brought against the church for accosting young parishioners so there are there is a scope of decision making that is not sacrosanct under the first amendment and what  are decisions of selecting the minister and that's not an issue here of the fracking minister which is not an issue here is charging minister which is not an issue here  they're saying we get damages if they don't get it seems to me that your your on that issue at least in retaliation that you're crossing into the area of simply whether or not there was a good faith reason for what it did that's the burden under retaliation so whether the whether the church had a good three three is correct here's part of what i would like your you address for the church to be liable vicariously for what he does as the supervisor and they don't have the proof they just have to come for it's a burden of coming forward that they have a policy and i'm that they took the fact that they took effective remedial action to see that your chain or interrupt the sexual that seems to get into the decision making process of the church well if they have to they have to just to get into why they did it they would have to come forward and say we only didn't happen that mean that with that there's nowhere in the power decision that the court refers to this gentleman is other than a minister and it with respect to sigal or is another thought that i would like to put forward on the retaliation crime the retaliation activities that they took once they found out that she had passed a complaint and whether or not that his rise to damages so that that is one way of cracking the case to allow both issues to go  he's not the employer correct and you're saying that the drug in l a view doesn't cover him because an exception is good for forty nine sixteen x install religious institutions for all kinds of discrimination  there is no united states supreme court cases like this but there are certainly cases that don't address just church doctor that indeed addressed church administration and that goes to the second respon involved that portion of the reactor size that addresses one's freedom to practice their faith or or religion whereas there really are two components to that free exercise  let's say that at some church a different church had i think guiding principle that all members have to agree to submit all personal disputes personal injury or contract disputes a priest secretary may employees are a totally different situation you think about it was was a lady employee well when you read the court's decision they don't really specifically say they  as my co counsel stated the plaintiff in this case is an ordained minister in the church she's made an accusation against another or gay minister and of the church which include case the relationship between two members of the church hierarchy that accusation w thousands judge goal set earlier when we really assess that and really you can't i'm in the question becomes are those are those vows binding in a federal court and she found to abide by the church policy and if perhaps a district court were so now a church looking at these decision says these tell santa claus can go forward the vows are insufficient perhaps we should change our ordination process to include a written arbitration agreement and then the church is making a clich asacol decisions who should be their fear based and what is going to be viable in the federal courts and that's an infringement of the free exercise rights that's an infringement of the church autonomy doctoring which enables them to choose their ministers based on th for i'm saying that if the claim is within the jurisdiction of the church and i believe that a minister of member of the leadership of the church and i think rayburn in the clear and some very persuasive language on what the role of a minister in the church problem is reviewing the signatures and so you may have run into that problem it's the church in many times i'm sorry your honor you may have been in a problem if the church didn't have seizures but you would run into another problem which is why doesn't the church have procedures for here's the problem i have with your position it seems to me the other side says necessarily when we come forward and explain why we didn't do anything to use your term then you're going to say well that was that's marquis and that whole decision making process involving  discussion about the difference between greece and women and they point out he had not yet become a priest and they point out that the jewish was the girl encouraging to become a priest so i think it's possible that this and fallen on that ground he had not yet become a priest here we have a minister