With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". claims, specifically, those tort claims that are intertwined with ecclesiastical investigations or proceedings involving the employment or discipline of clergy. As demonstrated above, the plaintiffs’ tort claims are intertwined with ecclesiastical investigations and proceedings involving the employment and discipline of Reverend Greer. Therefore, the plaintiffs’ tort claims would trigger the same type of impermissible investigation prohibited by Ex parte Bole, regardless of the plaintiffs’ third-party status. Because the petitioners have demonstrated that the First Amendment protections set out in Ex parte Bole are applicable to this case, I would grant the relief requested in the petition for the writ of mandamus. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. 1 . inn.Ct.App. Sept. 22, 1997) (<HOLDING>); Missouri: Gibson v. Brewer, 952 S.W.2d 239,

A: holding that first amendment barred parishioners negligent hiring and supervision and breach of fiduciary duty claims against pastor and church for sexual contact that occurred between pastor and parishioner during the course of a counseling relationship
B: holding that first amendment barred negligent hiring and supervision claim against archdiocese for alleged sexual abuse of minor by priest
C: holding that negligent retention and supervision claims based upon a pastors sexual contact with parishioners was barred by the first amendment
D: holding that first amendment barred child victim of sexual abuse by priest from bringing negligent hiring and supervision claims but that first amendment would not be violated by adjudication of claim of intentional failure to supervise priest
C.