Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And furthermore, why is it the Court's/State's/Government's business to meddle with anyway? I'm glad for the ruling, I suppose, but I'm very disappointed that the courts, et al have any jurisdiction over at all.
And furthermore, why is it the Court's/State's/Government's business to meddle with anyway? I'm glad for the ruling, I suppose, but I'm very disappointed that the courts, et al have any jurisdiction over at all.
It revolved around an employment lawsuit. The court basically ruled that it did not have jurisdiction in a seminary/church employment matter.
And furthermore, why is it the Court's/State's/Government's business to meddle with anyway? I'm glad for the ruling, I suppose, but I'm very disappointed that the courts, et al have any jurisdiction over at all.
It revolved around an employment lawsuit. The court basically ruled that it did not have jurisdiction in a seminary/church employment matter.
Thanks. I actually have a similar case heading for summary judgment hearing in a couple of weeks. This decision applies the same argument I'm using. I'll bring it up in oral argument.
It revolved around an employment lawsuit. The court basically ruled that it did not have jurisdiction in a seminary/church employment matter.
Thanks. I actually have a similar case heading for summary judgment hearing in a couple of weeks. This decision applies the same argument I'm using. I'll bring it up in oral argument.
I wanna help.
Thanks. I actually have a similar case heading for summary judgment hearing in a couple of weeks. This decision applies the same argument I'm using. I'll bring it up in oral argument.
I wanna help.
Yes, I hear you are a star at oral argument. It would be fun to have you. But it's already been briefed and I think it will be hard to get you admitted to the Washington bar by Friday after next, even pro hace vice.
Joshua,
Our law doesn't function that way. Fortunately, the law protects the Church, for now, from being forced to violate it's own religious views and adopt the secular, which is what would happen were this court to hold otherwise. They would force the Seminary to abandon religious conviction and adopt secular religious views regarding women in teaching positions.
It's comming folks. Most assuredly.
Joshua,
Our law doesn't function that way. Fortunately, the law protects the Church, for now, from being forced to violate it's own religious views and adopt the secular, which is what would happen were this court to hold otherwise. They would force the Seminary to abandon religious conviction and adopt secular religious views regarding women in teaching positions.
It's comming folks. Most assuredly.
Zenas,
Would this apply even in a case where the seminary / church under question were not a creature of the state? For example, if the seminary weren't organized under state law, would they be under the jurisdiction which they often find themselves under?
Adam
Joshua,
Our law doesn't function that way. Fortunately, the law protects the Church, for now, from being forced to violate it's own religious views and adopt the secular, which is what would happen were this court to hold otherwise. They would force the Seminary to abandon religious conviction and adopt secular religious views regarding women in teaching positions.
It's comming folks. Most assuredly.