Christianity Today

These governmental requirements breach the provisions of the First Amendment. Sadly, few seem to realize that, or care.

This article seriously overstates the holding of Hosanna Tabor. It did NOT hold that "a 'ministerial exception' exempts religious employers from federal employment and disability laws." Rather, the Court held the 1st Amend. bars application of the labor laws "to claims concerning the employment relationship between a religious institution and its MINISTERS." The Court determined that b/c of "the formal title given [the teacher] by the Church, the substance reflected in that title, her own use of that title, and the important religious functions she performed for the Church — we conclude [the teacher] was a minister covered by the ministerial exception." The Court, however, refused "to adopt a rigid formula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a minister." Thus, the Court did NOT hold that ALL religious employers are ENTIRELY exempt from federal labor laws. It's a case-by-case analysis, which explains why employees are still suing. The EEOC brought the suit during the Bush Admin.

I'm glad to see CT cover Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC. I think its one of the most pertinent issues regarding our faith in our time in America. The Administration used this case to try to force churches to adhere to federal hiring guidelines, which is a back door way to undercut a church's ability to hire and fire according to the leadership they sense from God. It doesn't just have an impact on teacher hiring, but on hiring everyone from the pastor to the sound guys to the missions team. The consequence of that law would have been that every non-discrimination aspect of federal law would have been applicable including discrimination according to religion. Opening that door would have inevitably led to coordinated lawsuits by political groups like the ACLU to force churches to hire atheists or whoever, and there would have been no Supreme Court roadblock in their way. It's a hugely important issue to follow going forward: who pushed the policy? Why? What are their future strategies?