Civic Register
| 6.17.21
Supreme Court Unanimously Sides With Catholic Foster Family Agency Against Philadelphia in First Amendment Case
How do you feel about the Court’s decision?
What’s the story?
- The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled that the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania violated the First Amendment rights of a Catholic foster care service agency by attempting to require it to commit to placing children with same-sex couples.
- The case, known as Fulton v. Philadelphia, concerned the operation of Philadelphia’s foster care system which annually contracts with private foster care agencies such as Catholic Social Services (CSS) that are tasked with certifying foster families based on criteria set by the state. The foster family program is administered by a city commissioner who has the discretion to grant individual exceptions from the state’s criteria to an agency.
- As a Catholic organization, CSS holds the view that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and woman and as a matter of policy will not certify same-sex married couples as foster parents, nor will it unmarried couples of any sexual orientation.
- No same-sex couple has ever petitioned CSS in an effort to be one of CSS’s certified foster families, and other private agencies participating in the city’s foster family certification program do certify same-sex couples.
- A 2018 news report on CSS’s stance regarding the certification of same-sex couples prompted the city of Philadelphia to inform CSS that unless it committed to certifying same-sex couples it would violate a non-discrimination clause in the agency’s contract along with a citywide ordinance.
- CSS then filed suit to block the city’s freeze alleging violations of the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment. The federal district court and the Third Circuit held that the city’s requirement was neutral and generally applicable under the Smith precedent and declined to grant CSS’s request.
- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the lower courts’ rulings, holding that the city of Philadelphia violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Because of the Free Exercise violation, the Supreme Court didn’t consider the Free Speech violation.
What did the justices say?
- Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion which was joined by Justice Stephen Breyer, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The chief justice’s opinion set aside the issue of the Smith precedent and ruled that the city of Philadelphia violated the First Amendment:
“This case falls outside Smith because the City has burdened the religious exercise of CSS through policies that do not meet the requirement of being neutral and generally applicable...
That leaves the interest of the City in the equal treatment of prospective foster parents and foster children. We do not doubt that this interest is a weighty one, for “[o]ur society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth.” (Masterpiece). On the facts of this case, however, this interest cannot justify denying CSS an exception for its religious exercise. The creation of a system of exceptions under the contract undermines the City’s contention that its non-discrimination policies can brook no departures. The City offers no compelling reason why it has a particular interest in denying an exception to CSS while making them available to others.
As Philadelphia acknowledges, CSS has “long been a point of light in the City’s foster-care system.” CSS seeks only an accommodation that will allow it to continue serving the children of Philadelphia in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs; it does not seek to impose those beliefs on anyone else. The refusal of Philadelphia to contract with CSS for the provision of foster care services unless it agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents cannot survive strict scrutiny, and violates the First Amendment.”
- Justice Samuel Alito wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment that was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch. He called for a more expansive ruling that overruled Smith.
“In Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith (1990), the Court abruptly pushed aside nearly 40 years of precedent and held that the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause tolerates any rule that categorically prohibits or commands specified conduct so long as it does not target religious practice. Even if a rule serves no important purpose and has a devastating effect on religious freedom, the Constitution, according to Smith, provides no protection. This severe holding is ripe for reexamination.”
- Gorsuch also wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment that was joined by Alito and Thomas, and like Alito’s opinion, called for Smith to be overturned:
“What possible benefit does the majority see in its studious indecision about Smith when the costs are so many? The particular appeal before us arises at the intersection of public accommodations laws and the First Amendment; it involves same-sex couples and the Catholic Church. Perhaps our colleagues believe today’s circuitous path will at least steer the Court around the controversial subject matter and avoid “picking a side.” But refusing to give CSS the benefit of what we know to be the correct interpretation of the Constitution is picking a side. Smith committed a constitutional error. Only we can fix it. Dodging the question today guarantees it will recur tomorrow. These cases will keep coming until the Court musters the fortitude to supply an answer. Respectfully, it should have done so today.”
- Additionally, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment that was joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and by Justice Stephen Breyer for all but the first paragraph in which Barrett suggested the “textual and structural arguments against Smith are more compelling.” However, she concluded that she saw “no reason to decide in this case whether Smith should be overruled, much less what should replace it.”
— Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: iStock.com / lucky-photographer)
The Latest
-
The Long Arc: Taking Action in Times of Change“Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle.” Martin Luther King Jr. Today in read more... Advocacy -
Thousands Displaced as Climate Change Fuels Wildfire Catastrophe in Los AngelesIt's been a week of unprecedented destruction in Los Angeles. So far the Palisades, Eaton and other fires have burned 35,000 read more... Environment -
Puberty, Privacy, and PolicyOn December 11, the Montana Supreme Court temporarily blocked SB99 , a law that sought to ban gender-affirming care for read more... Families -
Women Are Shaping This Election — Why Is the Media Missing It?As we reflect on the media coverage of this election season, it’s clear that mainstream outlets have zeroed in on the usual read more... Elections
Climate & Consumption
Health & Hunger
Politics & Policy
Safety & Security
The adoption agency is providing a great service to these children and should not be forced to violate their faith or mission of helping the orphans.
SCOTUS is back doing its job correctly.
The Supreme court seems to forget that politics should not be confused with religiosity.
By denying same-sex couples, CSS is in fact, violating the rights off others.
The potential problem here is that religious groups/churches do a lot and if you force them to do something against their belief then you potentially shut them down when they are not the only group that provide this service. On the flip side this reminds me of years ago when a county clerk refused to give marriage licenses to same sex couples as it was against her belief - in that case she was wrong as if she disagrees then she should resign from her job as her state allows it and her office is where they have to go.
The Supreme Court needs to stop discrimination. This is the second time this Court has allowed "christian" religion institutions to discriminate against LGBTQ persons within a matter of a few weeks. Discrimination no matter if based on race, gender, ethnicity, age, religion, disability, etc. should should not be upheld or supported by any court. The Constitution states that ALL PEOPLE are created EQUAL. That should supersede any religious, regional, local, state, amendment law. These "christain" churches, schools and other institutions are more than happy to accept federal money and non-tax status. The federal government should stop funding and providing special privileges to businesses and institutions that discriminate. Religious institutions and churches are businesses. This country's government was based on separation of church and state for good reason. The Court rulings have opened a crack that that can widen. If it is ok to discriminate against a person, it opens the door to hate. It separates us and leaves out some at the real expense of all.
Are we all not human beings? This is clearly a violation of separation of church and state and goes against Democracy as a whole.
On Causes, Michael777 wrote: "While this decision only affects very narrow situations, it is still concerning how the SCOTUS continues to strengthen “religious freedom”..." Read more here: https://www.causes.com/comments/1477951 Um... your emotional reaction to the religious freedoms and beliefs of another does not allow you the right to determine what you deem to be “allowed” under their belief systems. Do you have to like it? No. Can you speak out against it, sure. But they don’t have to change. So long as they are not causing physical harm to a person. I only replied to this because I see this all over the place nowadays... and it is a dangerous rhetoric for any hopes of maintaining our rights to all kinds of freedoms in this country. Freedom of religion shall not be infringed. I say this even as I speak as probably one of the Christian’s most hated types of people. They have the right to hate me, they don’t have the right to hurt me. I have the right to be upset and speak my mind about it, but not to attack and infringe on them. Everyone has a different perspective of how the world works ( or “should” work). That doesn’t give you the right to force someone to else to believe what you believe. That’s the beauty of this country. So much freedom that we can manage to exist amongst each other with such varying views on reality and spirituality. Now, in a precious comment I did also indicate that I felt if this group received tax payer funding and state exemptions from taxes, that should be removed from them. They should be allowed the freedom of their religious practices, but it should never ever be state or taxpayer funded (in my opinion). Freedom is freedom, but state regulations and laws related to discrimination exist for a reason as well. If you want to try and use your religion as a means to deny a taxpayer access to something, you don’t get their dollars to fund yourself in doing so. All humans in this country have the rights and means to do research on all groups before choosing to interact with one. Vote with your actions and dollars, and allow people their freedoms / stay in your lane. That’s my opinion. Otherwise we creep into a very scary zone of “which religion is targeted for what ‘social justice cause’ now!?” Am I next? How many witches do we have to bring into the city square to burn for “not assimilating to the majority’s beliefs” before we all realize what we are doing??
Philly, from my point of view had a right to not certify any foster care agency that discriminated against any couple, whether gay or not. The only valid reason to not allow a couple to act as foster parents is if they are abusive or would do more harm to the children tha good.
I do not, and have not ever, agreed with any religion that has decided their God is against all things related to “same sex” couples... however... that is “my opinion” and doesn’t have any place in someone’s ability to perform their duties within the constructs of their own spiritual path...:. this is a scary little legal dance... does the organization get their religious freedom to run their organization the way their spiritual rules determine are best and most good under their God, or should the state have a right to step in and say “your religion is wrong, and you must allow this because otherwise you’re going to be fined or shut down / canceled”..... Separation of church and state? Agree with another commenter on here - if they receive state funding or tax credits from the government for their group, then that should be removed unless they will follow non-discrimination laws of the US (consider it the “cost” of maintaining religious freedom while not abusing possibly same sex couple’s tax dollars to deny them a family).. otherwise I think the government should keep it’s nosey overreaching fingers out of it.... I certainly do see how this is a situation that deserves much more in depth consideration and discussion from all parties then it has... and possibly ever will... many toes are being stepped on in this, and I don’t believe anyone is left feeling good.
Church and state are supposed to be separate!
my neighbor's sister makes $88/hr on the computer. She has been laid off for 7 months but last month her paycheck was $15820 just working on the computer for a few hours. look at this website >>> www.BigLifestyles.com
This is an issue when two Constitutional Rights come head to head, there may not actually be a correct answer. At least in this case there are other agencies that are not homophobic.
I agree with religious freedom. I question the judgement of an organization that will not place children with same sex couples for that reason only. There are so many children that need good homes and to eliminate same sex couples across the board, eliminates a lot of possibly good homes. Also, this is discrimination, and I don’t believe religious freedom should include the right to discriminate.
Okay
I do not know the full details behind this decision, but it greatly troubles me that this infringes upon the separation of church and state. If a religious organization is accepting funding as part of a State sponsored program of any kind they should be bound by the rules of the State. If not, then the state has every right to pull funding and state support from that religious organization. No one’s rights should be allowed to infringe on other people’s rights, religious or not. (In fact, any church or religious group that obtains public taxpayer funds for any purpose should lose their tax exempt status. They do not contribute, so why should they benefit from taxpayer resources?) … … … The same is true for masking and social distancing state mandates to control the spread of communicable diseases where certain religious practices would be essentially super spreader events that greatly risk spreading deadly pathogens to others in the community beyond their religious groups. I disagree with the courts ruling, for example, that the State could not enforce disease control mandates for certain religious groups allowing freedom of religion to trump the freedom of others from suffering due to the spread of deadly pathogens to others in their community likely to come from religious group’s lack of following disease control protocols. … … … There are some Muslim sects that would slaughter live lambs in their driveways for family religious holidays. Sikh’s turbines traditionally would include a small knife for self-defense as part of their belief’s - they are probably barred from aircraft if they attempt to follow their religious beliefs. What about practicing Druids and Satan Worshipers - aren’t these all religious beliefs? Should they all be allowed to practice their religions no matter however they may conflict with state regulations and laws - OR IS THE SUPREME COURT PICKING THE ONLY ‘TRUE’ RELIGIONS THAT COUNT? … . … By these SCOTUS rulings alone, are they not violating the constitutional separation of church and state by, in effect, endorsing the religious beliefs that deserve special favor and picking those religious beliefs that the country should honor over other religious beliefs? This, to me, is really a scary proposition which seems to run counter to the principles of inclusion and acceptance of all personal religious beliefs that do not infringe upon the rights of others at all, or to have different beliefs or no religious beliefs whatsoever.
The ruling said the city could not bar the Catholic Foster Agency from PARTICIPATING in the foster program because they did not support placement with same sex couples. That is reverse discrimination... The Court made no judgement about the Catholic POSITION on same sex couples, just that the city could not eliminate them from participation because of their position.
Discrimination based on marital status. Unwed couples should be able to be designated as foster parents.
Some states have laws allowing women to go topless in public but it depends on where she does it. If she does it in a public park where children could be playing, she'll be removed from the park and perhaps charged with a crime. So, whoever is making the rules, I hope that the safety and needs of children are placed first with the courts and churches.
Court is biased and out of touch.