Religious freedom vs. LGBTQ rights: Supreme Court sides with Catholic foster care agency

[Jose Garcia]

Source: USA Today

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled that a Catholic foster care agency in Philadelphia may turn away gay and lesbian couples as clients, a major victory for conservatives with the potential to shift the balance between LGBTQ rights and the First Amendment's protection of religious exercise.

In one of the most significant cases before a Supreme Court that has shifted to the right in recent years, the justices handed down the most high profile defeat to LGBTQ rights advocates since a 2018 decision absolved a Colorado baker of discrimination for refusing to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

The catholic agency "seeks only an accommodation that will allow it to continue serving the children of Philadelphia in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs; it does not seek to impose those beliefs on anyone else," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a unanimous court. "The refusal of Philadelphia to contract with CSS for the provision of foster care services unless it agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents cannot survive strict scrutiny, and violates the First Amendment."

Catholic Social Services said its religious views keep it from screening same-sex couples as foster parents. The agency, with a long history of placing foster children, said it shouldn’t be blocked from its work because of those views. Philadelphia countered that all foster care agencies are required to not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

Read more: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/4155263001

[Tomconroy]

1. Wow. Unanimous decision.

[sarisataka]

13. That seems to be overlooked

And while I may not like the decision I can't dispute it appears to be correct under the Constitution.

[RobinA]

15. I Believe It Is Correct

I am a hetero atheist who has no problem with gay couples adopting. However, I do think that Catholic Social Services as a church-affiliated entity should not be forced by government to provide services that don't fit their beliefs. Frankly, I would hope that they are able eventually to change their stance on this from within.

[mdbl]

26. I am ok with that as long as they don't receive public funding

do they?

[dsc]

31. they do

they are contracted by the govt with my and your tax money.

[cstanleytech]

35. Which should cease imo as they want to have freedom from the government to use their religion to

reject people that want to adopt children then they should not receive a dime of taxpayer money from the same government.

[twodogsbarking]

2. So LGBTQ can start a religion and not allow

Catholics?

[azureblue]

12. even better

the Bible forbids eating pork and shellfish. So now, anyone can discriminate against the sinful bacon eaters, shrimp lovers, etc. Funny how the gay haters ignore that prohibition.

What if a movement was started to erase the entire pork industry? Like torching pork farms, attacking grocery stores, beating people who are eating pork at a restaurant, cops rushing in and arresting people at a barbecue? See a similarity there?

[OneCrazyDiamond]

25. There are currently animal rights movements who want to end entire meat industry.

You analogy isn't that far off from reality.

[mdbl]

27. You just gave HULU another idea for a series

[oldsoftie]

28. But that was the Old Testament.

In the New testament, mark states that Jesus declared all foods clean.
Thats the reasoning you'll hear

[Alpeduez21]

29. Jesus also helped the lepers and

unclean. Kind of erasing treating homosexuals as different argument. If current politically influential religions followed the new testament the political landscape would be very different. Jesus also argued that he was the way which wiped out the old testament anyway.

[oldsoftie]

30. They pick the parts they like!

[walkingman]

3. Time to tax churches. Past time actually.

[Jose Garcia]

6. Just churches, or all non-profits?

[walkingman]

23. The term non-profit is just another word for tax dodger, in my opinion.

[msongs]

34. non profits - spend the $$ on yourself, when none is left over, no profit nt

[mnhtnbb]

4. What a poorly written article.

Does this mean the city of Philadelphia is required to use CSS as a foster agency? Or can the city just drop the agency since they refuse to not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation?

[RobinA]

16. I Believe

they already dropped the agency, unless they picked it back up again while this case has been winding through the courts. I haven't read the opinion yet, but I would think that what Philadelphia can and cannot do with reference to CSS would be a totally separate issue.

[Politicub]

5. These anti-gay decisions are alarming.

A body of law for sanctioning discrimination against the LGBT community continues to grow. Taken together, religiosity is being weaponized to create a system of exclusion based on a characteristic of being human.

The Fulton decision, even though it’s written in a deceptively narrow way, empowers cowardly bigots who hide behind religion.

I’m happy about the ACA, but am worried about where anti-gay jurisprudence is going to take us over time.

[BeyondGeography]

7. +1000

[Solly Mack]

9. I agree

[FreeState]

14. +1

It's a sad day not only for LGBT families but kids that are waiting to be adopted.

[flibbitygiblets]

33. +1 /nt

[RobinA]

17. Religiosity

weaponized itself the day it came into being. This decision is not anti-gay, it's pro-First Amendment.

[Polybius]

22. It was 9-0 though

That makes me feel a little better.

[Buckeyeblue]

8. Seems like they are saying the city cannot deny the Catholic agency solely on the same sex issue

Maybe the city can come up with other standards that would allow them to not use the Catholic agency.

It's fucked up that we give religion the far reaching latitude that we do. No one has proven their is a god. To extend rights based on a belief that cannot be substantiated is ridiculous at this point in time.

[bucolic_frolic]

10. This decision Enshrines intolerance as Christian, and discrimination as law

No, CJ Roberts, you just imposed those misguided religious beliefs on those seeking tolerance and inclusion, the most Christian of values. Shame on this Court decision.

[ancianita]

11. Private religious agency gets separation of church and state rights.

Philadelphia can say all foster care agencies are required not to discriminate, but Philadelphia also knows that the the church sponsored agencies aren't bound to Philadelphia state rules.

LGBTQ will have to go to state sponsored foster care services.

[RobinA]

18. Or A Non-Church

affiliated agency, or a church affiliated agency that doesn't have a problem with gays adopting from them.

[Lonestarblue]

19. The First Amendment prevents the government from regulating the establishment of religion.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

How is an adoption agency an establishment of religion that cannot be regulated? I’m certainly not a Constitutional expert, but it seems to me that the rights of the religious are being preferenced above the rights of everyone else.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

21. In Nebraska the state has contracted out foster care to a Catholic organization.

How the fuck is that supposed to work?

[rdking647]

24. using this ruling i can claim that anti abortion laws violate religious freedom

3rd fundamental tenet of my religion

One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone

[Wild blueberry]

32. Maybe Philadelphia can refuse to contract with CSS due to preponderance of pedophiles

in Catholic ranks. Can't be good for any kids.

[2Gingersnaps]

36. I'm sure that all those kids who age out of the foster system and get cast out to sink or swim,

generally traumatized, with no preparation for the real world truly appreciate what a great job is being done to narrow the availability of people who actually want to be parents.

[Polybius]

37. Since it was 9-0, it had to be the right decision

I certainly fully trust Sotomayor on this (she the most liberal), and Kagan and Breyer as well.

[GulfCoast66]

38. A 9-0 decision. I don't disagree with it.

No one can force a city or state to use them. And no one has to use them. A pregnant woman has other options. Plenty of them. The wife and I experienced this personally when we found out kids were not in our future.

Should we force churches to hire people who not share their beliefs? Or force atheist organizations to hire religious nut jobs?

I’m a Diest, agnostic or atheist depending on how you define the words. But I can’t see forcing a non-governmental agency to violate their beliefs.

I would also support the right of a atheist adoption agency to only give kids to non religious people.

[EndlessWire]

39. I think you can force

a public service agency to follow the rules of civil society. No one forced them to form an agency that discriminates against fellow citizens. They can have their own beliefs, they just can't exclude other people and decide their rights based on their own personal beliefs. If you don't want to do that, don't enter into those areas. This is no different than the segregated South.

I am appalled that it was a 9-0 decision. Systematic exclusion of those who are different, and this is just one more brick.

We should make churches pay their fair share.