There is, of course, an exemption for religious positions in religious organizations in Title VII and it would be required in any event under the Free Exercise clause.
The all-or-nothing approach will never work in the freedom of religion area nor in the Supreme Court nor should it. The legislatures should make exemptions according to balancing interests and policies and resolving competing principles, as should the courts in interpreting and applying the constitution. This is absolutely typical.
On Sunday, March 13, 2005, at 12:27 PM, Jean Dudley wrote:
--
Now, to tie this in with the current discussion, I'm not sure that the example cited applies because I think priesthood is a volunteer position. Further, I'd say priesthood in the Catholic Church (or any other Christian demonination that uses the term) is a "calling", and not a profession. I could be *way* wrong on that, and will bow to greater knowledge.
Jean Dudley http://jeansvoice.blogspot.com Future Law Student. _______________________________________________
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017
Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567
2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Washington, DC 20008
http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/
_______________________________________________ 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.
