Terry Baynes | Reuters | May 16 2012
An appeals court on Wednesday revived a Florida teacher's lawsuit against a Christian school that fired her after she admitted to conceiving a child before her marriage.
Overturning a lower court ruling in the school's favor, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit found that Jarretta Hamilton was entitled to a trial on her claims of pregnancy discrimination by the Southland Christian School in St. Cloud, Florida.
The fourth-grade teacher informed administrators in April 2009 that she was pregnant and needed to take maternity leave. During the conversation, she admitted that she had conceived the child three weeks before her February wedding.
The school fired her a week later. Administrator John Ennis explained that "there are consequences for disobeying the word of God," according to the court opinion.
Hamilton sued the school in 2010 under a federal law that bars discrimination based on pregnancy, seeking compensation for lost wages and emotional distress.
A federal district court ruled in the school's favor before a trial, finding that Hamilton failed to establish that she was fired for her pregnancy rather than moral concerns over her premarital sex.
The three-judge appeals panel disagreed.
The Atlanta-based court pointed to evidence that the school may have been more concerned about Hamilton's request for leave than about her admission to having premarital sex.
Ennis expressed concern over finding a replacement teacher, Hamilton testified.
"Hamilton has established a genuine issue of material fact about the reason that Southland fired her. The ultimate issue is one for a jury to decide," Judge Edward Carnes wrote for the unanimous panel, sending the case back to the lower court for a trial.
David Gibbs, a lawyer for Southland Christian School, said in a statement that he would vigorously defend the school's religious rights before the district court. Edward Gay, who represented Hamilton, was not immediately available for comment.
Showing posts with label freedom of religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label freedom of religion. Show all posts
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Monday, April 16, 2012
David Marr & Jim Wallace: Gays and Lesbians Do Not Belong in the Classroom
Festival of Dangerous Ideas | October 2011
Exempt from anti-discrimination laws, religious organisations of all faiths have the right to decide who they employ in their schools, and who they sack, on questions of faith and morals. For many Australians the idea that gay men and lesbians don't belong in the classroom is an unjust anachronism, but parents are opting in large numbers to send their children to schools that offer a 'values-driven' education. If there is a place for faith in the classroom, does equality of opportunity have to take second place, or can religious values and equality be reconciled?
David Marr is an Australian journalist, author, and political commentator. He writes for the Sydney Morning Herald. Jim Wallace is the managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby.
Chaired by Ann Mossop
Watch David Marr and Jim Wallace debate here
Exempt from anti-discrimination laws, religious organisations of all faiths have the right to decide who they employ in their schools, and who they sack, on questions of faith and morals. For many Australians the idea that gay men and lesbians don't belong in the classroom is an unjust anachronism, but parents are opting in large numbers to send their children to schools that offer a 'values-driven' education. If there is a place for faith in the classroom, does equality of opportunity have to take second place, or can religious values and equality be reconciled?
David Marr is an Australian journalist, author, and political commentator. He writes for the Sydney Morning Herald. Jim Wallace is the managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby.
Chaired by Ann Mossop
Watch David Marr and Jim Wallace debate here
Saturday, November 5, 2011
The Greens’ Threat to Religious Freedom
Greg Smith | Quadrant | October 2011
The most recent report by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom paints a troubling picture. It describes the critical situation for millions of people who are suffering persecution, in many cases violent persecution, often sponsored by the state or governmental bodies in countries such as Burma, North Korea, Egypt, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, China, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Vietnam, among many others.
The situations in those countries remind me that I am blessed to live in Australia, which enjoys a high degree of religious freedom. That gratitude leads me to cherish the freedoms that we enjoy by ensuring that in an ever-changing society those freedoms are not diminished or lost. To borrow a phrase: “the price of freedom is eternal vigilance”.
Although adopting elements of other constitutions, the Australian Constitution retained the monarchy and Westminster parliamentary government from Britain. According to Justice McHugh in the High Court case of Australian Capital Television v Commonwealthin 1992: “the purpose of the Constitution was to further the institutions of representative government”.
In that sense, the Australian Constitution was overlaid onto an already existing tradition of legal jurisprudence which accepted the basic tenets of Westminster democracy. In the words of Justice Isaacs in 1926 in the case of Commonwealth v Kreglinger, the principle of responsible government: “is part of the fabric on which the written words of the Constitution are superimposed”. With that system came a series of principles and conventions which were unwritten but nevertheless fundamental to the operation of government and free society in Australia.
Viscount Bolingbroke, an eighteenth-century proponent of the principles of Westminster democracy, once said that the constitution is: “that assembly of laws, institutions and customs, derived from certain fixed principles of reason … that compose the general system, according to which the community has agreed to be governed”. That statement is particularly true of Australian constitutional law. The principles of representative and responsible government embodied in the Westminster system of government go well beyond the written words of the Constitution and embrace the laws, institutions, customs and principles which underpin it.
Fundamental to the principles of that system of government are the freedoms of speech, association, assembly, religion and movement, which can be traced back through the common law to the Magna Carta.
Therefore, with one main exception, the drafters of the Australian Constitution did not see it necessary to include a US-style bill of rights or other statement of principles guaranteeing the fundamental freedoms of those bound under it. Justice McHugh expressed this well in Australian Capital Television v Commonwealth:
The essential point is that fundamental freedoms of speech, association, assembly, religion and movement are indispensable to and inseparable from a system of responsible and representative government and are thus intrinsically embodied in Australian constitutional law.
To this general principle of avoiding “bill of rights”-style guarantees, there is one main exception found in section 116 of the Constitution which provides:
The most recent report by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom paints a troubling picture. It describes the critical situation for millions of people who are suffering persecution, in many cases violent persecution, often sponsored by the state or governmental bodies in countries such as Burma, North Korea, Egypt, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, China, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Vietnam, among many others.
The situations in those countries remind me that I am blessed to live in Australia, which enjoys a high degree of religious freedom. That gratitude leads me to cherish the freedoms that we enjoy by ensuring that in an ever-changing society those freedoms are not diminished or lost. To borrow a phrase: “the price of freedom is eternal vigilance”.
Although adopting elements of other constitutions, the Australian Constitution retained the monarchy and Westminster parliamentary government from Britain. According to Justice McHugh in the High Court case of Australian Capital Television v Commonwealthin 1992: “the purpose of the Constitution was to further the institutions of representative government”.
In that sense, the Australian Constitution was overlaid onto an already existing tradition of legal jurisprudence which accepted the basic tenets of Westminster democracy. In the words of Justice Isaacs in 1926 in the case of Commonwealth v Kreglinger, the principle of responsible government: “is part of the fabric on which the written words of the Constitution are superimposed”. With that system came a series of principles and conventions which were unwritten but nevertheless fundamental to the operation of government and free society in Australia.
Viscount Bolingbroke, an eighteenth-century proponent of the principles of Westminster democracy, once said that the constitution is: “that assembly of laws, institutions and customs, derived from certain fixed principles of reason … that compose the general system, according to which the community has agreed to be governed”. That statement is particularly true of Australian constitutional law. The principles of representative and responsible government embodied in the Westminster system of government go well beyond the written words of the Constitution and embrace the laws, institutions, customs and principles which underpin it.
Fundamental to the principles of that system of government are the freedoms of speech, association, assembly, religion and movement, which can be traced back through the common law to the Magna Carta.
Therefore, with one main exception, the drafters of the Australian Constitution did not see it necessary to include a US-style bill of rights or other statement of principles guaranteeing the fundamental freedoms of those bound under it. Justice McHugh expressed this well in Australian Capital Television v Commonwealth:
Although the makers of the Constitution were much influenced by the terms and structure of the Constitution of the United States and “felt the full fascination of its plan”, they rejected the United States example of a Bill of Rights to protect the people of the Commonwealth against the abuse of governmental power. They did so because they believed in the efficacy of the two institutions which formed the basis of the Constitutions of Great Britain and the Australian colonies—representative government and responsible government.The absence in the written document of the Australian Constitution of express rights such as those granted by the Bill of Rights under the US Constitution did not prevent the High Court in that case from finding a constitutional protection for freedom of communication. To the contrary, the system of representative government was the precise reason why such a right existed. In the words of Chief Justice Mason in that case: “Freedom of communication … is so indispensable to the efficacy of the system of representative government for which the Constitution makes provision that it is necessarily implied in the making of that provision.”
The essential point is that fundamental freedoms of speech, association, assembly, religion and movement are indispensable to and inseparable from a system of responsible and representative government and are thus intrinsically embodied in Australian constitutional law.
To this general principle of avoiding “bill of rights”-style guarantees, there is one main exception found in section 116 of the Constitution which provides:
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Speech by Ed Husic MP
Matter of Public Importance
February 22nd, 2011
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (4.12 pm)— I’ve often said that if you want to see some of the proudest Australians, take yourself to a Citizenship Ceremony.
On those days, when families are brought together, seeing others take the pledge to their new nation, you see some of the happiest faces in the country.
I have to admit my own heart bursts with pride watching the smiles, the looks that are exchanged, the arms on another person’s shoulder.
And every moment the bond between new citizen and new home deepens.
It is among the moments I live for as a Member of Parliament – and I share in that joy as people feel the uplifting power of a second chance, sensing a brighter future ahead.
Our new citizens feel they can grow in a nation free of persecution – one where democracy, freedom of thought, freedom of religion are core values, held dear by the nation – and expected to be cherished, nourished and protected by its citizens.
So many of us have shared those experiences in electorates across one of the greatest nations on the planet.
It’s a powerful experience because we are inspired by the outward demonstration of unity and commitment to common good.
But a commitment to a united and common good cannot be found upon divided ground.
Those before us – in this place – had the wisdom to recognise this.
Over the course of a quarter of a century they worked together to peel away a policy we rightly shun today – the White Australia Policy.
The policy had its birth in the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901, but in 1949 Minister Holt of the Menzies Government took the step of releasing the grip of this policy by allowing non-European refugees from World War II to remain in Australia – followed up by a decision in 1957 to allow certain non-Europeans with 15 years residence to become citizens.
The Menzies Government ditched the ‘dictation test” which had applicants undertake tests in languages they had no hope of knowing, such as Latin.
In 1966 then Minister Opperman announced applications would be received from non-Europeans.
Significantly, in 1973 the Whitlam Government introduced a specifically non-racially based immigration policy. It has been a cornerstone of policy for 38 years.
Unchallenged.
Until last week.
When three distinct events combined to create a firm image in the minds of many that levering off religion for political advantage is something not being pursued by a fringe group – but by a major party in this country.
February 22nd, 2011
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (4.12 pm)— I’ve often said that if you want to see some of the proudest Australians, take yourself to a Citizenship Ceremony.
On those days, when families are brought together, seeing others take the pledge to their new nation, you see some of the happiest faces in the country.
I have to admit my own heart bursts with pride watching the smiles, the looks that are exchanged, the arms on another person’s shoulder.
And every moment the bond between new citizen and new home deepens.
It is among the moments I live for as a Member of Parliament – and I share in that joy as people feel the uplifting power of a second chance, sensing a brighter future ahead.
Our new citizens feel they can grow in a nation free of persecution – one where democracy, freedom of thought, freedom of religion are core values, held dear by the nation – and expected to be cherished, nourished and protected by its citizens.
So many of us have shared those experiences in electorates across one of the greatest nations on the planet.
It’s a powerful experience because we are inspired by the outward demonstration of unity and commitment to common good.
But a commitment to a united and common good cannot be found upon divided ground.
Those before us – in this place – had the wisdom to recognise this.
Over the course of a quarter of a century they worked together to peel away a policy we rightly shun today – the White Australia Policy.
The policy had its birth in the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901, but in 1949 Minister Holt of the Menzies Government took the step of releasing the grip of this policy by allowing non-European refugees from World War II to remain in Australia – followed up by a decision in 1957 to allow certain non-Europeans with 15 years residence to become citizens.
The Menzies Government ditched the ‘dictation test” which had applicants undertake tests in languages they had no hope of knowing, such as Latin.
In 1966 then Minister Opperman announced applications would be received from non-Europeans.
Significantly, in 1973 the Whitlam Government introduced a specifically non-racially based immigration policy. It has been a cornerstone of policy for 38 years.
Unchallenged.
Until last week.
When three distinct events combined to create a firm image in the minds of many that levering off religion for political advantage is something not being pursued by a fringe group – but by a major party in this country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)