4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs. By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group's right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments. According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.[22] The purpose of the "ministerial exception" is not to determine whether the dismissal was indeed done on religious grounds, but to ensure that the decision to dismiss the minister exclusively belongs to the religious institution. It is "not to safeguard a church's decision to fire a minister only when it is made for a religious reason. The exception instead ensures that the authority to select and control who will minister to the faithful—a matter 'strictly ecclesiastical'—is the church's alone."[23] The United States Supreme Court conceded that Perich was not a minister. Nevertheless, Hosanna-Tabor held her out as one, especially since being a "called" teacher required a significant amount of religious training and even a formal process of commissioning. Even Perich held herself out as a minister, accepting tax concessions available to employees earning compensation "in the exercise of the ministry." After she was terminated, she wrote the Synod and said that "I feel that God is leading me to serve in the teaching ministry. . . I am anxious to be in the teaching ministry again soon."[24] Moreover, like a minister, she taught religion in Hosanna Tabor, "reflecting a role in conveying the Church's message and carrying out its mission."[25] Her duties included "lead[ing] others toward Christian maturity"[26] and "teach[ing] faithfully the Word of God, the Sacred Scriptures, in its truth and purity and as set forth in all the symbolical books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church."[27] Ultimately, the decision of the Court of Appeals was reversed, and the summary dismissal of Perich's employment discrimination case was upheld. Hosanna-Tabor concludes with: The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important. But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission. When a minister who has been fired sues her church alleging that her termination was discriminatory, the First Amendment has struck the balance for us. The church must be free to choose those who will guide it on its way.[28] The right to work is imbued with public interest, so much that the Constitution affords full protection to labor.[29] Employer-employee relations between religious institutions and their ministers, however, will involve matters inherently religious in nature. Considering that the Constitution prohibits the State from entangling itself in religious disputes, resolving the issue of who to employ as ministers and who to personify their beliefs is best left to religious institutions. After all, in ministry and missionary work, the right to wage should only be incidental. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66079 13/24