On January 11, the United States Supreme Court rendered its decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In its decision the Court held that churches and other religious entities need not follow the rules of equal opportunity and non-discrimination that other businesses and employers must follow. In the decision, the nation’s highest court upheld the idea of what has been called a “ministerial exception” to the rules governing employment and employee rights. This rule would allow churches and other religious organizations to be exempt from the regulations created by equal opportunity and non-discrimination laws if the employee in question acts in a way to further the faith or ideals of the organization. Many groups have spoken out against this decision claiming that this creates a double standard for employers. Opponents have also argued that a “ministerial exception” allows churches and other religious organizations to avoid granting protection to their employees. Nevertheless, the Court avoided defining what, exactly, constitutes a “minister” and to whom the exception applies. This, in essence, leaves cases with similar questions to a case-by-case decision which could result in further confusion regarding the “ministerial exception” rule. A definition is important to further cases with similar issues in that it would allow all courts throughout the nation to have a uniform set of criteria with which to evaluate what positions fall under the “ministerial exception” and which positions do not.
However, the decision is not without great controversy. Many unions in the education industry, such as the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and other employee advocacy groups such as the Service Employee’s International Union (SEIU) and the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) argue that the creation of a ministerial exception not only violates the rights of workers, namely teachers in this case, but that it also grants favoritism towards religious organizations, namely churches. With that in mind aren’t these the same groups who cry foul about anything religious? Aren’t these the same groups who vehemently argue for the separation of church and state: in schools, the inclusion of “One nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and in other religious references in public forums such as having the Ten Commandments in a courthouse? If the recent decision by the Supreme Court in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission doesn’t create a separation of church and state I’m not sure what does. In cases such as this it is impossible to have both separation of church and state and employee protections from discrimination and the opponents reactions to the ruling only cement the idea that they seem to argue against religion only when it is convenient. However, in this case it is not and they call for church and state to be intertwined—you simply cannot have it both ways.
Many Americans argue for workers rights but also argue for the separation of church and state. With the Hosanna-Tabor case in mind, having both is impossible. On one hand are the protections and government involvement granted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the regulations it has imposed on businesses; on the other hand is the idea of the separation of church and state, which the Supreme Court upheld in the ruling. So what is the best solution? Is it to impose government regulations on churches and other religious organizations or is it to grant exceptions to religious organizations? The answer is neither. The best answer would be to get government out of where it doesn’t belong and reign in the regulations placed on businesses and return to the free market policies of old—this would solve both the problem of businesses being overburdened with government regulations and would remove the government’s hand from religious proceedings and decisions.
Boston Ross can be reached at bross@spartans.ut.edu.