Joel-- Thanks for sending this along. I had not seen it. Given her position, the 10th Circuit probably got this one correct under standard ministerial exception reasoning. So the question is what to do about the social harm separate from her particular case. I have seen a number of these cases now, and women go into these positions assuming that they are covered by the state and federal anti-discrimination laws (and/or an assumption that religious employers will not act unfairly). Could states pass laws that require religious institutions to make explicit when a person is hired (for certain positions) that they are not subject to the requirements of the federal anti-discrimination laws? I know all the religious lobbyists would treat this as offensive, but there are enough women out there who have been treated like this that I think state legislatures should be thinking in these terms. But I assume there are those who would argue it violates some theory of autonomy? Marci Marci A. Hamilton Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Yeshiva University
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
