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

[dcsports]

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?

One organization, and it wasn't.

 

[roguenuke]

One organization, and it wasn't.

Yes it is. It is cruel and wrong to delay any child being adopted (even potentially) because you do not approve religiously of their "union", rather than actually looking at their qualifications without regard to race, religion, or sex.

 

[dcsports]

How exactly does this help the kids?

It's a large organization that places many children, and had done so well for 50 years. Child placement agencies do a tremendous service - there's no way that state agencies could handle the volume of placements needed without help

 

[Captain Adverse]

“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.

First one must both recognize and accept the fact that there will be some form of "discrimination" in various aspects of life, and especially interpersonal relations.

For example, many people like to walk around without shoes on. A business can "discriminate" and forbid entry because they refuse to accept possible liability for injury to someone's feet in their place of business.

People discriminate in the choice of partners, potential spouses, friends, where they prefer to go or not go, whom to talk to or not, etc..

We also allow some legal "discrimination" under the various "Equal Rights" acts, which literally require businesses, schools, etc. to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, etc.. (Quotas, who can participate...)

Now when it comes to religion, simply look at the First Amendment.

In regards to this foster care/adoption issue? IMO as long as a person has other options (not all foster care homes are run by religious organizations ya know) then if anyone involved seriously wishes to adopt...find a place that has no problems with it.

 

[roguenuke]

It's a large organization that places many children, and had done so well for 50 years. Child placement agencies do a tremendous service - there's no way that state agencies could handle the volume of placements needed without help

Other private placement agencies are more than willing to do it, without discriminating.

 

[dcsports]

Yes it is. It is cruel and wrong to delay any child being adopted (even potentially) because you do not approve religiously of their "union", rather than actually looking at their qualifications without regard to race, religion, or sex.

No same sex couples even applied. There wasn't even a theoretical delay. Same sex couples can apply through other agencies that don't have the same religious beliefs. What sense does it make to turn away help?

Worth noting - this was sexual orientation - not 'race, religion, or sex'.

 

[dcsports]

Other private placement agencies are more than willing to do it, without discriminating.

Yes. I believe that was pointed out. Any same sex couples have other options.

 

[roguenuke]

No same sex couples even applied. There wasn't even a theoretical delay. Same sex couples can apply through other agencies that don't have the same religious beliefs. What sense does it make to turn away help?

Worth noting - this was sexual orientation - not 'race, religion, or sex'.

It was "sex" because interracial couples are considered turned away on the basis of their relative races (equivalent to their races), interfaith couples are considered turned away on the basis of their relative religions (equivalent to their religion), which means same sex couples are being turned away on the basis of their relative sexes, not their sexual orientation. This logic is straight forward.

 

[Napoleon]

Yes. I believe that was pointed out. Any same sex couples have other options.

So does the city of Philadelphia. They can change the law...the law provided for an exception to their anti-discrimination policy. If they change the law to provide for NO exception, the Supreme Court's decision becomes moot and Catholic gobbledegook can be fired.

 

[roguenuke]

Yes. I believe that was pointed out. Any same sex couples have other options.

As do those children who the religious discrimination organizations are discriminating in regards to. They are receiving money for those children and then charging potential parents money for placing those children. That is the issue.

 

[dcsports]

It was "sex" because interracial couples are considered turned away on the basis of their relative races (equivalent to their races), interfaith couples are considered turned away on the basis of their relative religions (equivalent to their religion), which means same sex couples are being turned away on the basis of their relative sexes, not their sexual orientation. This logic is straight forward.

'relative sexes' <> sex

It's really irrelevant. We're talking about a very narrow religious accommodation that has never actually been an issue.

 

[Napoleon]

As do those children who the religious discrimination organizations are discriminating in regards to. They are receiving money for those children and then charging potential parents money for placing those children. That is the issue.

Such human trafficking is a multi-billion dollar industry for the CC.

 

[trouble13]

“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.

What do you mean by subcontract? Adoption is not a function of government.

It's funny how when the discrimination is directed at conservatives by a private business, progressives fall all over themselves crowing about a business having the right to discriminate in any manner they see fit but, when a business discriminates in a way that is unsympathetic to the progressive position selective amnesia kicks in.

 

[Rawley]

This SC has demonstrated that it believes religion deserves special treatment, in effect establishing a state religion that worships religion.

Just a wild guess, perhaps it is given special treatment by the Supreme Court because it is given special treatment in the Constitution?

 

[roguenuke]

'relative sexes' <> sex

It's really irrelevant. We're talking about a very narrow religious accommodation that has never actually been an issue.

Relative sex is equivalent to sex in the same ways relative religion is equivalent to religion and relative race is equivalent to race.

 

[Rawley]

Ah yes, the “charitable works” they charge $10,000 a head for on top of the billions of dollars they receive in government grants.

This foster care agency is given billions of dollars in grants? Damn, I gotta get into the foster care biz.

 

[Napoleon]

This foster care agency is given billions of dollars in grants? Damn, I gotta get into the foster care biz.

Catholic Social Services is a subsidiary of Catholic Charities - which receives $2.9 billion in State and Federal grants and pulls in another $1.8 billion from donations. Yeah, human trafficking is pretty lucrative.

 

[Rawley]

Catholic Social Services is a subsidiary of Catholic Charities - which receives $2.9 billion in State and Federal grants and pulls in another $1.8 billion from donations. Yeah, human trafficking is pretty lucrative.

Seems you are not a fan of foster care - "human trafficking" What's your preferred option? - leave the kids on the street to fend for themselves?

 

[Napoleon]

Seems you are not a fan of foster care - "human trafficking" What's your preferred option? - leave the kids on the street to fend for themselves?

My preference would be prohibiting the sale of children. Adoption and fostering should cost prospective parents $0. None of this business where we give some Catholic organization almost $3 billion and then they turn around and charge prospective parents $10,000 per child.

 

[Rawley]

My preference would be prohibiting the sale of children. Adoption and fostering should cost prospective parents $0. None of this business where we give some Catholic organization almost $3 billion and then they turn around and charge prospective parents $10,000 per child.

?? Foster care parents are not charged anything.

Are there many adoption agencies that provide zero cost adoptions? This "some Catholic organization" provides the service on a sliding scale depending on the income of the parents.

 

[trixare4kids]

This SC has demonstrated that it believes religion deserves special treatment, in effect establishing a state religion that worships religion.

It has nothing to do with this. Read their decision.

 

[Loulit01]

A Catholic adoption agency should not have to work with gay couples. Not a single tax dollar from gay couples should be used by the government to fund Catholic adoption agencies. Fair is fair.

A wall, people. Not on the border but between church and state.

 

[iguanaman]

“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.

But they did not do what the plaintiffs wanted and reverse the ruling that said religion does not absolve anyone from following anti-discrimination laws. They ruled in favor because of technical problems with the contract.

The court rejected the urging of Catholic Social Services, one of 30 agencies that contract with Philadelphia to find homes for abused and neglected children, for a broad ruling that would allow religious objections to overcome anti-discrimination laws.

“We are relieved that the court did not recognize a license to discriminate based on religious beliefs,” said Leslie Cooper of the ACLU. “This is good news for LGBTQ people and for everyone who depends on the protections of non-discrimination laws."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...ty-fight-over-religious-freedom-anti-n1271148

 

[AGENT J]

“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 not what the ruling seems to be though. Seems more along the lines of the city violated the rights of the care agency buy frozen the contract
Its not a ruling saying the care agency can discriminate against gay people.

Illegal discrimination is still illegal discrimination and in the end when this is all washed out that will be the way it is. Nobody will have any special protections and we will play by the same rules

 

[Plasmaball]

The issue here is this is scotus attempt to go around gay rights by using the 1st amendment to back door their right to marriage.

That's all these cases ever were and will be