Christian Mother files Federal Lawsuit against SC Foster Care Agency

[Somerville]

This specific foster care agency has discriminated against Christians and Jews wishing to help children in need of foster care.

Federal Court Allows S.C. Mother’s Lawsuit To Proceed Against Government-Sponsored Religious Discrimination In Foster Care

August 10, the U.S. District Court in South Carolina ruled that the lawsuit Aimee Maddonna v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services can proceed. The case was filed by Americans United for Separation of Church and State on behalf of Aimee Maddonna, a Catholic mother of three from Simpsonville, S.C., who was turned away from helping children in foster care by a taxpayer-funded agency solely because she is Catholic –

Instead of denouncing this discriminatory practice, the Trump administration and South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster sanctioned the government-funded religious discrimination. The case was filed against the federal and state governments because it is unconstitutional for government-funded child-placement agencies to discriminate against prospective foster parents based on their religion when those agencies are acting on the government’s behalf; South Carolina and HHS may not provide tax dollars to faith-based child-placement agencies that use discriminatory religious criteria, just as the government cannot discriminate when placing children directly; and HHS did not follow proper procedure when it excused South Carolina and its foster care agencies from following federal anti-discrimination law.

Ooops forgot to mention that the agency denied Mrs Maddonna because being Catholic was seen by the agency as being the "wrong religion"

Initially, the lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge last year but when refiled before the entire bench, it was allowed to go forward.

When the initial filing of the case was dismissed last year, SC Governor McMaster tweeted:
“This is great news! We will always stand strong and defend South Carolinians’ constitutionally protected religious freedom.”

Yeah, as long as your religion is evangelical Christianity.

 

[Somerville]

Just read an interesting fact, one that I had never seen before. The four consistently 'conservative' justices on the Supreme Court, Kavanaugh, Thomas, Gorsuch and Alito plus Chief Justice Roberts are all Catholics. I wonder how they will rule if the religious discrimination case makes their docket.

 

[Glitch]

This specific foster care agency has discriminated against Christians and Jews wishing to help children in need of foster care.



Ooops forgot to mention that the agency denied Mrs Maddonna because being Catholic was seen by the agency as being the "wrong religion"

Initially, the lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge last year but when refiled before the entire bench, it was allowed to go forward.

When the initial filing of the case was dismissed last year, SC Governor McMaster tweeted:
“This is great news! We will always stand strong and defend South Carolinians’ constitutionally protected religious freedom.”

Yeah, as long as your religion is evangelical Christianity.

I have to agree with the plaintiff in this case. Government may not discriminate against, or show preferences for, any religion. If the agency is receiving public funds, then they shouldn't even be basing any decision upon someone's religious beliefs or the lack thereof. This sounds similar to the Colorado Baker's case, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), where the State of Colorado was openly hostile towards the Baker's religious beliefs. Colorado lost that case, and I suspect South Carolina will also lose this case.

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment allows anyone within the borders of the US to freely accept and practice any religious belief they desire, or none at all. That is a choice every individual gets to make, not government.

 

[joko104]

It's a religious organization's blog. I'd need to read the actual petition and response before having an opinion.

There is a couple we knew that got into a huge child custody divorce fight. While she got custody for the most part, the judge still made it technically joint custody. The wife pulled the children from public school and put the children into an extreme church school that among other things taught the children their father was "going to hell and trying to drag you children along with him." He challenged it in the family court and won, the court ordering the mother to put the children back into public school or she would lose the children. (They continued to battle in court over the children for over a decade - and as each child reached the age where the law allows children to generally pick - one after another all the children ended up back with him).

 

[AGENT J]

This specific foster care agency has discriminated against Christians and Jews wishing to help children in need of foster care.



Ooops forgot to mention that the agency denied Mrs Maddonna because being Catholic was seen by the agency as being the "wrong religion"

Initially, the lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge last year but when refiled before the entire bench, it was allowed to go forward.

When the initial filing of the case was dismissed last year, SC Governor McMaster tweeted:
“This is great news! We will always stand strong and defend South Carolinians’ constitutionally protected religious freedom.”

Yeah, as long as your religion is evangelical Christianity.

Its illegal discrimination if she was denied based on religion alone, seems like a no brainer . . . .

But im curious if that was REALLY the case, doesnt seem the full story is in the link at all

 

[d0gbreath]

Its illegal discrimination if she was denied based on religion alone, seems like a no brainer . . . .

But im curious if that was REALLY the case, doesnt seem the full story is in the link at all

She has three kids of her own. That's not a typical foster family. Her religion didn't have anything to do with the decision.

 

[AGENT J]

She has three kids of her own. That's not a typical foster family. Her religion didn't have anything to do with the decision.

That would be my "guess" but like i said the link which was questionable itself didn't contain much so I figure there's more to the story

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

That would be my "guess" but like i said the link which was questionable itself didn't contain much so I figure there's more to the story

Here's the complaint:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.scd.254478/gov.uscourts.scd.254478.1.0.pdf

 

[AGENT J]

Here's the complaint:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.scd.254478/gov.uscourts.scd.254478.1.0.pdf

Thank you but the compliant is going to contain everything Aimee and her lawyer claim though right? not that the home claims? or am i mistaken?
Not saying its not true just inquiring will the complaint still be just one side of the story . . .

This seems like an open shut case if she was discriminated against based on religion . . guess I'm just being naive and thinking they wouldn't make it so blatant and there's more to the story lol

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Thank you but the compliant is going to contain everything Aimee and her lawyer claim though right? not that the home claims? or am i mistaken?
Not saying its not true just inquiring will the complaint still be just one side of the story . . .

This seems like an open shut case if she was discriminated against based on religion . . guess I'm just being naive and thinking they wouldn't make it so blatant and there's more to the story lol

The suit isn't against the foster agency, it's against the government for funding them.

Here's the full docket:

Docket for Maddonna v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, 6:19-cv-03551 - CourtListener.com

Docket for Maddonna v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, 6:19-cv-03551 — Brought to you by the RECAP Initiative and Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.

www.courtlistener.com

The Answers to the complaint do not deny that the agency discriminated - they just deny that they're in any way responsible for it.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

This seems like an open shut case if she was discriminated against based on religion . . guess I'm just being naive and thinking they wouldn't make it so blatant and there's more to the story lol

Religious organizations are allowed to discriminate bbasedon religion.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I have to agree with the plaintiff in this case. Government may not discriminate against, or show preferences for, any religion. If the agency is receiving public funds, then they shouldn't even be basing any decision upon someone's religious beliefs or the lack thereof. This sounds similar to the Colorado Baker's case, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), where the State of Colorado was openly hostile towards the Baker's religious beliefs. Colorado lost that case, and I suspect South Carolina will also lose this case.

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment allows anyone within the borders of the US to freely accept and practice any religious belief they desire, or none at all. That is a choice every individual gets to make, not government.

You don’t have to agree because the idea that the first amendment protects you from religious discrimination or creates a duty to not preference religion is less then 60 years old and was instituted through leftist subversion of the courts.

 

[AmNat]

This specific foster care agency has discriminated against Christians and Jews wishing to help children in need of foster care.



Ooops forgot to mention that the agency denied Mrs Maddonna because being Catholic was seen by the agency as being the "wrong religion"

Initially, the lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge last year but when refiled before the entire bench, it was allowed to go forward.

When the initial filing of the case was dismissed last year, SC Governor McMaster tweeted:
“This is great news! We will always stand strong and defend South Carolinians’ constitutionally protected religious freedom.”

Yeah, as long as your religion is evangelical Christianity.

Yeah yeah, we get that you people want to outlaw religious foster/adoption agencies. Better that children go unwanted than that they be helped by people with the wrong ideas.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

You don’t have to agree because the idea that the first amendment protects you from religious discrimination or creates a duty to not preference religion is less then 60 years old and was instituted through leftist subversion of the courts.

The first amendment does not protect against religious discrimination - the Civil Rights Act does.

But it certainly does prevent the government from favoring any religion, as has since Day 1.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Yeah yeah, we get that you people want to outlaw religious foster/adoption agencies. Better that children go unwanted than that they be helped by people with the wrong ideas.

What about those foster children who are wanted - but the agency says no, because the parents are the wrong religion?

 

[AGENT J]

The suit isn't against the foster agency, it's against the government for funding them.

Here's the full docket:

Docket for Maddonna v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, 6:19-cv-03551 - CourtListener.com

Docket for Maddonna v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, 6:19-cv-03551 — Brought to you by the RECAP Initiative and Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.

www.courtlistener.com

The Answers to the complaint do not deny that the agency discriminated - they just deny that they're in any way responsible for it.

gotcha thanks

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The first amendment does not protect against religious discrimination - the Civil Rights Act does.

But it certainly does prevent the government from favoring any religion, as has since Day 1.

No, that’s not correct. That idea isn’t even as old as Joe Biden. That’s a boomer notion. The nation was a Christian nation explicitly until after world war 2. We just didn’t have an established church. These are different things

 

[AGENT J]

Religious organizations are allowed to discriminate bbasedon religion.

that would depend on what one means by religious orgs. . . .a church, yes they can pretty much discriminate all they want . . a religious hospital can not deny me from entering the ER because of my religion or lack of one. similar to when churches own and run something consider a business like certain types of venus.

Now when it comes to schools, shelters, adoption agencies . . i think there's been court cases that go both ways
IMO they shouldn't be allowed too discriminate in those instances . . . in many situations.

 

[AGENT J]

No, that’s not correct. That idea isn’t even as old as Joe Biden. That’s a boomer notion. The nation was a Christian nation explicitly until after world war 2. We just didn’t have an established church. These are different things

yes it is correct and NO it never was a Christian nation, it was just a nation who population happened to be majority Christian just like now.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

No, that’s not correct. That idea isn’t even as old as Joe Biden. That’s a boomer notion. The nation was a Christian nation explicitly until after world war 2. We just didn’t have an established church. These are different things

All of this is indisputably wrong.

But not surprising.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

yes it is correct and NO it never was a Christian nation, it was just a nation who population happened to be majority Christian just like now.

So, a Christian nation.

The majority is no longer Christian, because in the 60s communist subversion was able to end prayer in schools and courts repealed a set of common sense laws called the Comstock laws. Which ushered in the era of sexual libertinism.

 

[AmNat]

What about those foster children who are wanted - but the agency says no, because the parents are the wrong religion?

They can go through the state directly or use a different agency.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

that would depend on what one means by religious orgs. . . .a church, yes they can pretty much discriminate all they want . . a religious hospital can not deny me from entering the ER because of my religion or lack of one. similar to when churches own and run something consider a business like certain types of venus.

Now when it comes to schools, shelters, adoption agencies . . i think there's been court cases that go both ways
IMO they shouldn't be allowed too discriminate in those instances . . . in many situations.

What’s wrong with discrimination? That’s a good thing. Whenever you choose to buy an apple instead of a pear you are discriminating.

 

[AGENT J]

So, a Christian nation.

nope, not a Christian nation LOL never was, isn't now and never will be

The majority is no longer Christian, because in the 60s communist subversion was able to end prayer in schools and courts repealed a set of common sense laws called the Comstock laws. Which ushered in the era of sexual libertinism.

also factually wrong LMAO America is 70%, Christian

Still a majority and still not a Christian nation.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

At the time of the Bill of Rights, "religious discrimination" in this country consisted of intra-Christian rivalries.

That's the root of government non-preference of religion - minority Christian groups didn't want other versions of Christianity to take control.

But the laws as written are quite clear, absent intentional misunderstanding.