What happened to the idea that SSM won’t be pushed on the church
Philadelphia’s rigid demand that all private groups endorse same-sex marriage in order to place foster children in loving homes, disregarding religious freedom,
This is no surprise. This is what we can expect with a Biden presidency. They have and will come after the Church.
I haven’t looked into this case in any depth. My questions concern whether government money is accepted by the charity to place children in homes.
If they accept government money for the placement of children, then they will need to follow government regulations regarding SSM parents. If they are supported privately then I feel they can legally define who they will serve.
I’ll watch this case as however it’s decided, it helps clarify the laws surrounding these situations.
I was listening to some commentary on this one, and part of the problem is how exceptions are given. Apparently Philly commonly gives exceptions to all sorts of organizations. For example, they allow some organizations to place children into homes based on race.
So, if an exception is allowed for race, why not for religion? It seems the city is not neutral in its application of the law. That appears to be one of the points that Fulton is making.
I agree that if exceptions start being made, that’s a new can of worms. Was this orphanage also in Philly? Did they request an exemption? My personal view is that if exceptions are allowed, then religion should be included or deny all exceptions…keep it clean!
Yes, that’s the point. The law was not applied in a neutral manner.
Here’s from the Fulton brief (see here) to the USSC (emphasis mine):
Philadelphia first claimed CSS violated the Fair Practices Ordinance (FPO). Pet.App.149a-150a. The
FPO (as incorporated into city contracts) prohibits “discriminat[ion] based on” characteristics including
marital status, familial status, mental disability, and sexual orientation in “public accommodation[s].”
Pet.App.149a-150a; Phila. Code § 9-1106 (2016). But foster care has never been treated as a “public accommodation” in Philadelphia. J.A.150-151, 183-185, 305-316. Instead, the City permits—indeed, expects—private agencies to assess the marital status, familial status, and mental disabilities of potential foster parents. See pp. 7-8, supra; 55 Pa. Code § 3700.64; J.A.98-100, 236-238. The FPO also applies to “the City, its departments, boards and commissions,” Phila. Code § 9-1102(1)(w), but Philadelphia does not apply the FPO to its own foster care operations. J.A.150-151. In fact, Philadelphia considers disability and race when making foster placements. J.A.305-316.
Thank you. Those are excellent points and I await the outcome. I’m an agnostic. I expect my government to defend my right to my beliefs and those of minorities and SSM. HOWEVER, I expect it to be fair and fairly applied. I don’t want religious rights stamped on any more than SSM rights to be.
There are several issues that the courts need to work out. They made a decision previously…can’t remember in which…where they talked about reasonable accommodation of both religious and SSM rights. If the gay rights can be reasonably accommodated, they should and the same for religious rights. If they can not, then there needs to be a solution that will. If that steps on religious rights, then they will be stepped on but the same goes for gay rights. I do think we will eventually get all this straightened out and it may be a case where no one is totally happy…that’s supposed to be a mark of a good compromise.
There are certain areas where the church will be protected as it always has been. There won’t be priests forced to marry SSM for example. However, chapels that are available for rent to any M/F marriage, not specific Catholic or Baptist ones, may have to allow gays to marry there as well. If it’s a Catholic only facility without exceptions, it should be safe. It’s when religions enter the public sphere that problems are going to continue to arise…and the courts will eventually sort it out.
One interesting thing about this case is who filed amicus briefs AGAINST the Catholic position. You might think that big corporations would have no particular interest in a foster care case. Not so. Good to know who your enemies are:
"Filing amicus briefs against Catholic Social Services were 172 Democrat members of Congress, including Catholic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, while filing in support were 76 Republican members of Congress.
Among the elite businesses and organizations with national influence who filed against the Catholic agency were Apple, Nike, Twitter, Airbnb, American Airlines, Levi Strauss, Macy’s, U.S. Conference of Mayors, National League of Cities, American Psychological Association, and the American Bar Association."
Makes for a nice boycott list when pondering how to spend our wages. Of course, I’ve been boycotting Nike for ages already over their treatment of workers.
Any companies siding with the Church?