Interesting Legal Case

[BoulderDawg]

Here's something I found interesting:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/...oy.banned.kare

This is a story about a 13 year old severly autistic kid. Seems like his family really enjoys the church they go to but the church is afraid of the boy. He has become violent at times and has done some other anti-social activities during services. To make a long story short they, more or less, banned him from the church.

This raises some interesting legal questions: We are all free to worship however we please but does that mean a church can deny our worship due to something like mental retardation that is out of our control?

When I read this story it sounded to me as if the church simply refuses to deal with the situation and it's the first time I've ever heard of anything like this although I sure there are thousands of mentally retarded and autistic worshippers attending church every week without problems.

[MasterKiller]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one--Spock.

We had a similar case where a boy with MS wanted to play soccer on a regular team, but he uses a walker. The athletic commission denied his claim because his walker presented a hazard to other players, but his parents refused to back down and took it to court. We already have a league specifically for handicapped kids to play in, but this kid didn't want to play in the handicapped league.

His parents never stopped to think about how his presence would affect the other kids on the team, or even how his lack of mobility would be a detriment to kids who practice hard and want to win, or even how it would affect the kids on the opposing teams.

Very selfish, imo.

Eventually, his parents lost

[David Jamieson]

Church, believe it or not, is not a public place and is within it's rights to deny entry to those the clergy of said church deem a threat.

If the safety of other members cannot be guaranteed in some way shape or form, then the family of the child will have to figure out how to restrain the child to a reasonable degree in order to assure the congregation.

I wouldn't want to go to a place on a regular basis where surprise aggression is even a possibility. Unless of course that place is a martial arts school, in which case it is appropriate.

Being handicapped doesn't mean you have an open door wherever. You still have to consider the needs of others too. a disability doesn't by default make you a good person or a saint. If a person is incapable of maintaining a modicum of decorum in a social setting, then they should be removed.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Here's something I found interesting:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/...oy.banned.kare

This is a story about a 13 year old severly autistic kid. Seems like his family really enjoys the church they go to but the church is afraid of the boy. He has become violent at times and has done some other anti-social activities during services. To make a long story short they, more or less, banned him from the church.

This raises some interesting legal questions: We are all free to worship however we please but does that mean a church can deny our worship due to something like mental retardation that is out of our control?

When I read this story it sounded to me as if the church simply refuses to deal with the situation and it's the first time I've ever heard of anything like this although I sure there are thousands of mentally retarded and autistic worshippers attending church every week without problems.

Not a very Christian attitude...

[Judge Pen]

Church, believe it or not, is not a public place and is within it's rights to deny entry to those the clergy of said church deem a threat.

If the safety of other members cannot be guaranteed in some way shape or form, then the family of the child will have to figure out how to restrain the child to a reasonable degree in order to assure the congregation.

I wouldn't want to go to a place on a regular basis where surprise aggression is even a possibility. Unless of course that place is a martial arts school, in which case it is appropriate.

Being handicapped doesn't mean you have an open door wherever. You still have to consider the needs of others too. a disability doesn't by default make you a good person or a saint. If a person is incapable of maintaining a modicum of decorum in a social setting, then they should be removed.

I believe that you are correct (at least in the United States). Churches are free to discriminate in ways that other "public places" are not. Now I'm not a civil rights lawyer and I'm sure that there are exceptions (linked to certain tax benefits that churches enjoy) but the idea is to try to keep the church and the state as separate as possible. I've even had tort cases dismissed based upon this principal and that a trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the inner "ecclesiastical polity" of a church and it's beliefs. They're limits of course (otherwise churches could break all kinds of laws under the ambit of belief. It's a very interesting area once you start looking at it.

[IronWeasel]

Not a very Christian attitude...

Yeah. It must not be a Christian church...

If he spazzez out and hits someone, shouldn't they just turn the other cheek?

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

They do break all kinds of laws. They are full of sexual predators who NEVER see a court room, let alone a conviction or a Jail cell. They just get moved to a new position in another church across the country.

[Judge Pen]

They do break all kinds of laws. They are full of sexual predators who NEVER see a court room, let alone a conviction or a Jail cell. They just get moved to a new position in another church across the country.

True or not, the Court's still have jurisdiction over those types of crimes and torts. Whether they get caught or not is another issue.

[mawali]

Here's something I found interesting:
This is a story about a 13 year old severly autistic kid. Seems like his family really enjoys the church they go to but the church is afraid of the boy. He has become violent at times and has done some other anti-social activities during services. To make a long story short they, more or less, banned him from the church.

This raises some interesting legal questions: We are all free to worship however we please but does that mean a church can deny our worship due to something like mental retardation that is out of our control?

When I read this story it sounded to me as if the church simply refuses to deal with the situation and it's the first time I've ever heard of anything like this although I sure there are thousands of mentally retarded and autistic worshippers attending church every week without problems.

Is it moral, legal or ethical? If it is legal, then $$$signs because this is the American way!

It would be devious to see how this turns out because the presumptive tyranny of those who claim they are the majority would say "Just leave the church and find another"!! How's that for a solution to life's problems!

Talent on loan from a Creator!

[sanjuro_ronin]

I think that the church should have made some sort of accommodation for the boy and his family, perhaps hold some sort of shorter service designated specifically for him, and if he was able to demonstrate appropriate behavior after a period of time, try to re-integrate him back into the rest of the congregation: bottom line, it takes compromise on both ends

Not sure why you would bring common sense into this, what are you thinking man !?!?!

[Black Jack II]

I was just listening to this case this morning.

The kid is a disruption, he pulls people onto his lap, one a young girl, he jumps into people's cars in the middle of service and revs the engine. The church has gone above and beyond and offered to come to the families house and perform a private mass.

The mother is an ass. The kid is over 6 feet tall and 225 lbs and is a loose cannon.

Let's not even get into the discussion on autism and how some people use it for a crutch for kids who are just misbehaved anyway.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The church has gone above and beyond and offered to come to the families house and perform a private mass.

If that is the case then, case closed.
Options have been offered, if they are not accepted then banning is justifiable.

[BoulderDawg]

The solution here is simple. At each service have two able bodied men to serve as escorts for the boy and take him out at the first signs of disruptions.

Frankly I don't know what the big deal is. Surely their church is big enough that they could find maybe a dozen men that would volunteer for such duty. Also if more help was needed if is only a few feet away.

At least in my view this church sounds a little to prim and proper for my taste. I'm wondering if this isn't a country club church and the boy's family just doesn't make enough money to be treated equally.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The solution here is simple. At each service have two able bodied men to serve as escorts for the boy and take him out at the first signs of disruptions.

Frankly I don't know what the big deal is. Surely their church is big enough that they could find maybe a dozen men that would volunteer for such duty. Also if more help was needed if is only a few feet away.

At least in my view this church sounds a little to prim and proper for my taste. I'm wondering if this isn't a country club church and the boy's family just doesn't make enough money to be treated equally.

Well, there's a walking law suit right there.
And these "volunteers" are trained to deal with an autistic child?, they can escort him out without hurting him or anyone else in the process?

[Black Jack II]

The solution here is simple. At each service have two able bodied men to serve as escorts for the boy and take him out at the first signs of disruptions.

That is totally absurd.

It is NOT the church's job to man handle some kid who act's out physically. It is not their job to parent. It is the church's job to make sure the rest of it's congregation is safe from harm when under it's auspice.

Having the aggressive kid banned is one of these options. As already stated, they have offered to come to the kid's house, on their own time, and do a private mass but the mother states that it is part of her faith to attend church on Sunday's.

Which btw is bs, it does not state anywhere that you have to go to church on a Sunday and even if it did, you cannot endanger the welfare of others.