The sanctuary of religious freedom is far too precious to be flung around this loosely.

In effect, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled on July 21 that the state couldn't interfere if religious leaders fired a teacher simply because of her age. Justices denied Wendy Ostlund the right to sue the La Crosse Archdiocese for age discrimination.

Ostlund's contract at a Catholic grade school in Onalaska was not renewed for the 2002-03 school year. Then 53, she had taught there for 28 years.

Her suit against the diocese never progressed to the point of determining whether there had been any discrimination. That may have been difficult to prove, considering nine other teachers were let go as well - and four of them were younger than 40.

Instead, the Archdiocese challenged Ostlund's right to sue at all. It's an internal church matter and the courts can't intervene, the lawyers argued.

The justices can twist the constitutional lingo and legal precedents any way they wish. Not all actions deserve to be hidden behind the protective veil of religion.

We side with the three dissenting justices who wrote that the dividing line in these cases should be pretty clear by now. The clergy have for years been precluded from filing a similar lawsuit. In short, they forfeited that right when they swore allegiance to their particular order.

We also have no beef with allowing religious leaders to oust employees who openly and purposely flout a church's teachings, like the Appleton-area teacher who was fired for discussing in-vitro fertilization. But freedom of religion was not meant to be a blanket free pass.

Although Ostlund was by all accounts a strong defender and promoter of the faith, teachers at her school weren't even required to be Catholic. Whatever documents they signed, the fine print shouldn't wipe out their rights to fight discrimination in court.

What freedom, exactly, is the court so vigorously defending in this case? The right to declare older workers inferior? To our knowledge, no religion teaches that.