC
- December 1, 2011: Tennessee Gun Laws
- August 24, 2011: Dealing with insurance companies.
- February 9, 2011: Tennessee sticks close to the insurance policy wording.
- January 16, 2011: Church Planting
- December 29, 2010: Child Custody and a "Material Change"
- October 31, 2010: Thankful
- May 2, 2010: Issues with sex?
- April 23, 2010: Is the National Day of Prayer Constitutional?
Blogs
Other Web Sites
- January 2012
- December 2011
- August 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- October 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
The hiring and firing of “ministers” - Hosanna-Tabor v/ EEOC
A teacher at a private Christian school was fired. She sued. The school and church that were involved defended the matter with the assertion that she was, in fact a “minister”. The church and school won on 1st Amendment grounds.
The court stated:
“Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs. By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments. According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.”
It’s good to see that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are still followed by the Supreme Court.