Law Supreme Court sides with Catholic foster agency that excludes same-sex couples in 9-0 ruling

Lord Coke

Silver Belt
@Silver
Joined
Aug 18, 2003
Messages
10,789
Reaction score
13,458
This is pretty slam dunk. 9-0 pretty sures this up. This opinion is very relevant to the Baker who won't make a cake for the gay wedding.


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/su...mXUJqD3_OayV5q8fGMcn0JcphTgBN82X3k8pWTdM7VvY8

The Supreme Court sided unanimously with a Catholic foster agency in a dispute against the city of Philadelphia over whether it should be banned from participating in the city's foster program because it excludes same-sex couples.

The group, Catholic Social Services (CSS), claimed that "Philadelphia’s attempts to exclude the Catholic Church from foster care" violated the First Amendment. Lawyers for the city, meanwhile, said that CSS "lacks a constitutional right to demand that DHS offer it a contract that omits the same nondiscrimination requirement every other FFCA must follow when performing services for the City."

In a 9-0 ruling, the justices sided with Catholic Social Services.

"CSS 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 in a majority opinion. "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."

SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS OBAMACERE LAW, DISMISSING CHALLENGE FROM RED STATES

Roberts was joined on his opinion by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

Barrett herself wrote a concurring opinion, which was joined fully by Kavanaugh and partially by Breyer.

"As the Court’s opinion today explains, the government contract at issue provides for individualized exemptions from its nondiscrimination rule, thus triggering strict scrutiny," Barrett wrote. "And all nine Justices agree that the City cannot satisfy strict scrutiny."

Justice Samuel Alito wrote a concurring opinion that was joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas. Gorsuch wrote a concurrence that Thomas and Alito joined.

The unanimous ruling on such a hot-button issue comes as many on the left are calling for the packing of the Supreme Court and some on the right are saying the court is rejecting those calls through a series of unanimous of nearly-unanimous opinions.


The case will also be considered a massive victory for social conservatives, who say that it protects religious freedom.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"Today, the Supreme Court rightly affirmed that the Constitution guarantees faith-based agencies freedom from government harassment and discrimination because of their religious beliefs about marriage," Catholic Vote President Brian Burch said in a statement.

The ACLU, however, said that the court did not recognize "a license to discriminate based on religious beliefs."

"Opponents of LGBTQ equality have been seeking to undo hard-won non-discrimination protections by asking the court to establish a constitutional right to opt out of such laws when discrimination is motivated by religious beliefs," Leslie Cooper, deputy director of the ACLU LGBTQ & HIV Project, said in a statement. "This is the second time in four years that the court has declined to do so. This is good news for LGBTQ people and for everyone who depends on the protections of non-discrimination laws."

The majority opinion written by Roberts also included a citation of one of the major religious freedom rulings in recent years: the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.

"[O]ur society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Roberts wrote, quoting the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. "On the facts of this case, however, this interest cannot justify denying CSS an exception for its religious exercise. The creation of a system of exceptions under the contract undermines the City’s contention that its nondiscrimination policies can brook no departures. The City offers no compelling reason why it has a particular interest in denying an exception to CSS while making them available to others."
 
Been waiting for some of these cases to drop. Were there any other big ones today @Lord Coke ?
 
It comes down to religious freedom and the first amendment. Pretty obvious.
 
This ruling seems to be clearly saying that because Philly makes exceptions for a variety reasons this one must also be allowed. It also implies that if City were to adopt a rule disallowing all exceptions, that they need not make one in this case.
 
“We keep on being told that religion, whatever its imperfections, at least instills morality. On every side, there is conclusive evidence that the contrary is the case and that faith causes people to be more mean, more selfish, and perhaps above all, more stupid.”
 
I personally believe children benefit most from having a mother and a father. But I don't see a reason to exclude gay couples from adopting. Ultimately, it is about how much love and necessities the parents are able to provide. This seems discriminatory to me and I can't support that decision.

However, the main point is that this is a religious foster agency and they shouldn't be forced to do something that violates their values, no matter how backwards we believe them to be.
 
“We keep on being told that religion, whatever its imperfections, at least instills morality. On every side, there is conclusive evidence that the contrary is the case and that faith causes people to be more mean, more selfish, and perhaps above all, more stupid.”
I disagree with this. Religion does teach us how to coexist. That's not to say that even the most ardent religious radical understands the scripture and acts above his base desires.
 
It's unfortunate, because kids who aren't wanted should have parents who want kids. Same sex couple or otherwise, I'd rather see children raised by a loving family than the church or the state.

That said, it's not a concession they should be forced to make.
 
It's unfortunate, because kids who aren't wanted should have parents who want kids. Same sex couple or otherwise, I'd rather see children raised by a loving family than the church or the state.

That said, it's not a concession they should be forced to make.
{<redford}
 
“We keep on being told that religion, whatever its imperfections, at least instills morality. On every side, there is conclusive evidence that the contrary is the case and that faith causes people to be more mean, more selfish, and perhaps above all, more stupid.”

- Britney Spears


FTFY
 
God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve
Since god is responsible for creation he is also responsible for making people gay :D

While I disagree with the bigotry and double standards of religious based organizations, they should have the right to refuse whoever they want to. Just find a non religious agency and use that. As long as you pass the "test" for being parents, it shouldnt matter what kind of relationship people have.

Sexual relations should not be anyone else buisness unless its hurting people.
 
Back
Top