SCOTUS ruled a religious organization getting foster care funding can refuse LGBT applications

1
The Supreme Court has ruled that Philadelphia cannot exclude a Catholic organization from its foster care program because the group won't take applications from same-sex couples.

The decision could make it easier for religious organizations or individuals participating in government programs to refuse services to LGBTQ people or others.

The justices' decision in favor of Catholic Social Services was unanimous, but three of the court's conservative justices said the court should've issued a more sweeping ruling overturning a two-decade-old decision that the Constitution allows the government to enforce broad-based rules even if they burden specific religious groups.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/1 ... rch-494999


Articles I've been reading pointed out that this was going to be a partisan and religious decision - between the conservative Catholic justices on SCOTUS and liberal and non-Catholic justices. It turned out unanimous and I'll post the ruling, it must have been a narrow decision. The other thing is that generally there are always secular organizations contracted for these services, so LGBT applicants aren't excluded from applying.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: SCOTUS ruled a religious organization getting foster care funding can refuse LGBT applications

2
In contradistinction to a 1983 SCOTUS ruling which upheld legality of denying tax exempt status to private schools that discriminate on racial grounds (against Reagan’s objections). That is, private schools owned by religious organizations could lose their tax-exempt status if they engaged in racial discrimination.
LGC #58559867
אבראהאדאברא
θέλημα Αγάπη

Re: SCOTUS ruled a religious organization getting foster care funding can refuse LGBT applications

3
The law is whatever SCOTUS says it is, I know not a cut and dry decision. CSS is Catholic Social Services of the Philadelphia Catholic Archdiocese.

The holding (decision) of the Court.
The refusal of Philadelphia to contract with CSS for the provision of foster care services unless CSS agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Pp. 4–15.

(a) The City’s actions burdened CSS’s religious exercise by forcing it either to curtail its mission or to certify same-sex couples as foster parents in violation of its religious beliefs. Smith held that laws incidentally burdening religion are ordinarily not subject to strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause so long as they are both neutral and
generally applicable. 494 U. S., at 878–882. This case falls outside Smith because the City has burdened CSS’s religious exercise through policies that do not satisfy the threshold requirement of being neutral and generally applicable. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520, 531–532. A law is not generally applicable if it invites the government to consider the particular reasons for a person’s
conduct by creating a mechanism for individualized exemptions. Smith, 494 U. S., at 884. Where such a system of individual exemptions exists, the government may not refuse to extend that system to cases of religious hardship without a compelling reason. Ibid. Pp. 4– 7.

(1) The non-discrimination requirement of the City’s standard foster care contract is not generally applicable. Section 3.21 of the contract requires an agency to provide services defined in the contract to prospective foster parents without regard to their sexual orientation. But section 3.21 also permits exceptions to this requirement at the “sole discretion” of the Commissioner. This inclusion of a mechanism
for entirely discretionary exceptions renders the non-discrimination provision not generally applicable. Smith, 494 U. S., at 884. The City maintains that greater deference should apply to its treatment of private contractors, but the result here is the same under any level of deference. Similarly unavailing is the City’s recent contention that section 3.21 does not even apply to CSS’s refusal to certify same-sex
couples. That contention ignores the broad sweep of section 3.21’s text, as well as the fact that the City adopted the current version of section 3.21 shortly after declaring that it would make CSS’s obligation to certify same-sex couples “explicit” in future contracts. Finally, because state law makes clear that the City’s authority to grant exceptions from section 3.21 also governs section 15.1’s general prohibition on sexual orientation discrimination, the contract as a whole contains no generally applicable non-discrimination requirement. Pp. 7–10.

(2) Philadelphia’s Fair Practices Ordinance, which as relevant forbids interfering with the public accommodations opportunities of an individual based on sexual orientation, does not apply to CSS’s actions here. The Ordinance defines a public accommodation in relevant part to include a provider “whose goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations are extended, offered, sold, or otherwise made available to the public.” Phila. Code §9–1102(1)(w). Certification is not “made available to the public” in the usual sense of the words. Certification as a foster parent is not readily accessible to the public; the process involves a customized and selective assessment that bears little resemblance to staying in a hotel, eating at a restaurant, or riding a bus. The District Court’s contrary conclusion did not take into account the uniquely selective nature of foster care certification. Pp. 10–13.

(b) The contractual non-discrimination requirement burdens CSS’s religious exercise and is not generally applicable, so it is subject to “the most rigorous of scrutiny.” Lukumi, 508 U. S., at 546. A government policy can survive strict scrutiny only if it advances compelling interests and is narrowly tailored to achieve those interests. Ibid. The question is not whether the City has a compelling interest in enforcing
its non-discrimination policies generally, but whether it has such an interest in denying an exception to CSS. Under the circumstances here, the City does not have a compelling interest in refusing to contract with CSS. 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 the agency agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents cannot survive strict scrutiny and violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The Court does not consider whether the City’s actions also violate the Free Speech Clause. Pp. 13–15.

922 F. 3d. 140, reversed and remanded.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 3_g3bi.pdf

It was narrow enough decision to make it unanimous. SCOTUS is not always right, it's just the final court of appeal in the US.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: SCOTUS ruled a religious organization getting foster care funding can refuse LGBT applications

4
I think if an agency receives any federal government funding even through a third party such as a state, county, city or private source then they should be bound by the federal regulations on non-discrimination. If the agency want to discriminate against a group of people then they should have to rely on private non-government funding and lose ant tax exempt status for that agency.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: SCOTUS ruled a religious organization getting foster care funding can refuse LGBT applications

5
TrueTexan wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:19 pm I think if an agency receives any federal government funding even through a third party such as a state, county, city or private source then they should be bound by the federal regulations on non-discrimination. If the agency want to discriminate against a group of people then they should have to rely on private non-government funding and lose ant tax exempt status for that agency.

I'd like to see it too TT like Llew mentioned. Alas law and court decisions change over time and not in the direction I'd like, but such is life. Roberts wrote the opinion that included separate concurrences, but it was narrow enough to bring everyone in. I don't think any of them wanted this to be seen as the Catholics vs.....
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BREYER,
SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. BARRETT, J.,
filed a concurring opinion, in which KAVANAUGH, J., joined, and in which
BREYER, J., joined as to all but the first paragraph. ALITO, J., filed an
opinion concurring in the judgment, in which THOMAS and GORSUCH, JJ.,
joined. GORSUCH, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in
which THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 3_g3bi.pdf
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: SCOTUS ruled a religious organization getting foster care funding can refuse LGBT applications

7
Saw a piece this morning arguing that this was one of the weirdest pieces of jurisprudence they'd ever seen - but despite appearances, it was to the net benefit of the LGBTQ+ community, because somehow Roberts wove an argument that prevented the application of strict scrutiny to every religious objection scenario imaginable. Hints that Barrett and Kavanaugh started out on the other side but realized they were opening a can of worms - probably involving the Church of Satan - and stopped short.

A very pissed off Gorsuch noted that Philadelphia could easily make an end run around the decision by eliminating the legal-but-never-practiced discretionary loophole that Roberts hung the case on. On the face of it, a win for the church and a loss for pride, but in practical terms a strategic retreat that avoided catastrophe, like Washington pulling the troops out of New York.

Re: SCOTUS ruled a religious organization getting foster care funding can refuse LGBT applications

8
wings wrote:Saw a piece this morning arguing that this was one of the weirdest pieces of jurisprudence they'd ever seen - but despite appearances, it was to the net benefit of the LGBTQ+ community, because somehow Roberts wove an argument that prevented the application of strict scrutiny to every religious objection scenario imaginable. Hints that Barrett and Kavanaugh started out on the other side but realized they were opening a can of worms - probably involving the Church of Satan - and stopped short.

A very pissed off Gorsuch noted that Philadelphia could easily make an end run around the decision by eliminating the legal-but-never-practiced discretionary loophole that Roberts hung the case on. On the face of it, a win for the church and a loss for pride, but in practical terms a strategic retreat that avoided catastrophe, like Washington pulling the troops out of New York.
I’d like to read that piece, if you can find it wings. I’m not understanding he nuance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: SCOTUS ruled a religious organization getting foster care funding can refuse LGBT applications

9
The Church of Satan has as a sacred ritual, the abortion procedure. The Church of Satan has them by the short and curlies.

https://www.churchofsatan.com/is-aborti ... sacrament/

A religion's a religion. Love this shit. I hope those religious shit heads get cramps.

CDFingers
Image
Image
.
Well shake it up now, Sugaree. I'll meet you at the Jubilee.
And if that Jubilee don't come, maybe I'll meet you on the run.

Re: SCOTUS ruled a religious organization getting foster care funding can refuse LGBT applications

10
Having a 6-3 majority on SCOTUS doesn't mean conservatives are all love and kisses and speak with one voice.
The key fault line in the Supreme Court that Donald Trump built is not the ideological clash between right and left — it’s the increasingly acrimonious conflict within the court’s now-dominant conservative wing.

Those rifts burst wide open on Thursday with two of the highest-profile decisions of the court’s current term. In both the big cases — involving Obamacare and a Catholic group refusing to vet same-sex couples as foster parents in Philadelphia — conservative justices unleashed sharp attacks that seemed aimed at their fellow GOP appointees for failing to grapple with the core issues the cases presented.

Some liberal legal commentators noted that the most carefully dissected rhetorical sparring is now taking place among members of the new six-justice conservative majority, with the three remaining liberal justices often left as mere spectators.

“We’re arguing about the battles among the conservatives and when that coalition breaks and where it goes,” lamented Harvard Law School lecturer Nancy Gertner, a former federal judge. “It’s a dramatic difference from only two or three years ago.”

Leading the charge from the right in both cases Thursday was Justice Samuel Alito, who penned caustic opinions taking his colleagues to task for issuing narrow rulings that seemed to him to be aimed at defusing political tensions rather than interpreting the law. “After receiving more than 2,500 pages of briefing and after more than a half-year of post-argument cogitation, the Court has emitted a wisp of a decision that leaves religious liberty in a confused and vulnerable state. Those who count on this Court to stand up for the First Amendment have every right to be disappointed—as am I,” Alito wrote in the foster-care case, notwithstanding the Catholic charity’s unanimous victory.
In the Obamacare dispute, Alito sarcastically accused the majority of repeatedly indulging in flights of legal sophistry to avoid the politically unpalatable step of striking down the landmark health care law.

"No one can fail to be impressed by the lengths to which this Court has been willing to go to defend the ACA against all threats,” Alito wrote. "A penalty is a tax. The United States is a State. And 18 States who bear costly burdens under the ACA cannot even get a foot in the door to raise a constitutional challenge. Fans of judicial inventiveness will applaud once again. But I must respectfully dissent.”

While Alito observed the court’s traditional decorum by railing at “the majority,” there was little doubt his criticism was aimed primarily at Chief Justice John Roberts, who provided the pivotal vote to uphold Obamacare nine years ago and voted Thursday to leave the law intact by concluding that the Republican-led states seeking to overturn it lacked legal standing to sue.
In the latest Obamacare case, the chief justice left authorship of the majority opinion to the court’s second-longest-serving justice, Stephen Breyer, but the result was vintage Roberts: a largely-technical, 7-2 decision finding a lack of standing for the states and individuals challenging the law, while pushing aside more fundamental questions about the law’s constitutionality.

Roberts was the author of the opinion the court issued Thursday finding very narrow grounds to strike down Philadelphia’s ban on Catholic Social Services due to its policy against vetting same-sex couples for foster care.

Alito complained that Roberts’ reading of the Philadelphia ordinance and a similar state law was so Talmudic that it meant nothing in other cases and could quickly be evaded by the city through minor changes.
Despite the obviously tense Alito-Roberts dynamic, what unfolded Thursday at the court was not simply a one-on-one grudge match. It was more like a tag-team wrestling event, with Justice Neil Gorsuch repeating much of Alito’s criticism and the court’s newest conservative justices — Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh — coming to Roberts’ defense.

“Perhaps our colleagues believe today’s circuitous path will at least steer the Court around the controversial subject matter and avoid ‘picking a side,” Gorsuch wrote in the foster-care case, in an opinion joined by Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas. “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.”
Despite the obviously tense Alito-Roberts dynamic, what unfolded Thursday at the court was not simply a one-on-one grudge match. It was more like a tag-team wrestling event, with Justice Neil Gorsuch repeating much of Alito’s criticism and the court’s newest conservative justices — Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh — coming to Roberts’ defense.

“Perhaps our colleagues believe today’s circuitous path will at least steer the Court around the controversial subject matter and avoid ‘picking a side,” Gorsuch wrote in the foster-care case, in an opinion joined by Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas. “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.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/1 ... ump-495121
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: SCOTUS ruled a religious organization getting foster care funding can refuse LGBT applications

11
The 3 radical reactionaries, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito wanted to overturn Scalia's 1990 ruling that was much broader. The 3 liberals and the 3 conservatives said no.
"The upper class: keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes. The middle class: pays all of the taxes, does all of the work. The poor are there...just to scare the shit out of the middle class."--George Carlin

Re: SCOTUS ruled a religious organization getting foster care funding can refuse LGBT applications

13
INVICTVS138 wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 12:28 am
wings wrote:Saw a piece this morning arguing that this was one of the weirdest pieces of jurisprudence they'd ever seen - but despite appearances, it was to the net benefit of the LGBTQ+ community, because somehow Roberts wove an argument that prevented the application of strict scrutiny to every religious objection scenario imaginable. Hints that Barrett and Kavanaugh started out on the other side but realized they were opening a can of worms - probably involving the Church of Satan - and stopped short.

A very pissed off Gorsuch noted that Philadelphia could easily make an end run around the decision by eliminating the legal-but-never-practiced discretionary loophole that Roberts hung the case on. On the face of it, a win for the church and a loss for pride, but in practical terms a strategic retreat that avoided catastrophe, like Washington pulling the troops out of New York.
I’d like to read that piece, if you can find it wings. I’m not understanding he nuance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
per request -
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... court.html

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 49 guests

cron