• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court rules in favor of Catholic foster care agency that refused to work with same-sex couples

Napoleon

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
14,466
Reaction score
5,072
Location
Columbus, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The Supreme Court on Thursday said that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment when it froze the contract of a Catholic foster care agency that refused to work with same-sex couples as potential foster parents because the agency believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman.”

It is very disappointing that the Supreme Court unanimously decided that not only can a State subcontract discrimination that would be Unconstitutional for it do itself but that it must do so.
 

Aunt Antifa

Vaccinated-American
Banned
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
27,202
Reaction score
14,205
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
This SC has demonstrated that it believes religion deserves special treatment, in effect establishing a state religion that worships religion.
 

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
34,989
Reaction score
7,798
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This SC has demonstrated that it believes religion deserves special treatment, in effect establishing a state religion that worships religion.
False, government was interfering with a religious institution engaging in the private sector for free to place kids for adoption. Its essentially a religious exemption not an establishment of a state religion. But I think SCOTUS is not viewing the wider impact on their ruling. It won't be seen as an exemption by the LBGTQ community but more the way you see it.

I said at the time that equal protections were extended to sexual orientation that a push needed to be made to get a constitutional amendment to make sure equal protection will be a priority for SCOTUS. I still think it needs to be done.
 

Aunt Antifa

Vaccinated-American
Banned
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
27,202
Reaction score
14,205
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
False, government was interfering with a religious institution engaging in the private sector for free to place kids for adoption. Its essentially a religious exemption not an establishment of a state religion. But I think SCOTUS is not viewing the wider impact on their ruling. It won't be seen as an exemption by the LBGTQ community but more the way you see it.

I said at the time that equal protections were extended to sexual orientation that a push needed to be made to get a constitutional amendment to make sure equal protection will be a priority for SCOTUS. I still think it needs to be done.

THere cannot be an exemption for discrimination. They previously ruled that religion should trump local government’s ability to keep their population safe from an infectious plague. This is giving religion special exemptions that do not and should not exist.

It’s establishing religion is above all rights.
 

Napoleon

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
14,466
Reaction score
5,072
Location
Columbus, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
False, government was interfering with a religious institution engaging in the private sector for free to place kids for adoption. Its essentially a religious exemption not an establishment of a state religion. But I think SCOTUS is not viewing the wider impact on their ruling. It won't be seen as an exemption by the LBGTQ community but more the way you see it.

I said at the time that equal protections were extended to sexual orientation that a push needed to be made to get a constitutional amendment to make sure equal protection will be a priority for SCOTUS. I still think it needs to be done.
No, the government wasn’t interfering with a religious institution. It declined to award a religious institution a public contract to place children from the State foster system because it was discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. So now we have a ruling that says the State can and must contract third parties to engage in unconstitutional discrimination it wouldn’t be allowed to do itself.

And it’s dumb that apparently we need to itemize every class of person in separate amendments because people act like they don’t know what “any person” means in the Equal Protection Clause.
 

dcsports

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
10,759
Reaction score
2,939
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Supreme Court on Thursday said that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment when it froze the contract of a Catholic foster care agency that refused to work with same-sex couples as potential foster parents because the agency believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman.”

It is very disappointing that the Supreme Court unanimously decided that not only can a State subcontract discrimination that would be Unconstitutional for it do itself but that it must do so.
That's an extremely good ruling. You have to respect the rights of a religious organization. It's a very narrow policy - which impacted no one (no homosexual couples applied with the organization). There are other organizations that can help those families.

It' pretty extreme and cold hearted to turn away help for children - especially from an organization who had done this well for 50 years.
 

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
34,989
Reaction score
7,798
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
No, the government wasn’t interfering with a religious institution. It declined to award a religious institution a public contract to place children from the State foster system because it was discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. So now we have a ruling that says the State can and must contract third parties to engage in unconstitutional discrimination it wouldn’t be allowed to do itself.

And it’s dumb that apparently we need to itemize every class of person in separate amendments because people act like they don’t know what “any person” means in the Equal Protection Clause.
The religious organization was doing adoptions long before government took over the process and how adoptions are handled. They (the government) are now the only way in which adoptions can really take place. Religious exemptions have a long, long, long line of precedent stretching back to the beginnings of the US. I do not know how you untie that particular Gordian knot, but shutting religious organizations out because of their beliefs isn't going to do anything but push them out of charitable works in which they do more than anyone else, even collective anyone else.

My take is an Amendment would strengthen the case that religious exemptions shouldn't be more powerful than the protections to sexual orientation. As much as they say SCOTUS isn't swayed by politics or popular opinion, they let slip that they really are.
 

roguenuke

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
51,796
Reaction score
18,984
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
That's an extremely good ruling. You have to respect the rights of a religious organization. It's a very narrow policy - which impacted no one (no homosexual couples applied with the organization). There are other organizations that can help those families.

It' pretty extreme and cold hearted to turn away help for children - especially from an organization who had done this well for 50 years.
If it is extreme and cold hearted to turn away help for children, then why are these organizations denying children families, making them wait longer for loving parents?
 

Napoleon

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
14,466
Reaction score
5,072
Location
Columbus, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
That's an extremely good ruling. You have to respect the rights of a religious organization. It's a very narrow policy - which impacted no one (no homosexual couples applied with the organization). There are other organizations that can help those families.

It' pretty extreme and cold hearted to turn away help for children - especially from an organization who had done this well for 50 years.
It’s cold hearted to deny children a family because of your interpretation of the scratchings of a Bronze Age boob. The rights of a religious organization didn’t include a right to a State contract to discriminate on the State’s behalf...until today.
 

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
34,989
Reaction score
7,798
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
THere cannot be an exemption for discrimination. They previously ruled that religion should trump local government’s ability to keep their population safe from an infectious plague. This is giving religion special exemptions that do not and should not exist.

It’s establishing religion is above all rights.

SCOTUS is unwilling to breach first amendment protections in place of sexual orientation protections. I agree it may not be the best decision but in this case, its the best solution for the party the organization and the government agency are charged with helping---the kids.
 

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
34,989
Reaction score
7,798
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It’s cold hearted to deny children a family because of your interpretation of the scratchings of a Bronze Age boob. The rights of a religious organization didn’t include a right to a State contract to discriminate on the State’s behalf...until today.
There were no organized religions during the Bronze age that ended around 350BC. Quit proving you have no idea what you are talking about.
 

tres borrachos

HoHoHo
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
82,828
Reaction score
57,500
Location
Biden's 'Murica
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
If it is extreme and cold hearted to turn away help for children, then why are these organizations denying children families, making them wait longer for loving parents?

You beat me to it.

The ones who are getting hurt are the children. Same sex couples want to provide loving homes for children in need and the ****ing church won't allow them to. The children suffer. And we are supposed to applaud the church's bigotry?
 

roguenuke

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
51,796
Reaction score
18,984
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
SCOTUS is unwilling to breach first amendment protections in place of sexual orientation protections. I agree it may not be the best decision but in this case, its the best solution for the party the organization and the government agency are charged with helping---the kids.
The kids were never in any danger of not being helped, just changing agencies, maybe, who helped them. Those kids would still be eligible for adoption, just have more families for them to be adopted by.
 

tres borrachos

HoHoHo
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
82,828
Reaction score
57,500
Location
Biden's 'Murica
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
SCOTUS is unwilling to breach first amendment protections in place of sexual orientation protections. I agree it may not be the best decision but in this case, its the best solution for the party the organization and the government agency are charged with helping---the kids.

How exactly does this help the kids?
 

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
34,989
Reaction score
7,798
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If it is extreme and cold hearted to turn away help for children, then why are these organizations denying children families, making them wait longer for loving parents?
There were no LGBTQ applicants....government just terminated their contract because they stated flatly they wouldn't violate their beliefs.
 

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
34,989
Reaction score
7,798
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
How exactly does this help the kids?
Because most of the adoptions were done by the religious organization in that area. No one else is really set up to do it, not the even the government agency in question.
 

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
34,989
Reaction score
7,798
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The kids were never in any danger of not being helped, just changing agencies, maybe, who helped them. Those kids would still be eligible for adoption, just have more families for them to be adopted by.
How many government adoption agencies do you believe there are?
 

roguenuke

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
51,796
Reaction score
18,984
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
There were no LGBTQ applicants....government just terminated their contract because they stated flatly they wouldn't violate their beliefs.
They shouldn't have a contract if they are not willing to abide by the terms of that contract. Just as Liberty University could not refuse to accept interracial couples when they accept government money. It is that simple. If they don't want to abide by the terms, they should be forced to do it on their own or not do it. There is no shortage of organizations willing to work with couples, all couples, who are looking to adopt.
 

tres borrachos

HoHoHo
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
82,828
Reaction score
57,500
Location
Biden's 'Murica
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Because most of the adoptions were done by the religious organization in that area. No one else is really set up to do it, not the even the government agency in question.

How does this help the kids? Allowing the church to discriminate helps the kids?
 

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
34,989
Reaction score
7,798
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
They shouldn't have a contract if they are not willing to abide by the terms of that contract. Just as Liberty University could not refuse to accept interracial couples when they accept government money. It is that simple. If they don't want to abide by the terms, they should be forced to do it on their own or not do it. There is no shortage of organizations willing to work with couples, all couples, who are looking to adopt.
Excuse me, legitimate expectation of continuation. That was never a term regarding sexual orientation until recently.

I would argue very strongly that there is definitely a shortage of organizations to work on adoptions, and further, I would argue you know it.
 

Napoleon

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
14,466
Reaction score
5,072
Location
Columbus, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Because most of the adoptions were done by the religious organization in that area. No one else is really set up to do it, not the even the government agency in question.
Wrong. The City contracts 29 other agencies to do this. I hope they find one that refuses to place children with Catholic families and we’ll see how quickly minds are changed.
 

roguenuke

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
51,796
Reaction score
18,984
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
How many government adoption agencies do you believe there are?
About 3000, private and public, in the US. If those private agencies could not handle it, then their children would simply be part of the public agencies' children to be adopted.
 

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
34,989
Reaction score
7,798
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
How does this help the kids? Allowing the church to discriminate helps the kids?
The church isn't going to budge, the charitable works are part of their beliefs, as is the belief on marriage. The solution would be to end a 50 year contractual partnership that was successful to start from scratch.
 

roguenuke

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
51,796
Reaction score
18,984
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Excuse me, legitimate expectation of continuation. That was never a term regarding sexual orientation until recently.

I would argue very strongly that there is definitely a shortage of organizations to work on adoptions, and further, I would argue you know it.
Interracial couples are easily equivalent to same sex couples because both are a matter of relative characteristics being different and people opposing them for religious and non religious reasons.

3000 is not a shortage.
 

Napoleon

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
14,466
Reaction score
5,072
Location
Columbus, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The church isn't going to budge, the charitable works are part of their beliefs, as is the belief on marriage. The solution would be to end a 50 year contractual partnership that was successful to start from scratch.
Ah yes, the “charitable works” they charge $10,000 a head for on top of the billions of dollars they receive in government grants.
 
Top Bottom