this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2025
11 points (100.0% liked)

Legal News

399 readers
158 users here now

International and local legal news.

Basic rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Sensitive topics need NSFW flagSome cases involve sensitive topics. Use common sense and if you think that the content might trigger someone, post it under NSFW flag.
3. Instance rules applyAll lemmy.zip instance rules listed in the sidebar will be enforced.

Icon attribution | Banner attribution

If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
BrikoX@lemmy.zip
11
Is helping people with disabilities a religious act? The core question in a Supreme Court case (www.usatoday.com)
submitted 4 days ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/legalnews@lemmy.zip
3 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MrJameGumb@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

This seems like the religious right trying to force the governments hand on education more than anything else.

If it's decided that the religious aspect of a church doing supposedly secular work is superfluous and thus covered by government services like unemployment, then they think that opens the door for them to get government funding for their shitty religious charter schools that treat their bible like it's a science textbook

It seems they're willing to start paying unemployment tax if it means they can can start getting handouts to open their cult member training centers... er, uh, I mean "schools"

[–] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It can be, I suppose. It can also be a secular act. This is without knowing what effect the classification will have on the law, what is that effect?

[–] jacksilver@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

It's a terribly worded title. The issue is that the church wants to be able to create separate corporations to limit their liability (lawsuit protection/etc.) while still getting to treat that entity like it primarily exists as a religious institution. The reason why is so they don't have to follow typical obligations like unemployment benefits (which churches can apparently not pay into ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ).

The church can already do that, if they house everything under one corporation/entity, but that opens them up to more risk (think lawsuits).

So the question is, should religious institutions be able to skirt regular labor laws for non-religious entities?

There are two primary issues from my perspective.

  1. This makes it easier for religious institutions like churches to hide money from lawsuits (good example is all the child molestation cases).
  2. It makes it easier for "religious institutions" to take advantage of their congregation for cheaper/less protected labor.

However, I personally don't think religious organizations should get preferential treatment at all.