Justice Alito Makes Statement in Discrimination Case of Bisexual Lawyer, Suggests Attorneys Can Be Religious ‘Messengers’
By: ELURA NANOS
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A Seattle-based Christian group that refused to hire a bisexual attorney was denied a Supreme Court hearing on Monday, though two justices on the high court’s right flank were clearly receptive to the religious organization’s position.
In a six-page statement , Justice Samuel Alito pushed for a more expansive view of the so-called “ ministerial exception ” to federal anti-discrimination law. Joined by Justice Clarence Thomas , Alito’s statement in Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission v. Matthew S. Woods represents one in a series from Alito on giving religious groups latitude from civil rights law. All of the justices appeared to agree the case is not yet ripe for review.
The controversy behind the case began in 2017 when attorney Matthew Woods sued Union Gospel Mission (the “Mission”) in state court in Washington. Woods said the Christian group violated federal anti-discrimination law by refusing to hire him as a staff attorney with its Open Door Legal Services (ODLS) programs.
ODLS is a free legal-aid clinic operated by the Mission — a nonprofit Christian ministry. The clinic is religious in nature and its staff conducts religious activities with its patrons, such as praying with them and discussing Jesus. The clinic requires that employees regularly attend church, receive a reference from a pastor, and provide information about their “personal relationship with Jesus.”
Woods was a former summer intern and volunteer with ODLS. When ODLS posted an open position for a staff attorney, Woods spoke to the director about applying. In response, the director told Woods that he was not “able to apply,” because the employee handbook explicitly forbade “homosexual behavior.” Woods applied anyway, and in his cover letter, asked ODLS to change its practices.
ODLS refused to change its policies, and the director explained to Woods that his “employment application was not viable because he did not comply with the Mission’s religious lifestyle requirements, did not actively attend church, and did not exhibit a passion for helping clients develop a personal relationship with Jesus.” Woods sued, alleging that the Mission discriminated against him based on his sexual orientation, which is illegal under the Washington State constitution.
The Washington State Supreme Court ruled in Woods’ favor, holding that discrimination based on sexual orientation does indeed violate the Washington State constitution. That court, however, was clear to point out that the discrimination was problematic because Woods would have been an employee. It elaborated, explaining that the state constitution would not have been offended if Woods’ position had been one of a “minister.” The court then remanded the case to “the trial court to determine whether staff attorneys can qualify as ministers.”
Justice Alito echoed his rulings in recent cases involving the “ministerial exception” in schools, writing that the Washington Supreme Court was wrong to believe the exception applies only to “formal ministers.” Rather, he reminded, “our precedents suggest that the guarantee of church autonomy is not so narrowly confined.”
Quoting his own concurrence in a recent case, Alito wrote, that “religious groups’ ‘very existence is dedicated to the
collective expression and propagation of shared religious ideals,’ and ‘there can be no doubt that the messenger matters’ in that religious expression.'” Staff attorneys may well constitute “messengers” in this context, Alito wrote.
The justice then continued, warning against depriving religious institutions of their freedom to choose its own messengers:
To force religious organizations to hire messengers and other personnel who do not share their religious views would undermine not only the autonomy of many religious organizations but also their continued viability. If States could compel religious organizations to hire employees who fundamentally disagree with them, many religious non-profits would be extinguished from participation in public life—perhaps by those who disagree with their theological views most vigorously. Driving such organizations from the public square would not just infringe on their rights to freely exercise religion but would greatly impoverish our Nation’s civic and religious life.
Alito remarked that Woods’ case is one that “illustrates that serious risk,” and commented that the Washington Supreme Court may have ruled in a way directly in conflict with the United States Constitution.
The mission’s attorney John Bursch took Alito’s statement as an auspicious sign for the future of the litigation.
“Churches and religious organizations have the First Amendment right to hire those who share their beliefs without being punished by the government,” Bursch told Law&Crime in an email. “That’s why, even though the Supreme Court decided not to take this case yet, we are pleased to see the statement from some of the justices on the court saying that the ‘Washington Supreme Court’s decision may warrant our review in the future’ once the case reaches a later stage of litigation.”
Alito allowed that the case is not yet ready for SCOTUS review, writing that “threshold issues would make it difficult for us to review this case” at the current time.
Legal experts were quick to call out the conservative justices’ statement as an indication of their intent to expand the ministerial exception further. Slate ‘s Mark Joseph Stern tweeted, “Alito, joined by Thomas, wants to expand religious employers’ “ministerial exception” from civil rights law, giving these employers total freedom to discriminate against any job applicant or employee who does not share the employer’s religious views."
Zack Ford , the press secretary for the advocacy group Alliance for Justice, tweeted: “There’s no subtlety here. Alito and Thomas want employers to have free rein to discriminate against workers simply for being in a same-sex relationship if that violates the employer’s religious beliefs.”
Woods’ attorney did not immediately respond to Law&Crime’s email requesting comment.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
40 visitors
I am kinda torn on this. For one thing, why work for an organization that doesn't want you.
He knows it is a religious organization. If he was religious I could understand, then it would only be about discrimination yet I think he only wanted to do this to try to make some kind of point.
Alito's statement is ludicrous at best.
Apparently Alito believe that religious organizations should be able to make up their own definition of what "minister" means, adapting it to whatever situation they want to use it for.
I don't care for his point. It reminds me of some second amendment people that says there should be complete autonomy. That they should be able to do whatever they want and hide behind a religious screen.
Yet in this case, it seems like they are reading more into it than there is.
the 4 thumpers on the SCOTUS will usually drag the other 2 rwnj's along with them.
In this case I actually think the man is harming his cause. If the SC ruled against him, he is setting things back and making things worse.
That's what they were hired for.
alito and thomas are the 2 main reasons for a needed SCOTUS code of conduct.
[deleted]
How does this.
Coincide with this.
You may not agree with the Mission; but it is operating a non profit legal-aid clinic. No one is forced to use their services; but if they do they expect religion to be a part of it. Since this individual isn't religious; and doesn't show enough "zeal" (for lack of a better word) trying to help clients find Jesus; he doesn't qualify for the job. This is the same as an atheist, Satanist, etc applying for the job. They cannot handle the religious end; so they wouldn't be hired.
If he interned there he must know the job qualifications; and that he doesn't fit them. The Mission had plenty of time to see if he was qualified while he was an intern. Sounds like he is out to make a name for himself; and get a quick buck on the side in settlement from the Mission.
unamerican thumper madrasas don't deserve tax exempt status. organized religion is subservient to the rule of law.
That was kinda my point. I think they have a right to hire a religious person for the job.
He is not religious and I don't know why he is dragging being bisexual into it. It sounds like he is just using that as a justification for a lawsuit.
If he was religious and was denied for his sexual preference I think he would have a point.
He is kinda saying that anyone should hire anybody even if they are not a fit for the organization.
On another foot, I think the justices and the courts are reading a lot more into it than necessary.
The point for debate here is this:
Should this non-profit, licensed under federal law, be allowed to narrowly define "out of bounds" rules and policies for itself ("lifestyle requirements") that exclude suitably qualified persons, religion notwithstanding. That is, if the individual is qualified to attorney, should his sexuality, not affecting his duties, be a rationale not to hire?
Do you agree with this (question) or if not what would you change or say is the (legal) question?
A lot of this is not about his sexuality though.
Why not? (I see it as a "judicial" filter to screen out undesirables who do not hold to the "gospel" that he either can't or refuses to serve.) The mere mention that a lawyer or any employee following federal law standards and guidelines should shoulder the responsibility of "ministering" or being a minister of a specific "message" is a "gotcha."
What say you, friend Ender?
If their mission is for religious people to seek out a religious lawyer, who am I to stop them.
Understood. Normally that would be a suitable rationale. But, the 'complex' question under federal law (leading to a SCOTUS "showdown" eventually) is this: Why should an otherwise qualified professional lawyer be denied to serve in a non-profit enabled (for the good of the citizenry) and not taxed by the federal taxing authority?
According to the text, ODLS is a public service operating for "patrons" whom it would would like to lead to religious life. For that purpose (alone) it could hire and direct "patrons" to the staff lawyers who are of faith for voluntary "conversion," and otherwise just give "ordinary" legal advice to those wanting or having a specific legal need.
Where am I wrong? (I humbly submit I could be.)
Talking about taxes is a whole 'nother can of worms...Haha
I know it may not be popular in Liberal circles but I think that an organization has a right to hire the people they think most fits in with what they want to do, portray or accomplish.
Why should a religious person that went to an organization that specializes in having religious lawyers, have a non religious lawyer.
Kinda defeats the purpose Imo.
I would say no, but clearly Alito leans towards yes.
So according to Alito, if a religion believed and taught that black skin was the mark of Cain and that blacks are accursed beings and thus their Church refused to hire blacks for any Church staff position or "messenger", then the Church should not be compelled to hire someone that could "undermine" the autonomy of the religious organization or their religious belief of black inferiority.
What it comes down to is whether or not a persons age, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, skin color or disability are protected or not. Apparently according to Alito and many conservatives their religious freedoms should trump individual civil rights.
If the religion is run as a private club and does not get tax exempt status then they can refuse black and gay membership all they want, they can even refuse to hire or allow female members, that's their right. There is no law that says individual Americans aren't allowed to be racist, sexist or total self-absorbed assholes, they can refuse to allow blacks, Muslims, women, elderly, lgtbq Americans or anyone else into their private home or private club. But if they want to be a Church open to the public with all the religious tax exemptions then they should be required to follow Federal and State accommodation laws.
It is about diversity. There are areas of our society that want all the benefits of it, while not participating in the 'whole' of society. That is what government's role is trying to pierce. To move these "stuck up places" to being more open to all of society. Not picking and choosing winners. Now then, if this organization wants a religious exemption - give up its non-profit status and "go private." That would suffice under current law.
Mind you, Washington State court has 'spoken' legally against the nonprofit, but of course, now that we have a "conservative" SCOTUS, conservatives try to tackle all their issues "at the top" court to get a more 'recent' rewrite of universal law.
That was one of my earlier points as well. The outcome at a level like the SC may not produce the outcome they desire. In fact have the opposite of what they want.
Precisely. Astute. Emphatically. In fact, you drew the correlation that I have been rolling over for several days now (on other threads) in my mind. Some churches in the past, and is now in the present, attempting to repress citizens RELEASED from under its, their 'rigors' and doctrines using lawyerly talk to recapture society. I resist their clerical "ministrations." I want a just society, not a fake justice society. Not a society that pretends justice, but one that is actually looking to do what is decent, wholesome, and intelligent for all those who exist honorably in our country. If a church or some churches want to hide themselves in the 'folds' of lawyerly language to do 'dark works' of deceit, and injury to otherwise good people—I stand apart from that set of churches utterly!
Therein lies the rub. Woods IS a religious person. The ONLY thing that they cite for disqualifying him to be PAID for his services is his sexual orientation.
Going by this story, they were hinting that he wasn't. Never attended church, etc.
Of course they would. That's false.
In fact, as a volunteer and intern, he signed the "Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission Statement of Faith Agreement" which states:
I found that last ironic since they don't deny that he is a Christian, they just seem to be claiming that he's not their kind of 'Christian'.
I guess they cherry pick with whom they truly have 'spiritual unity'.
Thanks. I seem to be getting partial information and conflicting stories on this.
The court documents are available online and linked in the seed. A little more research led me to their online 'Faith Agreement' for volunteers and interns, which Woods cites in his court filing.
Great 'drill-down' work! "Big Ups!"
That's a FALSE assumption on your part Ronin.
He qualified just fine when they didn't PAY him.
Again, he fit the job qualifications just fine when they accepted him as an UNPAID volunteer for 3 YEARS.
Yes, and 'the Mission' allowed him to represent them and their 'clients' for 3 YEARS.
Looks like he's out get the 'Mission' to follow state law.
He was good enough for them when he was a summer intern and a volunteer. It all changed when he wanted pay and benefits
I don't think it was right where they told him he could not apply.
I thought all places were suppose to at least accept applications.
they wore the christian bakery bullshit out last year. they'll try to run this new persecution gig for awhile.
Implying the application was 'accepted" and denied by "the Mission."
That's the ticket. Throw in an application with demands.
That doesn't sit right with me. He knew the Mission's policy. Why apply? And then to throw in demands. Do you think he was looking for a law suit?
Woods sued:
1. Because if you think you have a legal problem that has a court remedy; it is what one should do: "Take 'em to court.
2. Woods, a lawyer, knew the law of Washington State that it is illegal to not hire based on sexuality (discrimination).
3. Likely, that the non-profit is using the first amendment religion clause to hire only those persons it chooses to hire—breaking the spirit of the law against discrimination.
4. Woods was "good enough" as bi-sexual person to not be screened out and it is stigmatizing to learn that there is a "ceiling" on going higher—something that every repressed group in society is sensitive to experiencing.
Something about all this just doesn't sit right with me.
At first I felt the same way. These are complex questions in law. Because of the intent in the constitution to let society take its own independent positions. As a faithful Christian believer in Jesus Christ and a homosexual person I can see the issue as "leave the non-profit to its own associations" and at the same time see the issue that the federal government was trying to remedy: the "Other" grouped in our shared society who are never given any leverage to get out from under suppression (as they are "pursued" by those who actively take actions of exclusion towards them.)
Think of it this way, in the 1960s, Lester Maddox, former Georgia Governor, before he was governor, he had a court case under "freedom of association" wherein he 'argued' - as a businessman (in the 60s) the constitution gave him freedom to ASSOCIATE with whomever he wills, and not to associate with whomsoever he would not! As a result, he CHOSE not to associate his businesses (restaurants) with black Americans.
The courts denied his claim (argument) to freedom of association as a right under the constitution.
It may very well be they did not want him because of his sexuality.
It just seems to me, at this point, he has failed to make his case.
I added to my comment at 4.1.7 re: freedom of association. Thank you for this invigorating exchange! Trout, too!
Thank you. You are always kind.
I like many others here appreciate quality discussions, even the 'rough spots,' where we can grow together in understanding over just 'thrashing' in political bier patches accomplishing nothing.
I think when the Court does finally weigh in on this, there might be a focus on sincerity. While the Court has generally refused to say what religious belief is, they have sought to determine if practices and claims of religious organizations are made in good faith and beliefs sincerely held.
Here, it seems as though the church legal clinic is genuinely looking for people to perform ministerial functions, while they also happen to be lawyers, and they made that position clear in advance. Do I think that’s a smart legal approach? Hell no! But these people aren’t living my life.
So ultimately, I think a ministerial function is going to be whatever a church says it is, so long as it is presented in good faith.
Here's an interesting little tid bit from the 'Mission's' employment questionnaire:
Again, that documentation is from the linked case files.
So, the 'Mission' pretends to want to work and cooperate with other Christians, yet they insist that they can deny employment to 'other Christians whose doctrine may be different than their own'.
It drips with hypocrisy.
It's called "selective differences."
and did not exhibit a passion for helping clients develop a personal relationship with Jesus.
So to be clear, having a personal relationship with a living person of your gender is bad, but having a relationship with a 2,000 year old dead person of your gender is good.
So they were good with him until he applied for a paid position? I wonder how many gays ODLS has turned away.