What's new

Headley case dismissals – blessings in disguise?

freethinker

Sponsor
If one knows exactly what one is getting into from the outset with nothing obscurred on either side, that is the essence of contract law.

When deception on either side plays part that nullify's the contract. I see your point, but still see no rationality for the Ministerial exception. It's adding something so as not to look at the facts. It's a judicial safety net escape clause to avoid becoming responsible.

In essence it is Contract Law.

I don't know where the judge got the idea that the Headley's knew exactly what they were getting into but that is totally untrue.

it probably came from one of those pre-signed balnk documents that DM is so fond of.

The ‘ministerial exception’ makes sense, although I don’t think it should be restricted to religious institutions. Suppose you wanted to become a priest. You will be on call at all hours, you will be paid squat and your working conditions may be extremely dire. If you voluntarily signed up for that then I think it is right that you cannot later sue for labour violations (since you essentially voluntarily relinquish them). I think similar reasoning should apply to non-profit organisations and other institutions that rely heavily on volunteer workers. I don’t see the reason why this should be the exclusive domain of religious institutions.

While the above may apply to the voluntary relinquishment of labour laws, I don’t see how it should apply in cases where there is coercion, deception and other tactics designed to remove an individual’s ability to make free and informed choices. A priest was never lied into their ‘job’, knew what they were singing up for and can walk out of their ‘job’ at any time. They are not subject to coercion or deception or being stalked or restricted from leaving on the scale involved in the Headley case.

To come back to your original comment – I agree entirely. I think to consider ‘religion’ to mean ‘religious institution’ is to misread the intention behind the first amendment. Note how ‘free speech’ and ‘the press’ are distinguishing between the act performed by the individual and the act performed by the group. This is a distinction not made for the religion clauses leading me to believe that ‘religion’ is being used to mean ‘beliefs’. Read in this context the ministerial exception still exists – but it is something that an individual has to voluntarily choose to accept rather than have an organisation impose it.
 
How can the law forbid the Mormons to practice polygamy, but not forbid the CoS human trafficking, etc?

The Mormons had settled the area of Utah before it was admitted as a state.

In order to get admission as a state, the Mormon Church had to change its policy of polygamy.

There was always a mixed reaction to polygamy when it was introduced in the Mormon Church anyway, so they gladly accepted the those terms.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
The Mormons had settled the area of Utah before it was admitted as a state.

In order to get admission as a state, the Mormon Church had to change its policy of polygamy.

There was always a mixed reaction to polygamy when it was introduced in the Mormon Church anyway, so they gladly accepted the those terms.

The Anabaptist Jacques

they didn't really. As it turned out later, an 'inner circle' of the mormon church maintained plural marriage until around 1917, when they supposedly gave it up entirely.

Personally, I suspect they *still* have it in a super-secret-inner-circle :)

Zinj
 
they didn't really. As it turned out later, an 'inner circle' of the mormon church maintained plural marriage until around 1917, when they supposedly gave it up entirely.

Personally, I suspect they *still* have it in a super-secret-inner-circle :)

Zinj

Like their leader said, "Bring me some wives. I don't care how many you bring, but bring'em young."

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

GoNuclear

Gold Meritorious Patron
polygamy vs bigamy

The Mormons had settled the area of Utah before it was admitted as a state.

In order to get admission as a state, the Mormon Church had to change its policy of polygamy.

There was always a mixed reaction to polygamy when it was introduced in the Mormon Church anyway, so they gladly accepted the those terms.

The Anabaptist Jacques

As far as the state is concerned, the issue is not multiple wives, it is multiple marriage licenses. No law is broken with polygamy until multiple marriage licences get involved, then it is bigamy and there is a statutory prohibition against that. It can't be otherwise ... one of our inalienable rights is the right to contract, which is unlimited.

Pete
 
Top