[blindlaw] Re the ADA in churches

[Angie Matney]

Hello than, after reading your message, I realize mine didn't make much sense. It has been a long week. 

On Sep 7, 2012, at 9:06 PM, "Daniel McBride" <dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Elizabeth:
> 
> In principle, I believe your view to be correct.  However, in the instance
> being discussed, one's first amendment priveleges can be waived just as any
> other.
> 
> It is my opinion that any religious institution that accepts federal funds,
> for any reason, waives their first amendment privileges; it comes with the
> territory of taking the money.
> 
> Also, I know that all 501(c)(3) non-profits, including religious
> institutions, are subject to having their first amendment privileges
> curtailed.  For example, somewhere around 2007, a Methodist church in Los
> Angeles had a visiting pastor one weekend that spoke vociferously against
> the Iraq war.  For doing so, they had their non-profit status revoked and
> were made to pay their previous year's taxes that had been exempted.
> 
> Also, a man named Texe Marrs runs a Christian ministry in Austin, Texas
> called Power of Prophecy.  Mr. Marrs also has a weekly radio broadcast in
> which he discusses politics regularly.  In the early 2000s, he was visited
> by the IRS and had his non-profit status revoked and made to pay past exempt
> taxes.
> 
> So, in some circumstances, your first amendment privileges can be restricted
> simply by becoming a 501(c)(3).
> 
> There is not a single privilege delineated within the Constitution that
> cannot be waived.  Also, forget not, that all of said privileges can be
> revoked under the thirteenth amendment.
> 
> Dan McBride
> Fort Worth, Texas
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
> Behalf Of Elizabeth Rene
> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 4:39 PM
> To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> Subject: [blindlaw] Re the ADA in churches
> 
> Whether the ADA applies to churches may have to be decided on a case by case
> basis.  But the Supreme Court's decision seems to say that the ADA, or any
> other employment-related statute, cannot be enforced against churches in
> matters between them and their ministers (and here I'm reading "lay and
> ordained, volunteer or professional, nuns and monks."  Because judicial
> oversight of the relationship between a minister and his or her religious
> superiors would violate the First Amendment's separation of church and
> state, and would infringe the constitutional rights of religious faith
> communities to govern themselves according to their own belief systems.  The
> court's decision was based upon the Constitution, and not on the ADA itself.
> 
> Anyone needing to know whether the ADA could help them in relation to a
> specific church-related situation would need to consult his or her own
> attorney to see whether the ADA could apply to the particular facts.
> 
> From where I sit, getting a faith community to adopt the ADA's principles
> might be more easily accomplished through education and persuasion than
> through enforcement.
> 
> Just witness what's happened in churches over the past thirty years or so to
> see how change does and does not come about.
> 
> Elizabeth
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> blindlaw:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/angie.matney%40gmail.com