Jewish couple challenges Tennessee law after Christian agency’s policy prevented adoption

[j brown's body]

That is what everything is about on the RW. Privatize everything that would make profit easy. Socialized cost and privatized profit.

And who among us does not love our health insurance provider for their efficient, market-based approach to health care?

 

[CaughtInThe]

how many examples are we gonna have to see before we all just accept that a lot of "christians" simply don't care about kids/families/parents?

 

[Somerville]

[deleted words]



Unless that dictation violates the first amendment freedoms of the organization in question, in which case No, because the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and Amendment > Statute.

Again, Fulton, which seems pretty clearly likely to set the borders of this discussion in the courts, was 9-0:

The US Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Thursday in favor of a Catholic child welfare organization, saying the charity has a right to decline to place foster children with same-sex couples...​

​

Catholic Social Services argued that it had the right to opt-out of the nondiscrimination requirement, citing the First Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that Philadelphia cannot force the charity to certify same-sex couples as foster parents, saying the rule violated their First Amendment rights...​

Until it does.

Just some quick reading and I think the difference between the Tennessee case and Fulton, lies in the matter of state-funding. In the Fulton case, the city of Philadelphia had regulations toward non-discriminatory practices within businesses operating in the municipality. The Catholic adoption agency had a city business license but did not receive funding from the city or state.

Before the Tennessee case is laid before the bench, I think a South Carolina case will need to be decided.

Christian Mother files Federal Lawsuit against SC Foster Care Agency

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...

debatepolitics.com

Christian Mother files Federal Lawsuit against SC Foster Care Agency

What’s wrong with discrimination? That’s a good thing. Whenever you choose to buy an apple instead of a pear you are discriminating. WHo said all discrimination is wrong? LOL not me . illegal discrimination asnd violating a person rights are though to people that respect rights and America anyway

debatepolitics.com

Filing #95

Jan 20, 2022
FIFTH AMENDED CONFERENCE AND SCHEDULING ORDER; Discovery due by 2/18/2022, Motion in Limine due by 3/25/2022, Motions due by 3/18/2022, Bench Trial Deadline 5/2/2022, Mediation Due by 2/25/2022. All other dates set out. Signed by Honorable Joseph Dawson, III on 1/20/22. (rweb, ) Modified on 1/20/2022 to edit text (rweb, ). (Entered: 01/20/2022)

 

[NWRatCon]

Quite the contrary - recognizing first amendment freedoms and not attempting to compel organizations and individuals to violates their beliefs does not bring in totalitarianism. This Jewish couple is not barred from fostering or adopting - there are plenty of organizations out there dedicated to doing so that they can use.

What about when there aren't? That is the problem with your reasoning. You assume that there are multitudes of diverse agencies providing services, but that is not the point. The point is that agencies that provide the services need to do so in a neutral fashion when they are acting on behalf of the State.

the Methodist agency in question has also not barred this Jewish couple from fostering or adopting. They simply themselves have a different mission focus, just as Jewish adoption agencies have their focus, and Muslim adoption agencies have their focus.

Again, not the point. Those agencies a) aren't working on behalf of the State, and b) don't appear to operating within the State, and c) aren't at issue here. That's deflection, again, even if unintentional.

That was indeed the 7-2 decision in Trinity Lutheran, yes, however, I thought I recall that you were opposed to this principle at the time? I may have misremembered that.

I haven't changed my stripes, so I have no idea what you're asserting. The SC has been on the wrong path for over a decade. I've been consistent about that. There are, however, instances where I believe it is appropriate to take beliefs into consideration. This is not one of them. I'm also against subsidizing religious schools, if that's what you're asking.

Unless that dictation violates the first amendment freedoms of the organization in question, in which case No, because the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and Amendment > Statute.

Again, missing the point. Let me be precise: when an agent (school, adoption agency, insurer) steps into the role of the principal (State, federal or local government), they are required, by the Constitution, to abide by strict neutrality in their operations, individual beliefs be damned. THAT is the Constitutional standard that the SCOTUS is not following.

Again, Fulton, which seems pretty clearly likely to set the borders of this discussion in the courts, was 9-0:

The US Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Thursday in favor of a Catholic child welfare organization, saying the charity has a right to decline to place foster children with same-sex couples...​

​

Catholic Social Services argued that it had the right to opt-out of the nondiscrimination requirement, citing the First Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that Philadelphia cannot force the charity to certify same-sex couples as foster parents, saying the rule violated their First Amendment rights...​

Until it does.

You need to read it more carefully, actually. Many concurrence are based upon stare decisis. I think that is fundamentally in error.

Perhaps you're making the mistake of thinking that I'm talking about what the SCOTUS will do (I'm not), my point is that the SCOTUS is completely at odds with the plain language, and intent, of the Constitution. That's not new. Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson, the Civil Rights Cases are all predecessors to Hobby Lobby and its Ilk.

 

[NWRatCon]

I have bolded a section of my assertion to highlight it, because it is true. When churches take part in taxed activity (such as buying gasoline, and lumber) they are taxed, and when they take part in non-taxed activities (such as charitable giving) they are not taxed.

Respectfully, I think a more accurate depiction of your complaint is not that Churches do not pay taxes on taxed activities (this would be fraud), but rather that you wish more activities were taxed.

and, I pointed out that your assertion is inaccurate. There are innumerable "taxable activities" religious organizations are exempted from solely on the basis of being a religious organization. Indeed, your assertion is proven false by the few exception. Did you not follow the link?

Churches (and other religious organizations) are exempted from income taxes, transfer taxes, sales taxes, investment taxes, etc. I don't even think you're correct about fuel taxes. I remember buying gas for a church-owned vehicle and submitting receipts to apply for refunds.

 

[NWRatCon]

I've stated as succinctly as I can what I believe the Constitutional standard is and should be. If the State can't do it, anyone acting on behalf of the State can't do it. That's black letter law, and has been for centuries.

Some time back, the Supreme Court began allowing deviations from that standard. I believe that was a terrible error, as subsequent history has amply demonstrated, and we have an ideological Court majority that is now exploiting that error excessively. We need a reset.

Non-state actors can follow different rules. Exceptions and accommodations that were made for them seemed, at the time, reasonable, and for the most part were. Some, however, have been allowed to metastasize.

I'll provide a few examples.

1) States have educational standards. It is perfectly reasonable to license religious schools that meet those standards even though they also provide religious instruction. Indeed, I think it would be unconstitutionally discriminatory to not do so. I say this even if the school also offers education that promotes bigotry.

2) States provide subsidies to private schools by way of vouchers. I personally hate this policy, for reasons that are outside this thread. Nonetheless, there are some policy reasons in some situations that justify this approach. Religious organizations also provide private education. Should a parent be allowed to use a voucher to attend such a school? Even as a strict separationist, and an opponent of vouchers, I would say yes, in accordance with paragraph 1), above. The State is not subsidizing the school directly, but subsidizing the parent for a legitimate state purpose (education). It is, however, a course call.

3) A State has a program that provides outdoor recreation subsidies to private schools for the betterment of the child's health. This gets to be an even closer call because the money is going directly from the State coffers to a private school. But, the general scheme has no religious component, so I would not find this objectionable. It does, however, directly subsidize a religious school which may allow them freedom to use their other funds for religious purposes.

4) A State licenses agencies to conduct a State function. For example, in ABC jurisdictions, liquor could only be dispensed by State agents, making it a State function. Rather than using State employees, the State allowed private contractors to act as their agents. Can the State deny a license to a church merely because they are a religious organization? In accordance with paragraph 1), I would say, no. Can, however, the State require that they comply with State law when dispensing liquor? Unequivocally, yes. They are performing a State function, and must do so as a State actor.

 

[cpwill]

Just some quick reading and I think the difference between the Tennessee case and Fulton, lies in the matter of state-funding. In the Fulton case, the city of Philadelphia had regulations toward non-discriminatory practices within businesses operating in the municipality. The Catholic adoption agency had a city business license but did not receive funding from the city or state.

Before the Tennessee case is laid before the bench, I think a South Carolina case will need to be decided.

Christian Mother files Federal Lawsuit against SC Foster Care Agency

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...

debatepolitics.com

Christian Mother files Federal Lawsuit against SC Foster Care Agency

What’s wrong with discrimination? That’s a good thing. Whenever you choose to buy an apple instead of a pear you are discriminating. WHo said all discrimination is wrong? LOL not me . illegal discrimination asnd violating a person rights are though to people that respect rights and America anyway

debatepolitics.com

Filing #95

I wasn't tracking the South Carolina case - thanks for making me aware of that; you learn something new every day

However, as near as I can tell from a brief search, Catholic Social Services was state funded. From one of the opposing parties:

On November 4, the Supreme Court heard a case that could allow private agencies that receive taxpayer-funding to provide government services — such as foster care providers, food banks, homeless shelters, and more — to deny services to people who are LGBTQ, Jewish, Muslim, or Mormon.

In March 2018, the city of Philadelphia learned that two of the agencies it hired to provide foster care services to children in the city’s care would not, based on their religious objection, accept same-sex couples as foster parents. Philadelphia informed the agencies that it would no longer refer children to them unless they agreed to comply with nondiscrimination requirements that are part of all foster care agency contracts. One of the agencies agreed to do so. The other, Catholic Social Services (CSS), sued the city, claiming the Constitution gives it the right to opt out of the nondiscrimination requirement....​

Though if you have other, better, information, I'd be interested in seeing it.

From Wikipedia (and, why I think Fulton may be the relevant immediate precedent):

In a unanimous judgment on June 17, 2021, the Court ruled that the city's refusal due to the agency's same-sex couple policy violated the Free Exercise Clause. The case was decided on narrow grounds outside of the Supreme Court's prior decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which had previously ruled that neutral laws of general applicability could not be challenged for violating religious exemptions. Instead, in Fulton, the court ruled that services like foster care contracting were not public accommodations covered by Smith, and thus were subject to strict scrutiny review....​

Strict Scrutiny in law is, as I understand it, usually fatal in fact.

Now, Fulton was decided on pretty narrow facts:

Because the city allowed for exceptions to be made in its anti-discrimination policy for foster care certification, the Court deemed the city's policy to violate the foster case agency's free exercise of religion under Smith.​

Probably on purpose in order to get that 9-0 ruling, but, it's still a damn high hurdle to overcome, and, I don't think it's likely.

 

[What if...?]

You can't have religious freedom when religion is deciding the freedom.

I’ve always felt that freedom of religion includes freedom from it.

 

[Credence]

Jewish couple challenges Tennessee law after Christian agency’s policy prevented adoption (TODAY)

"A couple in Knoxville, Tennessee filed a lawsuit against the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services this week alleging that they were denied services by a state-funded foster care agency because they are Jewish."
....
"In an email to TODAY, Brad Williams, the president and CEO of the agency, confirmed that the organization had rejected the couple due to their religious beliefs."

Seems pretty clear-cut to me. "A 2020 Tennessee law allows private child-placing agencies that receive public funding to provide services based on 'religious or moral convictions'" So much for the First Amendment's establishment clause.

It still is sad that a qualified family is turned down for religious reasons, or racial reasons ; whatever it is when a loving, financially stable home is available

I understand what the law is; but any agency that receives state funds should not be allowed to do this unless the person giving up the baby for adoption specifically requests it. A totally private agency is a different story.

 

[NWRatCon]

Now, Fulton was decided on pretty narrow facts:

Because the city allowed for exceptions to be made in its anti-discrimination policy for foster care certification, the Court deemed the city's policy to violate the foster case agency's free exercise of religion under Smith.​

Probably on purpose in order to get that 9-0 ruling, but, it's still a damn high hurdle to overcome, and, I don't think it's likely.

Your confidence, I would hope, is misplaced. But, as I've noted repeatedly, this Court is more interested in ideology than merit or principle. The exception you noted here (that allowed a unanimous decision), however, swallows any other outcome, so is not the precedent you believe, but the use of strict scrutiny is, as you surmise, problematic. It is a capacious tent which can accommodate a myriad of sins.

I've studied Fulton in more detail, now, and I am even more convinced your confidence is misplaced. First, the case was remanded for further consideration. Second, as noted in your reference, "The central question during oral argument was whether CSS is running a government program or is it the recipient of a license to provide a service. This distinction is crucial, for "it could determine the outcome and allow the court to avoid confronting the vexing intersection of religious liberties and marriage equality." This has been precisely my point all along, and what the lower courts must now address.

 

[mrjurrs]

Jewish couple challenges Tennessee law after Christian agency’s policy prevented adoption (TODAY)

"A couple in Knoxville, Tennessee filed a lawsuit against the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services this week alleging that they were denied services by a state-funded foster care agency because they are Jewish."
....
"In an email to TODAY, Brad Williams, the president and CEO of the agency, confirmed that the organization had rejected the couple due to their religious beliefs."

Seems pretty clear-cut to me. "A 2020 Tennessee law allows private child-placing agencies that receive public funding to provide services based on 'religious or moral convictions'" So much for the First Amendment's establishment clause.

Freedom of religion for me, not for thee.

Sanctimonious pieces of shite.

 

[upsideguy]

Obviously it's not a good idea. Churches exist to spread the gospel. It's not a complex issue. And we don't need the courts - we have the separation of church and state stipulated in our Constitution

1. It's not "obvious".... its arguable, but not obvious.

2. The function of the church is much broader than to "spread the gospel".. Of course, we seem to be focusing on Christian churches here, as many faiths are not in the business of spreading the word at all. If you believe that is the only function of the Church is to spread the gospel, then you do not understand Christianity, which explains your first statement of "obviously" as one of ignorance.

Let's run with the Christian faith, as that is particular faith behind this foundation. Yes the Great Commission, is about making disciples of all nations, to spread the word, it is but one of many, many commandments that was revealed to followers of Christ. What the Great Commission actually means is the subject of theological debate. Yes, Catholic Charities and other Christian social programs are often justified as expressions of the Great Commission, but we are also commanded to help our brothers as ourselves. Christian believe in helping others, be they Christian or not. Most outreach efforts by Christians are meant to be expressions of faith and expressions of doing God's work, NOT to "convert" people. That said, there are parts of the Christian church that have perverted the Great Commission into what I call, the "great commission plan", the perverted notion that saving souls earns you passage on the bus to eternal life. That notion exists, but it is a perversion of Christian doctrine as it suggests eternal life is gained by works, when it clearly is not.

3. The reason for the Office of Faith Based Initiatives was to see if the government could get better bang for the buck (save the taxpayers money), by piggy-backing upon effective social outreach programs of churches rather than running redundant efforts in areas where the government was less skilled. It had merit and it also had issues, such as this. Calling it "obviously not a good idea" seems a bit of narrow minded view of the government trying to 'think outside the box'

BTW, the Office of Faith Based Initiatives exists today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Office_of_Faith-Based_and_Neighborhood_Partnerships

They are Christian first and American a distant second

Yes. That is absolutely true. One's country ALWAYS takes a backseat to God. If that is a shock to you, well, I would have a recommendation...

 

[cpwill]

What about when there aren't?

what if AI launched a global takeover and we had to fight off copies of Arnold Schwarzenagger to survive?

There are lots of foster and adoption agencies from a wide variety of communities. No one is being banned from the sector because they can't force any particular actor within it to serve them, any more than my being banned from the local karaoke bar after the "Full Monty Incident" means I am being denied my 21st Amendment Rights to drink alcohol.

Again, not the point. Those agencies a) aren't working on behalf of the State, and b) don't appear to operating within the State, and c) aren't at issue here. That's deflection, again, even if unintentional.

Those agencies appear to be operating the same as the Methodist agency here appears to be operating, however, if you are aware of any particular glaring and salient differences, I'd be interested in hearing what they are.

I haven't changed my stripes, so I have no idea what you're asserting. The SC has been on the wrong path for over a decade. I've been consistent about that. There are, however, instances where I believe it is appropriate to take beliefs into consideration. This is not one of them. I'm also against subsidizing religious schools, if that's what you're asking.

I had thought that when Trinity Lutheran came out, you were opposed to it as well (it is almost verbatim one of the examples you list out above); searching back, the one post I found seemed to support that contention, but, wanted to ask explicitly to give you the opportunity to correct my impression, in case I was incorrect .

Again, missing the point. Let me be precise: when an agent (school, adoption agency, insurer) steps into the role of the principal (State, federal or local government), they are required, by the Constitution, to abide by strict neutrality in their operations, individual beliefs be damned. THAT is the Constitutional standard that the SCOTUS is not following.

I don't think I would say they are acting as the State - as, for example, a public school is. They are a private institution that has partnered with the State.

You need to read it more carefully, actually. Many concurrence are based upon stare decisis. I think that is fundamentally in error.

Hm. All things being equal I would say Stare Decisis is a critical requirement for rule of law and having a society where rules are predictable. Sometimes you have to overturn precedent, but, each question is not being judged brand new. Tossing it out would produce chaos and revert us further to the bad old days of Rule of Man.

Perhaps you're making the mistake of thinking that I'm talking about what the SCOTUS will do (I'm not), my point is that the SCOTUS is completely at odds with the plain language, and intent, of the Constitution. That's not new. Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson, the Civil Rights Cases are all predecessors to Hobby Lobby and its Ilk.

Well, I will admit that much of my point in this thread has been built on recent SCOTUS precedent, but, it's fair of you to acknowledge that your position is currently rejected by the Court - I'm in a similar position wrt the abortion issue.

 

[cpwill]

Yes. That is absolutely true. One's country ALWAYS takes a backseat to God. If that is a shock to you, well, I would have a recommendation...

That's a point I've been trying to make to others lately IRL. I ought to - in the most important areas - have more in common with Christian brothers and sisters in Central America or Western Europe or Southeast Asia than I do with my non-believing neighbors.

I've deployed a lot for this country - served her all my life, buried friends for her, etc. But it is far from the most important thing. I really don't like all the "American Flags In Church", or the mixing of nationalism and Christianity that has occurred. Cultural Christianity is hard to shake, and hard to dig out

 

[cpwill]

and, I pointed out that your assertion is inaccurate. There are innumerable "taxable activities" religious organizations are exempted from solely on the basis of being a religious organization.

Again, I think your definitions may be off, here. If receipt of charitable donations is not taxed, then Churches are not fraudulently not paying taxes on taxed activities when they receive charitable donations.

You want more activities - specifically, it seems, certain tranche's of charitable donations - to be taxed, and while I disagree, that's an internally consistent position. But to pretend it is already a taxed activity that is simply being not done is to attempt to steal a base / assume the change you wish to see.

Indeed, your assertion is proven false by the few exception. Did you not follow the link?

Churches (and other religious organizations) are exempted from income taxes, transfer taxes, sales taxes, investment taxes, etc. I don't even think you're correct about fuel taxes. I remember buying gas for a church-owned vehicle and submitting receipts to apply for refunds.

Churches do pay sales tax on the things they buy - they are, after all, worked into the price. If you were reimbursed for your purchases on behalf of the church by the church, that does not mean that the gasoline tax was somehow deducted from what you paid at the pump simply because you rolled up in a church van.

Pastors often get crushed by the tax laws - my dad is a pastor - they get to pay both sides of FICA, have to count parsonages that they are required to live in as income (which, it is worth noting, I did not have to do when I was living in military barracks), etc.

 

[NWRatCon]

Logically speaking, my friend, you are all over the place. I am having trouble even following some of your argumentation.

what if AI launched a global takeover and we had to fight off copies of Arnold Schwarzenagger to survive?

Meaning?

There are lots of foster and adoption agencies from a wide variety of communities.

Relevance? They are not this agency, operating in this community, under these circumstances. Is that why you're bringing AI into this, because that appears to be as relevant to this argument.

No one is being banned from the sector because they can't force any particular actor within it to serve them, any more than my being banned from the local karaoke bar after the "Full Monty Incident" means I am being denied my 21st Amendment Rights to drink alcohol.

What does this even mean? Have you been drinking? Did you break into the sacristy again and dip into the priest's stash of sacramental wine?

Those agencies appear to be operating the same as the Methodist agency here appears to be operating, however, if you are aware of any particular glaring and salient differences, I'd be interested in hearing what they are.

Not even close. There is no prohibition in arranging private adoptions within the confines of one's own religious tradition. I've never argued otherwise. That is not the circumstance here, as has been elucidated at length.

This situation involves a private agency acting on behalf of the State to provide training to potential foster parents, for a State program for foster parents. Your exemplars do none of those things (on the record presented). So, that is "immaterial" and "irrelevant" to this discussion.

I had thought that when Trinity Lutheran came out, you were opposed to it as well (it is almost verbatim one of the examples you list out above); searching back, the one post I found seemed to support that contention, but, wanted to ask explicitly to give you the opportunity to correct my impression, in case I was incorrect .

If you're asking if Trinity Lutheran was wrongly decided, I believe it was. I subscribe to the position that Justices Sotomayor and Ginsberg elucidated in their dissent. I agree with the bright line rule that they adhered to. It was, however, decided on a basis that I can accept, as Justice Breyer did in his concurrence - that is, if the purpose of the government program is not religiously focused (in that case paving playgrounds to prevent injury), denying funds for a parochial school would not be in the best interests of the children, no matter the school's religious preference. I prefer a more specific bright line rule - the State should never provide funds directly to a religious entity, period. That, however, is a debatable position which I can see both sides for.

I don't think I would say they are acting as the State - as, for example, a public school is. They are a private institution that has partnered with the State.

How are they not? You state a position, but you don't have facts to base it upon. I've provided a more complete description - the State has a foster program. It allows private agencies to act as agents on its behalf. They are, therefore, State actors. You describe that as "partnered with the State", but the effect is the same. Again, if the State can't discriminate, its agent can't discriminate. That is exactly this circumstance, and exactly my point.

Hm. All things being equal I would say Stare Decisis is a critical requirement for rule of law and having a society where rules are predictable.

The Supreme Court majority is not so particular. They routinely ignore stare decisis to rule as their ideology prefers. As they have in the Texas abortion case and did in the voting rights cases.

Sometimes you have to overturn precedent, but, each question is not being judged brand new. Tossing it out would produce chaos and revert us further to the bad old days of Rule of Man.

In that we are in accord. Unfortunately, that is not what motivates the "conservative"/radicals on the Court.

 

[NWRatCon]

Again, I think your definitions may be off, here. If receipt of charitable donations is not taxed, then Churches are not fraudulently not paying taxes on taxed activities when they receive charitable donations.

You're haring off into areas not addressed. I never said charitable donations are taxable or that churches are fraudulently not paying taxes on them. I have said that churches are not per se charitable organizations, although they are frequently treated as such for taxation purposes.

You want more activities - specifically, it seems, certain tranche's of charitable donations - to be taxed, and while I disagree, that's an internally consistent position.

That is not my position. Religious organizations, as I have noted, engage in charitable activities. When they do so, I do not believe that those activities should be taxed, but they should and must be separated from the religious activities of the parent organization. I gave as an example, Catholic Charities and Habitat for Humanity. THOSE are charitable activities; the Catholic church, itself, is not.

But to pretend it is already a taxed activity that is simply being not done is to attempt to steal a base / assume the change you wish to see.

I don't follow this argument at all. Can you rephrase/restate it?

Churches do pay sales tax on the things they buy - they are, after all, worked into the price. If you were reimbursed for your purchases on behalf of the church by the church, that does not mean that the gasoline tax was somehow deducted from what you paid at the pump simply because you rolled up in a church van.

I don't know what State you operate in. I never worked in the church treasury. I drove a van, got gas, turned in receipts because I didn't use the church's debit card. This was 40 years ago, in Missouri. Missouri specifically exempted church activities from State fuel taxes. I don't know what you mean by "being worked into the price". Fuel taxes and sales taxes are generally posted on receipts or can be determined because they are a flat percentage. Those can be used in accounting to identify taxes paid. When we went to COSTCO to buy things for church activities, COSTCO didn't charge sales taxes on the purchases if we used the church's debit card. I did that routinely.

Pastors often get crushed by the tax laws - my dad is a pastor - they get to pay both sides of FICA, have to count parsonages that they are required to live in as income (which, it is worth noting, I did not have to do when I was living in military barracks), etc.

Your dad's taxes are not church taxes. He's an individual tax payer - an employee - or an independent contractor, depending on the arrangements of the denomination, which sounds like how your dad was paid. And, yes, rooms provided by an employer are taxable income. The church, I am willing to bet serious money, did not pay property tax on the parsonage, and owned it. They didn't pay capital gains when they sold it, either.

By the way, when you were in the military, the room was provided by the government as part of your compensation, as well as board. IF you lived off-post you would get a Basic Allowance for Housing, and a Basic Allowance for Subsistence (if you didn't eat in the mess hall). Those were, indeed, non-taxed benefits - because they were provided by the same government that was employing you.

 

[NWRatCon]

I'd like to focus the discussion: Does anyone here believe a State program could deny services to a Jewish couple because they are Jewish?
2) If no, does anyone here think that an agent for the State can deny services to a Jewish couple because they are Jewish?

As noted earlier, in Fulton, "The central question during oral argument was whether CSS is running a government program or is it the recipient of a license to provide a service. This distinction is crucial, for "it could determine the outcome and allow the court to avoid confronting the vexing intersection of religious liberties and marriage equality." This case seems to be centered on the same question.

 

[bluesmoke]

And who among us does not love our health insurance provider for their efficient, market-based approach to health care?

Especially market-based drug supply.

 

[bluesmoke]

I’ve always felt that freedom of religion includes freedom from it.

That is what the first words of the 1st Amendment mean, freedom of and from religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

 

[Trippy Trekker]

@NWRatCon @cpwill -

Thank you both for the tremendous amount of thoughtful input you displayed throughout this thread!

 

[NWRatCon]

Some additional information relevant to this discussion: Become a Foster Parent (Tennessee Department of Children's Services)

"Foster Parents can be:

• Single or Married
• With, or without, children of their own.

Minimum Requirements:​

• At least 21 years of age;
• Must be fingerprinted and pass a background check;
• Participate in an Informational Meeting;
• Must complete a training program called TN-KEY;
• Participate in a Home Study;
• Provide documentation of a sufficient income;
• Complete a health exam;

DCS carefully assesses all applicants and the department also provides the opportunity for prospective Foster Parents to work with a case manager to assess themselves before they accept the role of Foster Parent."

Note for relevance: "Must complete a training program called TN-KEY" - this is the training program the couple were denied. Another portion of the DCS website notes, "In Tennessee, there are also approved private agencies that, in partnership with DCS, train and support families to care for children in foster care and specialized foster homes that serve children who have extraordinary medical needs that require special attention."

The TN KEY training program is addressed here. These are all official State webpages: tn.gov This is an official State function, governed by the laws of Tennessee, the 14th Amendment, and the US Constitution, generally.

 

[cpwill]

Logically speaking, my friend, you are all over the place. I am having trouble even following some of your argumentation.

that can often happen when a priori positions are not understood/communicated - a common problem in discourse between people from different worldviews. I'll try to address the specifics below, but, let me know if there is honestly any remaining area where you don't understand what it is that I am actually trying to say, v simply disagreeing with it.

Meaning?

Well, if we were in a situation where the fate of the human species literally depended on our ability at almost the individual level to maximize child bearing and survival, a lot of rules go out the window.

Now, you can say that that is a sort of ridiculous hypothetical, and not germane to the immediate question at hand - and I would agree! Neither is the hypothetical of "what if this was the only agency in existence that could place a foster or adoptive child".

Relevance?

There are two places where the existence of other agencies who exist to serve other communities have immediate relevance:

1. If there are a wide variety of offerings, then not being served by one particular entity in a constellation does not in and of itself constitute being denied access, meaning the State lacks a justifiable rationale for overruling their first amendment liberties. The State has other, less restrictive means of pursuing any public interest of placing children in the homes of [insert plaintiff that has not been served by one of the entities] (ie: other groups exist that could serve that plaintiff).

2. The State allows these other entities - including entities such as Jewish adoption agencies and Muslim adoption agencies, who serve Jewish and Muslim communities respectively - to continue to work to place children in homes. If the State allows one entity to maintain discretion based on its identity, but seeks to limit a specific religious group it decides it does not like, then that group's rights are being violated. You cannot maintain adoption agencies that exist to serve within the Jewish Community, and seek to destroy adoption agencies that exist to serve within the Christian community, because you've decided that it's Icky for Christians to do it.

What does this even mean? Have you been drinking? Did you break into the sacristy again and dip into the priest's stash of sacramental wine?

Good heavens, no. No church buys good wine to distribute en masse.

It was an attempt to bring in some lightheartedness, but the point was the same as #1, above.

Not even close. There is no prohibition in arranging private adoptions within the confines of one's own religious tradition. I've never argued otherwise. That is not the circumstance here, as has been elucidated at length.

This situation involves a private agency acting on behalf of the State to provide training to potential foster parents, for a State program for foster parents.

From the Link that you posted in the OP: Jewish couple challenges Tennessee law after Christian agency’s policy prevented adoption

The point at which the process broke down was the training, and the Methodist agency offered to put the would-be parents in touch with another agency that would provide that training.

Unfortunately, at the end of the day, the redress that the Rutan-Rams want is not to be trained to foster children, it's to be able to force a particular entity to give them that training and provide them with children, even if it violates their religious beliefs to do so.

If you're asking if Trinity Lutheran was wrongly decided, I believe it was.

I thought so, but wasn't certain - thank you for clarifying.

Question for you: was it the fungibility of money (the fact that money received to subsidize one good or service could reduce overall expenditures, in effect subsidizing more overall activity, including specific other activities) that tipped it that way for you?

 

[cpwill]

That, however, is a debatable position which I can see both sides for.

Hard cases make bad law, as they say.

How are they not? You state a position, but you don't have facts to base it upon. I've provided a more complete description - the State has a foster program. It allows private agencies to act as agents on its behalf. They are, therefore, State actors.

No. The State has a foster program. It has partnered with private religious institutions engaged in similar or the same work in order to seek efficiencies and better serve children. Partnering with a government entity to achieve a charitable task does not mean that the government now owns you.

The Supreme Court majority is not so particular.

Fulton was 9-0. Blaming that on mean ole Republicans isn't exactly compelling.

They routinely ignore stare decisis to rule as their ideology prefers. As they have in the Texas abortion case and did in the voting rights cases.

I"m unaware of the precedent for the Texas case - which, I note, was ruled not on the question of whether or not abortion was Constitutional, but, rather, on the separate question of who can you sue to stop a measure allowing one actor to seek financial redress from a second party's actions in civil court, if the actions of that second party were constitutionally protected.

SCOTUS found that you cannot sue random people who haven't actually brought suit in civil court because, well, they haven't done anything, and you can't sue government officials who haven't done anything (as the law forbade government officials from doing so), but, instead, you can sue the clerks who file the motions.

Now, that's a pretty tricky li'l loophole in a (I think, well-intentioned, but misguided) piece of legislation that was itself intended to thread a loophole, and, if there is precedent for that, I"ll admit, nobody I read brought it up. Would you mind citing it?

In that we are in accord. Unfortunately, that is not what motivates the "conservative"/radicals on the Court.

It's good to find common ground here - but I would note that it is generally very easy for us to ascribe evil intent to those with whom we disagree simply because they are in the Opposing Tribe (and it's easy to assume good intent to those with whom we agree, simply because they are in Our Tribe). I try not to do it in general (and sometimes fail - we're all human), and certainly wouldn't do it to you. But it can easily lead us into bad analysis.

 

[cpwill]

I never said charitable donations are taxable or that churches are fraudulently not paying taxes on them. I have said that churches are not per se charitable organizations, although they are frequently treated as such for taxation purposes.

I don't follow this argument at all. Can you rephrase/restate it?

I'll give it a shot, in the context of the above.

Giving your income to the Catholic Church is a charitable contribution. As such, it is not taxed. You wish that this activity was taxed, to the extent that you think the Catholic Church partakes in a narrower set of activities that you find to be charitable than what the law currently recognizes.

Your complaint is not that people should - under current law - be paying taxes for giving to the Catholic Church itself, it is that it is currently not a taxed activity and you wish that it was.

However, when you describe it, you use the language of the former structure, rather than the latter, thus applying your preferred set of taxed and non-taxed activities onto current citizens operating under the current law.

It would be like if I were to describe how awful it was that my current police department is so corrupt that they don't even put doctors who perform general abortions into prison.....

....without acknowledging first that, currently, providing general abortions is perfectly legal, and that I merely wish that the ability to lawfully provide abortions were far more restricted than it is currently. I"m attempting to steal a base by assuming my preferred future change and applying it retroactively to current actors.