term in nation of ministers as it relates to where the courts are getting involved in whether or not they should be hired terminated or kept on this case does not involve that this case involves a contract as to what these are to be administered if the minister is terminated is complaining that he was wrongfully terminated back here rather he is complaining vet he a contract was  money from the church maybe they're wonderful deal in attendance because you're not meeting in the way you want or maybe they don't like your sermons and that has to do with doctrine billion to attract new souls to christ to cultivate new investor traits there has to be something design a team of basically said we're not going to make a congregation have a ministry they don't want it and we're not here to say that he should be reinstated we're not here to say anything to your exact point there is no religious doctrine involved in this case one would spirit is use that attendance occur a thirty two percent decrease in sunday morning worship attended a wreath are the quote supposed to just to figure out why it seems to me the reason want him anymore if people get up and testify in a courtroom i didn't like the way he was operating hey that's not spiritual if they get up and say i don't like the way he was baptizing children hard about a trial it looks like they're going to put on evidence to explain why the decreases in membership and b they are saying it's about area provides spiritual leadership and a decrease in contributions occur and presumably they're going to be group put their faith in the hands of their ministers requiring a church to accept and retain an unwanted minister without any statement as to why they were punishing the church for failing to do so intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision out factually here what was going on ok when it played to filed a motion for summary judgment the defense responded no where in that response was an issue of we have to say something here about spirit religion so he gave me the opportunity she did so the matter was brought before the court and the side by the org and if you look at the opportunity given to the defense in raising those issues raising the issue of religion saying they didn't like the way he preached they didn't like the way he baptized they didn't like the way he performed religious activities that's not in any of their briefing that's not in any of their arguments  this day what is it about his religious endeavors that were not liked war and i see my how time for me just finish up will start what is it that is religious in this case was preaching that's the end of the inquiry as a lawyer on the other side i can't question that it's a matter credibility at that point and i don't mean in any way to mean religion in any way but if a yoga instructor  thank you my name is david bromberg please the court i represent six not zion missionary baptist church pittsburgh i'd just like to pick up two things from the previous discussion started with judge schwartz questions regarding what kind of trial we have to have here and my friend on the other side says that we just have to pretend that they're it but church as a religious and and say that these these issues are dealt with diminished registered membership of the church diminished attendance at worship services diminished ties are somehow non religious considerations and that the court a trial court can hold a trial that will allow it to assess the credibility of the church and its judgment that this was a matter of spiritual leadership failure by setting aside the inherent religiosity of membership decisions and tied in decisions and worship attendance decisions which i believe this court is addressing partly ask you case the church made a judgment based deal with each other on the terms as they as they might agree on a contract not all you're on your correct those in a table well in a contract case so didn't address the contract issue but would pose in a tape or did do was give us the framework for how we analyze these matters and tells us that the free believe that in that case you had a different form of contract and so that ended i think the other part element of that case is it the stage of the cases in the cross come about or so i think the issue here in looking at you know for the principle trust him out of the rule the trust has set out was that any claim that limits the right of the church to religious organization to select a religious minister fails under the under the minister exception and then where there had been a voluntary we would not be terminated for no reason at all but that he could be terminated for cause and that gets us right back to the issue that is before this court whether or not the court can substitute it judgment for the judgment of the church as it relates to the church saw all the contract claim is very weak and i think you see that in just the court's opinion that the construction of the contract contract claim requires reading out the provision that allows for material breach reading out the language allowed other rights provided by law for terminations and inserting the word only to modify the last two types of cause and so the church saw it as a very weak claim but you didn't mind putting the issue of whether it should be hired or fired  before the court on the merits without ministerial exception you are i think that the church would have been well advised to raise the issue earlier but when it didn't should we say well then they really didn't think that there was going to be free exercise issue and so in a contract you can potentially imagine a situation where the church makes the free choice about the relationship of the minister but not the structural component the structural component is the question  were regarding interference with the choice of the church but also the church this court could find that kind of that secondary portion of the analysis we're going to be getting into entanglement with the deciding religious matters right  and say well that wasn't the real reason we really were motivated by that and this is precisely what justice alito and kagan get to they say to gauge the possibility incredibility of those those arguments are going to have to address questions of religious doctrine and we're in the situation where that where there's a big churches preserve the rights to terminate for a cause as we have here some narrow issue that's before this court term a nation for a cause where they have preserved that right there's no these kind of determinations and he said you know in the abrahamic faiths a steamer moses was chosen to lead the people and he strongly david was chosen to slay a giant and looking at those who are secular quite furia those may not have been the best choices space across the board you know i think just a couple more quick points my friend the other side says that this issue is not about you know termination accepting the analysis that issues of membership issues of tiding are somehow non religious matters that a court can look behind and then i think ask you addresses that and says you know what's good for the church is inherently a question of the church ca the civil courts can answer but it's also gives me what me which church here with six million sign would say is an impoverished view of religion right a big part of their religious exercise isn't just preaching it isn't just baptisms it's also doing things like running the food kitchen right and they're motivated by verses like isaiah fifty six that says the religious duties the fast that god chooses are things like releasing removing the yoke and releasing the oppressed right and so if we accept a view that says only what said from the pope but it's something that courts can't look behind we're diminishing the ability for religious exercise to to be a fully or thing and we will shrink the street of religious autonomy that strong record after a nine month investigation into church meetings and a sixteen page germination about why reverend lee's leadership was insufficient but it is a very very important case because this case goes to that that fundamental that with reason that the numbers where matter station of people were staying away people weren't giving something right to that and is it up us to up to make an inquiry into why the why they didn't want him and one drawn to him as a minister one of the issue is whether or not it was for a just cause or not for cause and if the issue is we were not drawn to him that would be religious because the courts would never get involved in that so by definition any cause related to his inability to minister would be not for cause it would just be we're not going to get involved in that because it can't be ministers can't contract and they come in and say we can fire you for any reason at the wall rouse us to fire you for this would not be one of them and very simply that's what the trial would be about this not for a cause are these numbers correct or not and beverly could come back and say you know they never took attendance before i got there they were mismeasured funds and i pointed those things out to them and when i did they stopped giving those are not religious doctrine issues and again if so that's really really saying where you know it's so much you don't want you don't want him as your minister but guess what you've got to have not all your honor and that's when it aetna contract you can't come into court and enforce the laws of pennsylvania or any state relating to employment but if you have a contract we're going to be silent and then to trust that says if you made a promise and than attain with any time there's a minister in a church involved who is of course has to be a thing about in the property setting it wouldn't be a problem for instance if the reverend really least home from the church and reverend  excessive and this is not the congregation determining who will be a minister is it and this is not determining who will be the minister this is the church saying if you leave here are the parameters by which you can't go for something where the government is forcing you to pay damages but if you agree to pay damages we're going to allow you to pursue that and i think that a very major difference of course frequent recognize those roles that we're not going to entertain at issue