- Joined
- Jun 18, 2018
- Messages
- 53,578
- Reaction score
- 49,867
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
It is true the current Supreme Court of the US made a confusing decision ({Philadelphia case) allowing a state funded adoption agency to discriminate against a same sex couple and opened the door to adoption agencies receiving government funding to discriminate based on religious views.
However The Philadelphia decision is very narrow in application of the ruke it applied, i.e., it might apply if a specific clause exists that allows the government funder to consider religious exemption. Even then it says in such cases if the clause exists then the obligation is to consider the exception fairly. It does not say automatically allow the religious exemption. It can not-no court at any level can tell a decision maker at any level to impose a specific ruling without considering the merits of the case. That would be called trying to impose bias in the decision making which violates the fundamental principle of natural justice (fairness) a principle all decision makers must follow.
Judge Roberts wrote in the Philadelphia decision that adoption agencies receiving federal funding are not private. However an agency that is private status loses that status in regards to the use of any of its government provided funds. In that sense the government funds being used to violate the First Amendment are most certainly public in the sense that the government funds can come with a precondition not to be used in a discriminatory manner.
It is also important to understand if an agency has very narrow religious beliefs and is upfront and clear about it so potential clients understand these preconditions and it does NOT receive public funding whether a potential client feeling discriminated against and wishes to challenge that is a distinct legal situation from one where a PUBLIC/GOVERNMENT funded agency or a state run agency wishes to discriminate.
State run agencies can not violate the First Amendment.
Publically funded private agencies and private agencies might be able to but I would suggest only where there are state funded or state run agencies also available because of alternative services of equal access are available.
Also that religious discrimination let's think about it for second. Judge Roberts the person who wrote the Philadelphia decision and three other Judges on the USSC are openly Christian in their beliefs and feel "religion" not be separated from state laws. They were appoDinted because they believe there should be no state funding of agencies they believe allow abortion. They favour imposing Christian values in laws. If the agency engaging discrimination was the Church of Satan, Church of Scientology, Church of the Aryan Brotherhood, would the decision have gone the same way if those agencies said they will not serve non believers? Probably not.
Furthermore the Philadelphia decision does not magically take precedent over the other many SC decisions that uphold the First Amendment (separating government services from religious consideration.
Yes the Philadelphia decision will be used by pro religious people to say you can discriminate. Of course. They already have that preconceived political view you can and so they will use this decision in a manner pulling it out of the actual narrow exception it provides to say it can be used in wider application.
Hiowever is a a decision replete with many references that limit it to narrow application not general application if it is used as a precedent (binding decision that must be applied) in future cases.
So I caution to jump to the conclusion this one case will allow First Amendment violations on a wide spread basis with adoption services is a bit premature.
Ya gotta feel for the children who will not neccesarily get to be adopted by the most fit parents.