Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
or principally supported by a church or convention or association of churches. § 443.036(21)(d)l, Fla. Stat. (2002). Although Comanic’s job remained the same throughout her base period , her employer technically changed. Specifically, for the first quarter of her base period her pay checks were issued by the Peace Child Care Center, Inc. In the last three quarters of Comanic’s base period, her pay checks were issued directly by the Church. We find that these employers both qualify as non-liable employers under section 443.036(21), Florida Statutes (2002), and w only with small children, performing day-to-day responsibilities, with no direct contact with the Church, is irrelevant in determining the primary purpose of the child care center. St. Martin, 451 U.S. at 783, 101 S.Ct. 2142 . Further, the employee policy, which Comanic
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a company exercising substantial control of the terms and conditions of the work of the employees is an employer under the flsa
B. holding that where only one interpretation of contractual terms is possible a court may decide the meaning of those terms as a matter of law
C. holding because legislature knew how to include terms within statutory definition and did not do so statutory definition did not include terms in light of the terms contemporaneous inclusion of the same terms in a separate provision
D. holding futa after which florida molded its unemployment law is phrased entirely in terms of the nature of the employer and not in terms of the work performed or the place at which the employee works
E. holding that the court could review the south dakota supreme courts interpretation of its unemployment compensation tax statute because its analysis depended entirely on its understanding of the meaning of futa and the first amendment
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.