Tuesday, March 8, 2011
A question that should answer itself
"May Church Be Ordered to Let in Parishioners Who Had Been Excluded from Worship Services?", is the question presented by a recent case in Texas, reports Eugene Volokh, here. A bit, from the opinion:
The First Amendment prohibits governmental action, including court action, that would burden the free exercise of religion by encroaching on a church’s ability to manage its internal affairs.... “It is a core tenet of First Amendment jurisprudence that, in resolving civil claims, courts must be careful not to intrude upon internal matters of church governance....” ...
A church has the right to control its membership without government interference, including interference by the courts. Likewise, a church has authority to determine who may enter its premises and who will be excluded without government interference....
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2011/03/a-question-that-should-answer-itself.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
Yet governments are already passing judgment on churches. We are second class citizens. Next will they remove children from Christian homes?
LONDON (CNS) -- A British court has effectively disqualified a couple from becoming foster parents because of their Christian views on premarital and homosexual intercourse. Owen and Eunice Johns of Derby, England, were told by judges sitting in the High Court in London that gay equality laws must "take precedence" over the rights of Christians to act in line with their faith. The couple, who have fostered 15 children, had sought a judicial review of a 2009 decision by the Derby City Council to defer their application to be approved as short-term, respite, foster caregivers because of their views on sexual morality. The judges were asked to consider the abstract question of whether public authorities should consider applicants' views on sexual ethics when deciding to approve them as foster parents. The judges stated that Christian beliefs on sexual ethics may be "inimical" to children and implicitly upheld a submission by the publicly funded Equality and Human Rights Commission that children risked being "infected" by Christian moral beliefs. If children are placed with parents who have traditional Christian views, "there may well be a conflict with the local authority's duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of looked-after children," the judges said. They added that "the equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence" over Christian beliefs. The hearing took place in November, but the judgment was passed down Feb. 28.